08 Jan 07
Originally posted by PalynkaSS: As for your "selfishness NEVER being a favourable evolutionary trait" comment, well, that's patently wrong. People lie and cheat all the time to get their own way. We have a society of haves and have nots - that's not a society of altruists! That's a society of the "haves" taking from the "have-nots". Or perhaps you defend people legally for free? Selfishness is at the very base of being human - the need to manipulate others is the very basis for the evolution of our large brain.
I know pretty well Diamond's work (being an economist by trade) but that hasn't got much to do with what I was trying to say.
Wars can be described as cultural selection processes and their genetic implications are not Darwinian in the sense that they are 'pure' group selection and not merely group selection through aggregated individual selections of mem ...[text shortened]... odeling (as you've presented several examples) but which I seriously question as biased.
While SS has consistently claimed he is limiting his discussion to "genetic selfishness", obviously that is not true. He has claimed that humans act selfishly as a result of a genetic predisposition to selfish behavior (of course, since he pretty much claims ALL human behavior is based on genetic influence).
08 Jan 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou posted this before; it is modelling to reach a predetermined conclusion. So:
Titre du document / Document title
Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
NOWAK M. A. (1) ; SIGMUND K. (2) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Zoology University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, ROYAUME-UNI
(2) Institut für Mathematik, Universität Wien, Strudlhofgasse 4, 1090 ...[text shortened]... to classify them into four general categories. "
But there is an evolutionary reason.
😴
08 Jan 07
Originally posted by no1marauderI suggested an explanation for this already, in terms of manipulation of one individual by another.
SS: As for your "selfishness NEVER being a favourable evolutionary trait" comment, well, that's patently wrong. People lie and cheat all the time to get their own way. We have a society of haves and have nots - that's not a society of altruists! That's a society of the "haves" taking from the "have-nots". Or perhaps you defend people legally for free? Se ...[text shortened]... ourse, since he pretty much claims ALL human behavior is based on genetic influence).
08 Jan 07
Originally posted by no1marauderThe point is that it isn't contrary to its standard meaning. This is what you are failing to understand. A gene results in a change in the organism -- whether morphologically or behaviorally -- which results in its own survival. That is, it 'competes' with other genes, striving to optimize the likelihood that it will continue (which results in the other genes' extinction).
I'm sorry, but to use the term "selfishness" in a way that is contrary to its standard meaning is a misuse. I believe Dawkins did this deliberately for marketing purposes.
This is selfish.
That a gene, in its selfish effort to remain extant and multiply, results in behavior which is altruistic on a non-genetic level doesn't undermine the notion that the gene is still promoting its replication.
Dawkins wasn't 'deliberately misusing' the word, but observing the irony that actions that are altruistic on a macroscopic level are most often the result of genetic impetuses which result in a gene's continuity and, therefore, are indeed selfish.
Nemesio
08 Jan 07
Originally posted by NemesioA gene can't be "selfish"; it cannot be "concerned" excessively with it's own welfare nor can it "disregard" others. To talk in terms otherwise is fetishism.
The point is that it isn't contrary to its standard meaning. This is what you are failing to understand. A gene results in a change in the organism -- whether morphologically or behaviorally -- which results in its own survival. That is, it 'competes' with other genes, striving to optimize the likelihood that it will continue (which results in the ...[text shortened]... uses which result in a gene's continuity and, therefore, are indeed selfish.
Nemesio
08 Jan 07
Originally posted by no1marauderAltruism is clearly a bell-curve sort of thing. A group will survive most
Usually but not always. Some times the individual must do things, including sacrificing his life or limb, to maximize the group's survival. This is not sufficiently explained by contrived constructs like "indirect reciprocal altruism" particulary when the group is made up mostly of unrelated individuals.
effectively if there are a few extremists willing to sacrifice life and limb
and will be able to survive if there are a few leeches unwilling to ever
do so. Naturally, if everybody had the 'I-need-to-be-a-hero-right-
now' gene, that group wouldn't last very long at all (and, genetically,
the check/balance on this is that extremists will be less likely to
procreate successfully).
Certainly, momma birds willing to feign injury or act dead at risk of
their own lives for the good of their young, sometimes resulting in
their own demise, isn't 'altruism.' No, indeed it is genetic preservation
at its baldest: the momma bird instinctually knows that its children
must survive to procreate for her genes to continue. And, sometimes
these means of diversion result in the death of the momma.
Similarly, an individual's willingness to sacrifice itself on the magnitude
that you mention is similarly explained: Sometimes great risks must
be taken to ensure the continuing of the genetic line and sometimes
those risks are actualized in tragedy.
Nemesio
08 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo kidding. That's why I put 'competes' in quotes. Don't throw up a
A gene can't be "selfish"; it cannot be "concerned" excessively with it's own welfare nor can it "disregard" others. To talk in terms otherwise is fetishism.
strawman. I'm not suggesting genes are sentient.
However, a gene's expression makes it such that the organism is more
or less likely to survive, making it more or less likely to reappear in
the gene pool. Consequently, a successful gene is one which results
in the greater survivability of the individual. If something optimizes
the overall likelihood of the survivablility of the individual, then it is
necessarily in that individuals ultimate self-interest and is thereby selfish.
That's why Dawkins says the genes are 'selfish.' He's very careful not
to anthropomorphize non-sentient entities like genes, but recognizes
that using the term selfish accentuates the degree to which successful
genes influence organisms to procreate, that ultimately supposed
altruisistic acts lead to an optimization of an individual's survival and,
thus, are selfish on the large scale.
Nemesio
08 Jan 07
Originally posted by NemesioNo, it isn't "similarly explained" at least with any degree of rationality. You're buying into SS' "hero gene" nonsense when the evidence suggests that altruistic behavior, even extreme self-sacrificing altrustic behavior, is utterly common in humans. And has been for as long as we have been humans (possibly before).
Altruism is clearly a bell-curve sort of thing. A group will survive most
effectively if there are a few extremists willing to sacrifice life and limb
and will be able to survive if there are a few leeches unwilling to ever
do so. Naturally, if everybody had the 'I-need-to-be-a-hero-right-
now' gene, that group wouldn't last very long at all (an ...[text shortened]... uing of the genetic line and sometimes
those risks are actualized in tragedy.
Nemesio
Plus you are ignoring that most of this self-sacrificing altruistic behavior is done to aid non-kin. Unless you believe the "indirect reciprocal altruism" baloney, there is no similarity.
08 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioActing in one's self-interest doesn't necessarily equal acting in a selfish manner, Nemesio; at least in the English language.
No kidding. That's why I put 'competes' in quotes. Don't throw up a
strawman. I'm not suggesting genes are sentient.
However, a gene's expression makes it such that the organism is more
or less likely to survive, making it more or less likely to reappear in
the gene pool. Consequently, a successful gene is one which results
in the greater surviv tes the degree to which successful
genes influence organisms to procreate.
Nemesio
08 Jan 07
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, all this post does is say:
No, it isn't "similarly explained" at least with any degree of rationality. You're buying into SS' "hero gene" nonsense when the evidence suggests that altruistic behavior, even extreme self-sacrificing altrustic behavior, is utterly common in humans. And has been for as long as we have been humans (possibly before).
Plus you are ignoring that ...[text shortened]... Unless you believe the "indirect reciprocal altruism" baloney, there is no similarity.
'I disagree' and 'You agree with nonsense.'
It fails to explain why someone would disagree with it.
The 'common' self-sacrificing you are talking about (I suppose fire-
fighters, for example?) is, as I said, an example of where biological
impetus has outpaced its evolutionary context because of the massive
sociological changes that have taken place in the past 15,000 years
(and especially the last 5,000!) when compared to the 1.5 million
years of human evolvement before it. The impetus has a demonstrable
biological origin for the overall good of the species and individual.
That is, the instinctual desire to assist members of a group is the
result of a genetic impetus which optimizes the likelihood that the
individual will survive. Any biological impetus which would diminish
the likelihood that an individual would survive would be self-defeating
and, ultimately, would disappear from the gene pool.
And, you keep pointing to the non-kin issue. These genes are older
than the era to which you keep referring! They go back at least
100,000 years (before tribes in excess of a 100 were common) and
very likely derive back to the early fire-wielding (proto-)humans when
group size was closer to dozens. In such a case, the bands of
people comprised largely kin relations.
Nemesio