Originally posted by NemesioNice post Nem, but I disagree about the "group selectionism" that you are indulging in. Of course, a slight group selectionism could operate, but only if the rule "someone in my group is probably related to me" was operating. The other rule, "someone that I meet is probably in my group, and if I do something nice for them it raises my standing in the group and they may do something nice for me in the future" is reciprocal altruism.
While this is absolutely true, there is no reason to believe that this
tendency isn't an evolved one, which would suggest that it was selected
for the good of the species and, thus, is intrinsically selfish.
A reason for believing this is in how such altruistic acts are generally
obtained. Hauser, in his book 'Moral Minds' discusses this by way of
ex ...[text shortened]... early no direct biological impetus to do so
certainly testifies to this.
Nemesio
You are right though, people would be very much more likely to help the kid in the street. They may not overtly think it, but that behaviour has been good for genes in the past, and those genes which promote that behaviour have been past on. Now, that child needs help, and it may cost you $250 to deliver that help, but both the child and their parents will long remember that help. As you point out, your $25 donation to UNICEF will do more good for society and, if Marauder is correct and humans are nice by compulsion, should be a far more common occurrence. We both know that certainly isn't the case.
Originally posted by no1marauderOnes genes being promoted by being 'nice'? And how does that promotion happen? Reciprocal altruism and sexual selection. By Jove, I think he's actually starting to get it!
a tendency toward altruistic behavior would have been rewarded and passed on both genetically and culturally.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou have yet to even define where your "niceness" comes from.
Saying something over and over and over again is not an argument. And you continue to confuse "genetic selfishness" with actual selfish behavior and equivocate with the word "selfish" using it in a non-standard manner.
Originally posted by scottishinnzSS says the same thing AGAIN! What a surprise! And no evidence is presented to support it! Again, what a surprise!
Nice post Nem, but I disagree about the "group selectionism" that you are indulging in. Of course, a slight group selectionism could operate, but only if the rule "someone in my group is probably related to me" was operating. The other rule, "someone that I meet is probably in my group, and if I do something nice for them it raises my standing in the ...[text shortened]... ion, should be a far more common occurrence. We both know that certainly isn't the case.
A major reason why people are less likely to give to UNICEF is because they are unsure whether that donation will actually go to aid those in need. They know their direct help will. I guess that's a little too much common sense for SS' Ivory Tower.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou really think that's the major reason? Why then, do charities spend so much time advertising about the starving kids, and not spend more time advertising the proportion of their money that goes to the kids?
SS says the same thing AGAIN! What a surprise! And no evidence is presented to support it! Again, what a surprise!
A major reason why people are less likely to give to UNICEF is because they are unsure whether that donation will actually go to aid those in need. They know their direct help will. I guess that's a little too much common sense for SS' Ivory Tower.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat's an old LH and Ivanhoe trick.
Ones genes being promoted by being 'nice'? And how does that promotion happen? Reciprocal altruism and sexual selection. By Jove, I think he's actually starting to get it!
I don't buy your "sexual selection" nonsense at all as regards altruism. You haven't shown where that would even be a factor in groups and you haven't shown why selfishness (REAL SELFISHNESS) while depised openly is the only part of our makeup that matters.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzTry asking people. I know that you don't approve of that method for ascertaining people's motivations preferring to just impose your own preconceptions, but hey, I've heard some students of human behavior use that method. Go figure.
You really think that's the major reason? Why then, do charities spend so much time advertising about the starving kids, and not spend more time advertising the proportion of their money that goes to the kids?
People don't trust advertising much esp. the "we're really good people" type of advertising.
Originally posted by no1marauderGoalpost shifting. I've only ever talked about genetic selfishness. I've directed you to websites, books and even the primary literature, and all you've done is ignore it, with some woolley "people are nice" argument.
That's an old LH and Ivanhoe trick.
I don't buy your "sexual selection" nonsense at all as regards altruism. You haven't shown where that would even be a factor in groups and you haven't shown why selfishness (REAL SELFISHNESS) while depised openly is the only part of our makeup that matters.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, this is the reason why things like the peacock or bower bird's tails evolve (and colourful plumage) - foolproof methods of displaying how "good" a mate is. In humans, it's the brain, and altruistic behaviour. Same way that male birds attract females by building nests, we demonstrate how we can "afford" to be nice to others, and how much of a good parent we'd make. Why do you think people take girls to fancy restaurants to impress them on a first date?
People don't trust advertising much esp. the "we're really good people" type of advertising.
Originally posted by scottishinnzBaloney and you know it. Do I have to go back and quote like I did a few pages ago?
Goalpost shifting. I've only ever talked about genetic selfishness. I've directed you to websites, books and even the primary literature, and all you've done is ignore it, with some woolley "people are nice" argument.
And I've responded DIRECTLY to your points while you've repeatedly ignored mine. What evolutionary benefit is there for a hunter gatherer to bury the dead, SS? Are the dead going to reciprocate by burying him?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI have answered that already.
Baloney and you know it. Do I have to go back and quote like I did a few pages ago?
And I've responded DIRECTLY to your points while you've repeatedly ignored mine. What evolutionary benefit is there for a hunter gatherer to bury the dead, SS? Are the dead going to reciprocate by burying him?
Nice debate Marauder. I'm sorry it's over. You lost when you stated that any altruist behaviour evolved. Evolutionary theory does not allow unconditional altruism. Go out, read a book on it.
[edit; I won't be responding on this topic any further, mainly because I know that Marauder will not give up having been beaten.]
Originally posted by scottishinnzYes, that's how primitive hunter gatherers impressed their potential mates - by taking them to fancy restaurants. I would think the females genes would prefer an utterly selfish mate as that one would have even better selfish genes to successfully replicate.
Yes, this is the reason why things like the peacock or bower bird's tails evolve (and colourful plumage) - foolproof methods of displaying how "good" a mate is. In humans, it's the brain, and altruistic behaviour. Same way that male birds attract females by building nests, we demonstrate how we can "afford" to be nice to others, and how much of a good ...[text shortened]... you think people take girls to fancy restaurants [b]to impress them on a first date?[/b]
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou continue to claim something that just isn't so. Is lying a requirement to be a biologist of your school?
I have answered that already.
Nice debate Marauder. I'm sorry it's over. You lost when you stated that any altruist behaviour evolved. Evolutionary theory does not allow unconditional altruism. Go out, read a book on it.
[edit; I won't be responding on this topic any further, mainly because I know that Marauder will not give up having been beaten.]