2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioIt's highly doubtful that human groups in the late Pleistocene era circa 12000 BC (when Dawkins claims altruism evolved) lived exclusively or even primarily in familial groups. This is another example where reality bumps rather hard against the presuppositions and question begging that Scott is engaging in.
Genes don't 'know' anything, #1. Genes influence behavior. Those genes which influence behaviors
which result in survival get passed on. Those genes which influence behaviors which result in dying
do not get passed on.
Those genes which influenced group-oriented behavior in humans resulted in a greater survival rate
for those individuals when compar ...[text shortened]... most obvious group composition is a familial one, comprising siblings and cousins.
Nemesio
Of course cooperative and altruistic behavior results in greater survival chances for the members of a group statistically BUT engaging in some of that behavior entails greater risks than benefits for the actor himself. This is where SS selfish argument fails; people engage in such behavior all the time yet if they were really primarily selfish they would never do so.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou keep on going on as if the individual makes a choice as to how he or she behaves. The entire point is that people are genetically pre-disposed to become "heros". This is an ESS. Unconditional altruism is not.
Keep telling yourself that, idiot. Just because you are using the word "selfish" in a non-standard manner to refer to things that cannot possibly be selfish doesn't mean that anybody else has to accept it.
Moronic analogy. Tell us again about the firemen going in to the buildings hoping that in the future it will help them get laid! Moron.
Originally posted by no1marauderI would think that considering social interactions are common in the primates that "altruism" evolved far earlier than that. What is your source for the assertion that human groups in the late Pleistocene probably did not live in familial groups? We do it now, why not then?
It's highly doubtful that human groups in the late Pleistocene era circa 12000 BC (when Dawkins claims altruism evolved) lived exclusively or even primarily in familial groups. This is another example where reality bumps rather hard against the presuppositions and question begging that Scott is engaging in.
Of course cooperative and altruistic ...[text shortened]... in such behavior all the time yet if they were really primarily selfish they would never do so.
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat's nonsense. People are not genetically pre-disposed to become heros; most people who do heroic acts are no different from anybody else. You really don't know anything about human behavior at all.
You keep on going on as if the individual makes a choice as to how he or she behaves. The entire point is that people are genetically pre-disposed to become "heros". This is an ESS. Unconditional altruism is not.
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzReally? You live with thirty of your "cousins"?
I would think that considering social interactions are common in the primates that "altruism" evolved far earlier than that. What is your source for the assertion that human groups in the late Pleistocene probably did not live in familial groups? We do it now, why not then?
Hunter-gatherer groups of the late Pleistocene were commonly made up of over 100 individuals; that's why we have evidence of mass slaughters of large animals. It's highly unlikely that all or even most of these individuals were related, so our genes apparently got it wrong when they decided they would sacrifice themselves because others in the group were all genetically similar.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNot all people, only some. ESS' require a mix of different people. You'd know this if you read selfish gene.
That's nonsense. People are not genetically pre-disposed to become heros; most people who do heroic acts are no different from anybody else. You really don't know anything about human behavior at all.
Oh, and I'd ask you to prove your statement.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, but most people live with their family. All the more so even just a couple of hundred years ago.
Really? You live with thirty of your "cousins"?
Hunter-gatherer groups of the late Pleistocene were commonly made up of over 100 individuals; that's why we have evidence of mass slaughters of large animals. It's highly unlikely that all or even most of these individuals were related, so our genes apparently got it wrong when they decided they would sacrifice themselves because others in the group were all genetically similar.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThe genes are much older than the pleistocene era, and we have evidence of so-called altruistic
It's highly doubtful that human groups in the late Pleistocene era circa 12000 BC (when Dawkins claims altruism evolved) lived exclusively or even primarily in familial groups. This is another example where reality bumps rather hard against the presuppositions and question begging that Scott is engaging in.
Of course cooperative and altruistic ...[text shortened]... in such behavior all the time yet if they were really primarily selfish they would never do so.
behavior going back hundreds of thousands of years. 14,000 years isn't all that much time for
large-scale behavioral changes to evolve anyway (although it's not an insignificant time, of course).
You keep flip-flopping on the term selfish. An individual need not be personally selfish
in any sort of moral sense in order to encourage a gene to survive. Indeed, biological altruism
abounds in nature, and such examples of altruism ultimately lead to a higher rate of survival and,
genetically speaking, are selfish even while they would be morally selfless.
Nemesio
Originally posted by scottishinnzJust a second. You aren't suggesting that genes constrict behavior, right?
You keep on going on as if the individual makes a choice as to how he or she behaves. The entire point is that people are genetically pre-disposed to become "heros". This is an ESS. Unconditional altruism is not.
Genes only influence or constrain behavior within certain parameters.
When I become a 'hero' by diving into the water to save a drowning child I don't know, such
behavior is instinctual or 'biologically altruistic.' (That doesn't exclude that it is also morally
altruistic, of course. It also doesn't exclude that I can make a rational case for why it is morally
compulsory.) However, because we are rational beings, this instinctual behavior can be 'checked'
by our intellect and, so, we have a greater choice in exercising our instinctual urges than, say, a
wolverine. But, as I said above, the degree to which we can check this is influenced/constrained
by our genetic makeup, especially in situations where we need to make snap decisions.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderHe is using the word 'selfish' in a manner which is consistent and totally standard with evolutionary
Just because you are using the word "selfish" in a non-standard manner to refer to things that cannot possibly be selfish doesn't mean that anybody else has to accept it.
biologists.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderI was thinking about this some more. You state that people who do heroic acts are "no different" to anyone else. I wonder, how do you know this? It is not readily apparent to me by looking at someone whether or not they have any particular gene or not, unless it manifests itself phenotypically. A gene which alters brain chemistry or physiology is not something you can see on the surface but may certainly have effects on an individuals behaviour. For an example see this website;
That's nonsense. People are not genetically pre-disposed to become heros; most people who do heroic acts are no different from anybody else. You really don't know anything about human behavior at all.
http://mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=5805&cn=116
It states clearly;
"The amygdala is so efficient at warning us about threats, that it gets us reacting before the cortex (the part of the brain responsible for thought and judgment) is able to check on the reasonableness of our reaction. In other words, our brains are wired in such a way as to influence us to act before we can properly consider the consequences of our actions."
Thus, it may well be that people spring into action, as Nem points out, perhaps jumping into a river to save a child in danger, before they actively think about the consequences of that action. The random genetic variation in amygdala sensitivity or reaction could certainly influence how much of a "hero" someone is, which (/and) may certainly have effects on reproductive fecundity and gene survival.
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThey may well. Who knows? There may be a gene for 'meanness'; certainly there are genes which influence embryogenesis in such a way as to produce a brain which cooperates.
You aren't suggesting that genes constrict behavior, right?
Edit; The genetics of anger here! http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/1/16
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell, I'm not in this camp of thought (and I realize that there are several camps). I do not believe
They may well. Who knows? There may be a gene for 'meanness'; certainly there are genes which influence embryogenesis in such a way as to produce a brain which cooperates.
that genes fully constrict behavior, but merely influence the degree of behavior. A 'gene' for
'meanness' (of course, I'm sure you recognize that it's probably not just one gene) would only
influence an individual to be merely more likely to be mean than someone who lacked the 'gene.'
As I understand it, those in the 'constriction camp' would say that the meanness 'gene' would
compel a person to be mean under reasonably predictable circumstances.
I find that this position is undermined by the kernel of #1's position: 1) There are observable
behaviors in modern humans which have no biological precedent or analogue which are demonstrably
altruistic; and 2) a person can, through conscious work and discipline, transcend their natural urges
to behave in a way which is demonstrably non-biological.
These two traits are among the unique aspects of modern human behavior which give me
reason to be in the 'gene-as-influencers' camp.
Nemesio