jay pettitt on 2/2/2012 at 12:38

---

No, I don't get your point. I don't see why you'd exclude it from being something considered by ethics. And I don't see why ethics shouldn't consider game theory.





Certainly if you saw that in nature, it probably wouldn't last long. Happily, we have computers and can watch 'em fail in a simulation.

There's a thing called (http://www.radiolab.org/2010/dec/14/one-good-deed-deserves-another/) the Prisoner's Dilemma. The best solution is a twist of Jesus.

faetal on 2/2/2012 at 13:32

---

This conveniently re-defines altruism as "being good for the sake of it", which completely ignores what i said about it being evolved. I am good for the sake of it. Because I am evolved to release pleasure hormones when doing so. The reason for this is because the genes which link certain behaviours to certain hormones have prevailed due to the behaviours being more successful. My inherent joy of being is no less real just because it happens to be beneficial in genetic terms. It IS the real deal.



Apologies, I did not mean real hawks and doves, I was referring to this well known piece of game theory: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game))
You are mistaken though, it is not conscious. It is the result over time over certain behaviour leading to better genetic outcomes. Nothing in evolution is immediately conscious.



Because free will altruism has been shown to be evolutionarily derived, not culturally derived. Religion has nothing to do with it, other than its post facto claims of dominon over it.



It seems to me that you just don't understand evolution properly. I don't mean that as an insult - few people really do as it is not properly taught before University. The behaviours arise over millennia and most likely in species before ours, arriving in Homo sapiens as a pre-existing feature, but obviously, with extra features for us given our language and complex orders of intentionality* (* look up "theory of mind" if that baffles). Altruism and morality is inherent and natural in most humans not because we figure out on the fly that this is the way to be in order to better reproduce - we're not intuitively aware of it (as you are demonstrating). You are putting the cart before the horse in this case. We are physiologically and biochemically pre-determined to secrete hormones in response to certain stimuli. Most people are good people. Our brain often skews this by having us focus more on bad people and their negative behaviours, but this kind of informational filtering is useful for keeping us on our guard. However, because of how the human brain has evolved, the built in behaviour is to be moral, altruistic and social. That there is a proportion of behaviour contrary to this is just a result of there being an equilibrium between natural altruism and natural amoral opportunism. Let me know if I need to clarify any of this.



Again this ignores most of evolution. No individual does things for the benefit of a gene pool per se. Every individual does what they are wired to do, but with modifications from their environmental development. The selfish gene theory suggests that we act naturally and certain genes flourish better than others because of how they contribute to building the animal which houses them. Thus any gene which confers reproduction and survival benefits in the animal will persist while others disappear (barring the fundamentally necessary ones, but they put their work in waaay back in evolutionary history). In humans, the basic social contract is a set of behaviours which can be observed independent of creed, culture and upbringing. It carries with it some variation, so there will always be psychopaths, sociopaths, thieves, rapists etc.. (independent of creed, culture, upbringing). Altruism can also be seen a variety of other species. This isn't new and isn't different somehow from religious morality - in fact, religious morality is just window dressing on the same biochemical responses.



Exactly. The most stable set of behaviours is the one which wins out. Yes, there are wars, even in Chimpanzees, but this isn't the prevalent behaviour.



Yes it is. The altruism isn't consciously carried out for benefits, the benefits are to the act itself in the form of reward hormones. Being good makes you FEEL good, in and of itself. Why are you not getting this?



Yes, they do. In many cases, it was essential for avoiding inbreeding and exchanging resources. being friendly and nice (with caution) to other tribes came way before Christianity. Like I said, we have inherent biological urges to do good things, as such behaviour has, over thousands of years prevailed due to the benefits it provides. Your constant mentions of a reference community is trying to frame the debate improperly. Square peg in a round hole.

DDL on 2/2/2012 at 14:39

---

Plus you need to consider that we're a fairly special case: development of language (and critically, written language) has allowed us to evolve culturally at a vastly vastly accelerated rate relative to genetic evolution.

So there will be mismatches. We're genetically predisposed to crave fat and sugar, because on the timescale of genetic change we're still basically savannah-dwelling hunter gatherers who subsist on roots and berries and possibly a dead animal every once in a while (yes this is a grossly handwavy approximation, but hey). Our genetic makeup is still optimised to chow down as much fat and sugar as possible, because the environment that selected for our genetics, those were highly valuable trace nutrients.

In our current man-altered environment, we have fucktons of fat and sugar (not least because we really, really like it), but we are really not built for it.

Altruism (and this was, I believe, the point jay was making?) is the same: genetically we're tribal animals. We have the same number of close friends and associates NOW as we did when we were wandering across the savannah. Back then it was more or less "the size of your tribe": evolutionarily speaking there's no benefit (or indeed likelihood) to developing brains that are capable of doing things grossly surplus to requirements, so 50 friends it is! Nowadays, even with no real limits on how many people we can meet and befriend, the absolute number stays about the same. Some of them may be on the other side of the world, but your brain still considers them to be part of your unique tribe.

Ditto for being "not a dick" to everyone: back in tribal times most of the people you'd encounter daily were...your own tribe. Successful strategies for this sort of thing generally run along lines of "not being a dick to your own peer group", and so "not being a dick" it is!

And beleg, faetal is not going to differentiate between "paid" altruism and "religious" altruism because there IS NO DIFFERENCE. You want dearly to believe that you do nice things because you'll be rewarded in heaven? That's a reward. You get paid. If you're not so much about the heavenly reward but do nice things because god wants you to, then woo: now you're doing god's work, you feel good about yourself: you get paid.

It's all about the benjamins.

Also, you seem to think that the dove/hawk thing involves the doves ACTIVELY feeding themselves to the hawks. This is not (necessarily) the case. It's more the case of "the doves get on with their own successful business, and most definitely don't start preying on each other. The hawks, on the other hand, do." It's not a 'sacrifice' on the dove's part, it's simply that the system as evolved can successfully tolerate a given number of hawks. Too many hawks, you run out of doves, the system collapses. Thus any dove/hawk system still going has, by definition, fewer than that number of hawks. It could have less, certainly, but for the doves to actively reduce hawk numbers (i.e. your OMG I GONNA STAB UR FACE, APPLETHIAF!!!11" example) requires energy. Beyond a certain point it takes more effort to reduce hawk numbers than it does to simply take a hit every once in a while (as a population). Yes, if you STUCK with the hawkpurge you could push past this and get to a state of "no hawks", but evolution will never, ever do that, because it has no long term goals. Natural selection never makes short-term sacrifices for long term benefit. Tolerating a low level of hawks is the short-term best option, so that's what nature selects for.

faetal on 2/2/2012 at 14:58

---

So you are talking about doing something good which doesn't make you feel good, but will result in heaven? That's not altruism, that's martyrdom. What you are saying is that unless I say that there are two types of altruism: natural and religious, you aren't going to talk anymore? Cognitive dissonance. Altruism is the act or acts of an individual which benefits others at least as much as itself. The fact that evolutionary psychology has shown this to be a purely natural phenomenon, jars with those who believe it to be a religious or cultural one. This is why you are becoming annoyed. It should be noted that its natural basis does not make it any less pure or beautiful. Like I say, I do good simply because it "feels right" and this gives me satisfaction - I don't need to see benefits other than the satisfaction. What specific altruism are you talking about that is the sole domain of religion then?



I also mentioned that the whole system works in an equilibrium, which means thousands of seemingly contradictory processes which amount to a broader natural trend. Humans work well together, form friendships, fall in love, trust and betray one another, protect and kill one another, but on balance - put a group of random humans in a big group together and you will get more morality and altruism than the negative aspects which we also possess. Your problem seems to be that you can't ignore the negative behaviours which are present. More than this, you should realise that those negative behaviours also exist in religious communities. The addition of a bronze age mythology does not over ride people's inherent urges.



You're going to have to justify that a little - how does altruism discourage survival in this environment? Also, what is "this" environment?



No. We're social animals! Altruism is HOW we have adapted to be where we are. It's not in contrast to anything. Also, the Selfish Gene theory has never been conclusively rebuked, it is the foundation for a lot of what came after it. It is based on a lot of other evolutionary psychology and population genetics. It's not even really a theory, it's a book, it's an idea - so I'm not putting it forward as watertight, all-inclusive etc, just taking something useful from it, which is grounded in science. You keep saying that altruism is somehow *despite* human nature when in fact it is central to human nature. We are not solitary creatures and tribes do not form from people who are immediately related, or we'd all be inbred. We are a naturally cooperative and naturally diffusive animal. We spread to adjacent areas and explore. If we killed every other tribe we encountered, then we'd be genetically weak as we'd be extinguishing rather than exploiting genetic diversity. Being able integrate with others, be beneficial and also just ENJOY being around other people and doing them favours etc.. is part of being human. It is the emergence of these traits which led to us diffusing out and encapsulating the globe.



Did you miss the part where I said that the dove-hawk scenario is not real, but a game theory construct? All it illustrates, much like the prisoners' dilemma is that mathematically speaking, altruistic behaviour gives the best overall outcome in non zero sum situations. What this shows is how the blind evolution of genes in an environment will favour such behaviours in animals complex enough to have them, and lo and behold, barring some niche exceptions (which will always exist in any kind of Gaussian distribution of anything), that this is what happens. Put it this way, IF being altruistic did not confer long term benefits to humans, then these traits would have become the less prevalent in humans and social animals, but we know this is not the case.



There is free will in humans. You are chasing a semantic tail here... We don't work hard on de-constructing it for shits and giggles, we just examine the facts and make conclusions on that basis. If what is discovered happens to put your nose out of joint, that doesn't make it wrong. The decision you refer to is an inherent dynamic which is based on our species' evolution. We don't sacrifice ourselves on the basis of some carefully thought out analysis on factual grounds, we do it out of impulse. The reason this initially stochastic behaviour trait becomes prevalent is that when organisms do this in social castes, their genes reach the next generation more numerously than others.



No, I am saying that what people and the dictionary refer to as altruism - acting in the benefit of others above the self is a biological phenomenon. You seem to somehow be removing humans from within the sphere of biological phenomena. Everything about us is a biological process, including our thoughts, feelings and values.



It's not like that at all. I'm using your definition of morality / altruism, I am just arguing that it came from within rather than from god. Stop quibbling semantics - I am referring to the same thing you are.



It DOESN'T actively discourage survival. Many humans working together and looking out for each other is far, FAR stronger than every man for himself. It's so absurdly simple.

To repeat from earlier:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

"The Belief Disconfirmation Paradigm

Dissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in misperception or rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others to restore consonance.
An early version of cognitive dissonance theory appeared in Leon Festinger's 1956 book, When Prophecy Fails. This book gave an inside account of the increasing belief which sometimes follows the failure of a cult's prophecy. The believers met at a pre-determined place and time, believing they alone would survive the Earth's destruction. The appointed time came and passed without incident. They faced acute cognitive dissonance: had they been the victim of a hoax? Had they donated their worldly possessions in vain? Most members chose to believe something less dissonant: the aliens had given earth a second chance, and the group was now empowered to spread the word: earth-spoiling must stop. The group dramatically increased their proselytism despite the failed prophecy."

faetal on 2/2/2012 at 20:13

---

Altruism is present in some guise in all social caste animals, yes. What you say about not helping individuals misses the point, your genes are the result of reproductive success of thousands of people throughout history. To repeat myself AGAIN, the individual has no idea HOW to act specifically in the given situations, but certain behavioural traits, shaped by the evolved neurobiology of the brain have been selected for over time due to conferring benefits allowing greater incidence of gene propagation. It's not like someone said "hold on, if I'm a nice person, I might get to mate more easily", it's that ages ago, in a species way before humanity, a set of behavioural traits emerged which caused some animals to behave in ways which benefited more than just themselves. This conferred a benefit and this animal or animals if it was in more than one, reproduced more readily. It could even be that the trait had neutral effect for ages, didn't get selected OUT and was compounded later on by another similar trait evolving alongside, or by circumstances changing somehow. However, once it was in the gene pool and gave any small benefit over just acting on full behalf of the self, over time it would tend to become more common in a population. Extrapolate out a few millennia and you have even more altruistic traits developing, giving even bigger benefits. Eventually, a point would have been reached where any increase in altruism would start being a weakness and thus you hit equilibrium.

So it doesn't "just happen" it's a very gradual, very powerful adaptation to nature's arms race. It has worked wonderfully for humans, for all of our greatest endeavours have been through cooperation rather than people just looking out for number one.



According to me? None of this is according to me, it is according to decades of very intensive research by an array of experts. You are the one fighting for your own definition of altruism based on your personal belief in the supernatural - I just read, understand and paraphrase the research. Your 5% where things go wrong don't really effect the notion. The point and purpose of adrenaline and cortisol are to change our ordinary behaviour in moments when we are under direct threat. When I say humans are naturally moral and altruistic without religion, telling me that I'll defend my family against an attack doesn't magically erase that. Likewise, I am sure a Christian would also ditch the morals if it was life or death. Tell me something which applies to Christian morality which doesn't have its mirror in natural morality and I'll listen.

Also, cognitive dissonance isn't a disease, it is an inherent flaw in human cognitive processes - everyone is prone to it and I am no exception. Your rebuttals are just not very logical. You are asking me concede that there are 2 types of altruism/morality, the one which occurs as a brain process in biology and another one of your own definition which is divine in origin. I argue that there is no distinction between the two and I am still waiting to hear a valid reason from yourself as to why they should be considered separate other than because you hold religious beliefs.