An unconditional altruist would have no issue with giving to a completely selfish individual, since they would have no concept of ever getting anything back from that individual. Thing is, I don't know anyone who would give unconditionally to such an individual.
The other thing about an unconditional altruist is that they would give anything to another.
A conditional altruist would weigh up the cost and the potential benefit of any transaction, and would not proceed if the cost outweighed the benefit, or potential benefit, unless manipulated.
3 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzThese are caricatures. Get your head off of the Ivory Tower; NO ONE thinks in absolutes. There is no such thing as a completely selfish or completely unselfish individual and I've never claimed there was. You are engaging in the construction of Strawman again.
An unconditional altruist would have no issue with giving to a completely selfish individual, since they would have no concept of ever getting anything back from that individual. Thing is, I don't know anyone who would give unconditionally to such an individual.
The other thing about an unconditional altruist is that they would give [i/]anything[/ ...[text shortened]... would not proceed if the cost outweighed the benefit, or potential benefit, unless manipulated.
This is what happens when a field of inquiry totally divorces itself from reality.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt's unbelievable how myopic and stubborn you are. I was referring to a technique of social conditioning, twit; it is done mainly within families but not exclusively. Get your head out of yer a** and actually read the posts.
Kin selection.
[edit; "sharing", "cooperating". reciprocal altruism, selfish behaviours]
[edit 2; oh, and according to evolutionary theory, being non-selfish, being a good cooperator, may be a good way to increase the frequency of those genes in the population. So, whilst the behaviour seems unselfish, it has evolved to increase the frequency of one gene or set of genes relative to all other in the population.]
EDIT: The technique would be the same with an adopted child or any other totally unrelated individual.
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzAltruistic behavior doesn't exist? It is YOU who are making this, not merely unsubstantiated, but obviously false claim, as every human being knows.
That's called making an unsubstantiated claim. it's getting old now.
EDIT: But what can you expect from someone who would say this:
SS: You keep on going on as if the individual makes a choice as to how he or she behaves.
🙄
1 edit
Here's a curious little scientific experiment for you to examine:
Infants already show signs that they want to help out adults without expecting anything in return, says a German study on altruism.
"The results were astonishing because these children are so young – they still wear diapers and are barely able to use language," said psychology researcher Felix Warneken of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, "But they already show helping behaviour."
As part of the study, Warneken developed scenarios in which an adult needed help. In one case, he dropped a clothespin on the floor while hanging up laundry.
Little fingers will lend a hand.
In 84 per cent of cases, infants as young as 18 months, who were not familiar with Warneken, would help retrieve the peg.
During the test, he never asked for help. He also did not thank or reward the child, since the study was designed to show if the toddlers could show altruistic behaviour.
When he deliberately threw a peg on the ground, the infants didn't help to retrieve it. That suggests the babies were able to infer when the peg was needed to complete the task of hanging up clothes.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/03/02/altruism060302.html
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, a loose use of english, not helped by you taking it out of context.
Altruistic behavior doesn't exist? It is YOU who are making this, not merely unsubstantiated, but obviously false claim, as every human being knows.
EDIT: But what can you expect from someone who would say this:
SS: You keep on going on as if the individual makes a choice as to how he or she behaves.
🙄
Tell me marauder, does anyone consciously decide to be an altruist or a selfish individual, or do they only think about specific actions?
My contention is that individuals do not think about whether or not they'll "be a nice guy", they just are, or aren't.
[edit' amazingly you state this is "obviously false" yet are completely unable to demonstrate it!]
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you believe that this was complete unselfish behaviour at a genetic level, or do you think that kids which exhibit this type of behaviour would be more likely to receive help in return?
Here's a curious little scientific experiment for you to examine:
Infants already show signs that they want to help out adults without expecting anything in return, says a German study on altruism.
"The results were astonishing because these children are so young – they still wear diapers and are barely able to use language," said psychol ...[text shortened]... sk of hanging up clothes.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/03/02/altruism060302.html
Originally posted by no1marauderNope, they aren't caricatures. They are the way a conditional and an unconditional altruist would act by definition. You merely call them caricatures because they aren't in-keeping with your mechanism-less idea that "humans are just nice".
These are caricatures. Get your head off of the Ivory Tower; NO ONE thinks in absolutes. There is no such thing as a completely selfish or completely unselfish individual and I've never claimed there was. You are engaging in the construction of Strawman again.
This is what happens when a field of inquiry totally divorces itself from reality.
You know, you could have read "selfish gene" by now.
Originally posted by scottishinnzA false choice since I don't believe that behavior is solely determined at a genetic level. I think human nature is to be helpful and not worry too much about whether some day the same psychologist will pick up a clothespin for you.
So you believe that this was complete unselfish behaviour at a genetic level, or do you think that kids which exhibit this type of behaviour would be more likely to receive help in return?
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI call them caricatures because that's what they are. Are you really that stupid as to think that when someone claims that humans are predisposed to act in an altruistic matter that means that they must ALWAYS act in a completely unselfish manner??? You are really going off the deep end here. YOU created the concept of a completely selfish individual to offset a completely unselfish individual. But neither exist in reality and you are engaging in Strawman rassling.
Nope, they aren't caricatures. They are the way a conditional and an unconditional altruist would act by definition. You merely call them caricatures because they aren't in-keeping with your mechanism-less idea that "humans are just nice".
You know, you could have read "selfish gene" by now.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou're ridiculous. I can't "demonstrate" altruistic behavior to someone who stubbornly insists that it cannot possibly exist. You're like a man who has decided that Uranus cannot exist because the models of planet formation that work on the interior planets doesn't work for it (just heard that on the Science Channel). Here's how that conversation would go:
Yes, a loose use of english, not helped by you taking it out of context.
Tell me marauder, does anyone consciously decide to be an altruist or a selfish individual, or do they only think about specific actions?
My contention is that individuals do not think about whether or not they'll "be a nice guy", they just are, or aren't.
[edit' amazingly you state this is "obviously false" yet are completely unable to demonstrate it!]
SS: Uranus cannot exist.
no1: It does. Look up at Uranus.
SS: That may look like Uranus, but it's just a trick of light because Uranus doesn't exist.
no1: But it's right there!
SS: According to present theory, Uranus could not have evolved. Therefore, it's not really there. And you have not demonstrated its existence by showing me it.
😛
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't see why it has to be an all-or-nothing proposition. I certainly don't believe that behavior is
A false choice since I don't believe that behavior is solely determined at a genetic level.
solely determined at a genetic level, either. I think the 'desire' to be helpful is instinctual, and by
that I mean influenced by genetics. Given that genes which lead to behaviors or morphologies
which optimize survival will be selected for, and those which lead to that which diminishes the
likelihood of same will be selected against, I see no reason to believe that the helpful toddler
'desires' to be helpful because of a genetic impetus; certainly it isn't reasoning, drawing a
conclusion that 'mommy will give me an extra cookie because I helped her.'
Quite the contrary, I feel that this example illustrates the primal social altruism which enabled
us to survive more effectively. That is, on the macroscopic, species-wide scale, the altruism
serves as a benefit to the individual. Selfish is a loaded term, obviously, but it is certainly self-
interested because ultimately, the equation leads to the greater survivability of the individual such
that it would be most likely to procreate and pass on its genes.
Nemesio
Originally posted by scottishinnzThey can, really. A peaceful man who lost his temper would fit the description. It's too bad you've got a fundamentalist mind-set, although I'm sincerely grateful you're into science and not religion!
[Groan]
Look at these two statements;
EX 15:3, 17:16, NU 25:4, 32:14, IS 42:13 "God is a man of war--he is fierce and angry."
RO 15:33, 2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 "God is a god of love and peace."
Both cannot be true, irrespective of context.
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou make out as though the unconditional altruist is programmed to act without any judgement at all, handing out possessions willy-nilly to passing strangers. That's a bit silly, don't you think?
An unconditional altruist would have no issue with giving to a completely selfish individual, since they would have no concept of ever getting anything back from that individual. Thing is, I don't know anyone who would give unconditionally to such an individual.
What would account for a flash of unconditional altruism in a selfish person?
How does unconditional altruism differ from kindness?