Scientists Find 'Altruistic' Center of the Brain

davidwr writes "A team of researchers at Duke University published a paper linking the brain's posterior superior temporal cortex to altruistic behavior. The BBC also picked up the story. If confirmed this has applications in neurology, psychology, child-rearing, and a host of other domains. From the BBC piece: 'Using brain scans, the US investigators found this region related to a person's real-life unselfish behaviour. The Duke University Medical Center study on 45 volunteers is published in Nature Neuroscience. The participants were asked to disclose how often they engaged in different helping behaviours, such as doing charity work, and were also asked to play a computer game designed to measure altruism.'"

Comments

Ok, how do I zap that part.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of being altruistic while selfish bastards get all the money.

Re:Ok, how do I zap that part.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Better yet- this could be the key to a new version of communism. Only those with well-developed altruistic brains need apply to be Alphas or Betas in our brave, new world.

Re:Ok, how do I zap that part.

[foobsr]

Hmmm ... seems you have mixed up "We" (later redone as "1984") with "Brave New World" - however, IMHO - there is not much room for altruism in either version.

CC.

Re:Ok, how do I zap that part.

[nizo]

So can we look forward to forcing some people to get "selfish bastard" tatooed on their forehead? It would certainly make life easier for panhandlers, and making them ADA compliant for blind people would be interesting.

Best of all however we should make all political candidates demonstrate that THEY aren't selfish bastards.

Re:Ok, how do I zap that part.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Hmmm ... seems you have mixed up "We" (later redone as "1984") with "Brave New World" - however, IMHO - there is not much room for altruism in either version.

Both are interesting, but incomplete, models of communistic governments. The point is the Communism COULD work if you had a way to sort out the most altruistic individuals for committee positions, the next most altruistic individuals for bureaucrats, and keep the greedy away from power or resources that could be used to harm society.

Re:Ok, how do I zap that part.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Best of all however we should make all political candidates demonstrate that THEY aren't selfish bastards.

Bingo. Since Brave New World by Alex Huxley seems to be no longer required reading in high school (Politicians in that book are "Alpha citizens", Bureaucrats are "Betas", workers are "Gammas", and "Deltas" are outcasts living out in the hinterlands), you captured my meaning exactly. Only altruistic individuals should be allowed to become elected officials, and selfish bastards should be the Deltas, outcast from the society that they really hate anyway.

Re:Ok, how do I zap that part.

[elmarkitse]

Aren't there times when being altrustic is counter productive?

Unless everyone in the sample is altruistic, a single rogue can disrupt the process and from a society or organizations perspective, having the altruistic leaders would result in a net negative affect for your group.

I would very reluctantly vote into power a bloc of politicians who proved themselves to be utterly altruistic in a world like ours, notwithstanding any possible contributions we've made to that world by making it less safe for our leaders.

Re:Ok, how do I zap that part.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Aren't there times when being altrustic is counter productive?

Only if you're a con artist or working for yourself. If you're supposed to be a public servant, then it helps to actually serve the public.

Unless everyone in the sample is altruistic, a single rogue can disrupt the process and from a society or organizations perspective, having the altruistic leaders would result in a net negative affect for your group.

Yes, that's the point. If we can link a brain structure to being altruistic, we can use MRI scans to keep the single rogues out, powerless and pennyless.

I would very reluctantly vote into power a bloc of politicians who proved themselves to be utterly altruistic in a world like ours, notwithstanding any possible contributions we've made to that world by making it less safe for our leaders.

Yes, the other half has to go along- if you're going to elect a slate of utterly altruistic leaders, you have to balance it by throwing the selfish into jail.

Re:Ok, how do I zap that part.

[Phormion]

Since Brave New World by Alex Huxley seems to be no longer required reading...

Call it nitpicking, but it's Aldous Huxley - if you want to advertise the book, do it right :).

Re:Ok, how do I zap that part.

[foobsr]

if you had a way to sort out the most altruistic individuals for committee positions, ...

Which is the crucial issue (apparently not yet solved). Perhaps works only in small local authorities (which then have to be wired up in a sophisticated way, maybe as in a nD-honeycomb structure that reconfigures due to requirements). Discussed this for hours+ :)

CC.

Re:Ok, how do I zap that part.

[elmarkitse]

So in an effort to make us a more gentle society, our newly elected leaders should force the likes of Chavez and others through MRI machines to confirm they're not altruistic enough and then lock them up in jail?

But of course, they can't do that unless their not really altrustic, as now we're causing them to make value judgements about altruism for one or many.

I suppose this is neatly tied up as long as we can selectively let a few of those people our of your jails. Maybe this guy: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0252230/ in a redux of his role as 'the operative' would be sufficiently efficient at rounding up all these non-altrustic people. Then we'd have a nice civil place to live like here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/

Point being that being against the state is not just about being a con artist or working for yourself. Dissidents aren't always evil, and if I have to choose between splitting the last bit of food on a boat out at sea with just my family, or everyone and my family, I know that I'm not going to share with anyone other than my family.

Altrusim has it's limits for a reason, and i'd suspect that there's a body of subtle darwinian influence that contributes to our modern sense of 'social' selfishness.

I don't want to be juiced up to be nice all the time to everyone, regardless of if they deserve it or not.

Re:Ok, how do I zap that part.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

So in an effort to make us a more gentle society, our newly elected leaders should force the likes of Chavez and others through MRI machines to confirm they're not altruistic enough and then lock them up in jail?

Almost, but not quite. In an effort to make us a more gentle society, we shouldn't elect any leaders without an MRI scan on record to confirm that they're altruistic enough. Anybody gaining enough money to be a lobbyist or start a business should also have a similar scan to make sure that they are honest enough to run a business.

But of course, they can't do that unless their not really altrustic, as now we're causing them to make value judgements about altruism for one or many.

Nah, let the computers do that part- they're better at if-then-else statements to begin with.

I suppose this is neatly tied up as long as we can selectively let a few of those people our of your jails. Maybe this guy: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0252230/ in a redux of his role as 'the operative' would be sufficiently efficient at rounding up all these non-altrustic people. Then we'd have a nice civil place to live like here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/

IMDB is linked as NSFW here. So your argument makes no sense to me.

Point being that being against the state is not just about being a con artist or working for yourself. Dissidents aren't always evil, and if I have to choose between splitting the last bit of food on a boat out at sea with just my family, or everyone and my family, I know that I'm not going to share with anyone other than my family.

Who gives a shit about dissidents anymore? Every revolution has been an utter failure. My point is only that communism and altruism go hand in hand- a way to make communism more honest would be to filter the potential rulers for only the honest ones.

Altrusim has it's limits for a reason, and i'd suspect that there's a body of subtle darwinian influence that contributes to our modern sense of 'social' selfishness.

George W Bush has proven to me that those limits are no longer reasonable.

I don't want to be juiced up to be nice all the time to everyone, regardless of if they deserve it or not.

Who cares, as long as you're not a politician or a civil servant?

Re:Ok, how do I zap that part.

[NTesla]

Guess WHY there are not that many altrustic attractive women and men - positve self-image. Most people go out of their way to please others because they want to be accepted. How's that related? Attractive people in our society are automatically accepted and don't need to go out of their way to please and help others.
Respect and help yourself first and forget what everyone else thinks ot says about you.
    Others want to help their family, friends and even strangers because that's how they ALSO want to be treated. They are showing examples to others of what would please them or that someone notices.
    Notice how angry or depressed you get when you go out of your way to help someone, especially without any hidden agenda, and they blame you when something goes wrong or give you no credit or even worse, call you a push-over.
Part of being confident and feeling self-assured is knowing that you don't need assurance or compliments from others on how great and wonderful you are (for helping them) If they thank you - that's good, if they don't - that's OK too; the most important thing is that YOU know you did a good job, everyone else's opinion is secondary and thus, not important.

Re:Ok, how do I zap that part.

[k1t10]

It was required reading for me in high school.

Re:Ok, how do I zap that part.

[Dabido]

I'd apply for the role of Chairman, but I thought it might be nice to give someone else a go first. I mean, why should I be selfish and hog the position all to myself. :-)

Re:Ok, how do I zap that part.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Well, that's the key isn't it? We want the guy who would never apply, but would serve if asked, and the guy who sees the job as SERVICE rather than RULE.

The sound you just heard...

[Rude Turnip]

..was that of every Randroid's head asploding. "But, but, I'm *supposed* to be a selfish bastard!...KABOOM!"

Re:The sound you just heard...

[MrHanky]

That schlurp-schlurp-schlurp sound? I thought that was the delayed sound of their lobotomies.

Re:The sound you just heard...

[AndroidCat]

I'm sure there were some Rondroids asploding too. After all, the brain is just meat and it's the Thetan that does all the thinking and memory stuff back through trillions of years of past lives.

Raises questions

[UbuntuDupe]

This just seems like a very roundabout, tenuous way to find the altruism center. They used an extremely unreliable method -- survey responses -- and then had people play a computer game they *know* is pretend, which would just show how altruistic they are in fake scenarios, which isn't really altruism, just like my willingness to slaughter demons in Doom doesn't show a real "willingness to resort to violence".

Much cheaper way to accomplish the same thing:

-Scan Ayn Rand's brain (Peikoff would be a fine subsititute today if you need a living one).
-Compare to an average human's brain.
-Look for the most striking difference.

Re:Raises questions

[MillionthMonkey]

I'm being evaluated for a medial temporal lobectomy for epileptic seizures.

I'll let you guys know if I wake up after the surgery to find that I'm altruistic on my left side only. Or maybe I won't care about keeping you informed anymore; I figure it's 50-50.

Re:Raises questions

[Chris Burke]

I'm being evaluated for a medial temporal lobectomy for epileptic seizures.

I'll let you guys know if I wake up after the surgery to find that I'm altruistic on my left side only.

Heh. The image this conjured was of you giving a homeless person a dollar with your right hand, while simultaneously giving them the finger with your left.

Re:Raises questions

[nizo]

Man I wish I knew someone who was having brain surgery. It would be so much fun to speak gibberish to them when they wake up, and then when they start screaming just say, "aww man don't worry I am just messing with you". Yeah I just know they would love that.

Re:Raises questions

[CrazyDuke]

I guess we'll figure it out by which half of the keyboard you end up typing your post surgery reply with.

Re:Raises questions

[Lemmy Caution]

The whole claim is built on a suspect modularist model, by which one finds a "center" for everything. High-level behaviors may correspond with certain activations in certain regions in neuro-typical people, but that's by no means the same thing as finding an "x" center, either. It could be that what is being activated is responsible for something far simpler - such as facial recognition, or even the production of affect - but that the altruistic behavior per se is considerably more distributed. The remarkable plasticity of brain function suggests that this search for "x" centers is fraught with problems.

Re:Raises questions

[MillionthMonkey]

Ha ha, yeah, real funny. Never do that to someone just recovering consciousness from a brain trauma. I would totally fall for something like that.

You don't even need much of your brain working to be able to wake up and talk to people. It can take a week for your judgment and facilities to come back.

Re:Raises questions

[MillionthMonkey]

I've had no working sense of humor for days at a time. This isn't one of those times though. But I've regained consciousness surrounded by unhelpful people before, so cracks like that bring back sore memories for me. The worst is when people (esp. cops) think I'm on drugs. I wake up with 1% of my brain working and retrograde amnesia and a migraine with nausea and right away people are giving me bullshit about drugs.

Re:Raises questions

[metamatic]

I've had no working sense of humor for days at a time.

Wait, are you my ex-girlfriend?

Re:Raises questions

[MillionthMonkey]

Wait, are you my ex-girlfriend?

No, why? Are you one of mine?

Re:Raises questions

[Lord Ender]

I'm being evaluated for a medial temporal lobectomy for epileptic seizures...

I've had no working sense of humor for days at a time...

Sir, you have found a home here on slashdot.

Re:Raises questions

[MillionthMonkey]

The image this conjured was of you giving a homeless person a dollar with your right hand, while simultaneously giving them the finger with your left.

Actually that could happen with a corpus callosectomy, which is like having a skull with two half-wits inside that develop as separate individuals after the surgery (although being in the same body they continue to share experiences so the effect isn't that pronounced). Supposedly, for the most part nobody notices but you lose the ability to button your shirts with both hands. But I'm not going to consider that procedure; it sounds too creepy.

Games that measure altruism?

[monkeyboythom]

were also asked to play a computer game designed to measure altruism.

Yeah, it was really buggy but for some reason I decided not to point out their flaws. I dunno, but it made me feel good.

Lets be realistic about how much we can predict

[CRCulver]

The participants were ... asked to play a computer game designed to measure altruism.

Many displays of altruism occur in the heat of the movement. I doubt just by playing a game a person can give any sign of whether or not they will throw themselves on a grenade to save a comrade's life five years hence.

Re:Lets be realistic about how much we can predict

[Dunbal]

they will throw themselves on a grenade to save a comrade's life five years hence.

      And tell me what's wrong with throwing a comrade on the grenade to save your own, uhh, nevermind...

Re:Lets be realistic about how much we can predict

[Bucc5062]

I am nore sure throwing one's self on a handgrenade is altruistic, brave, dumb, or some combination of all three. A game may not determine that level of giving. Can we ever measure how we will react given an extreme moment. Soldiers are trained to help save their fellow team members for one day it may be returned. People in general are not required to have the same connection with others. As a recent very public act I recall the passengers on FLT 93 and the actions they took in the end. If asked a hypothetical before boarding "would you do x,y z?" they may not have responded the same to the same scenario as played out in real life. Games measure broad directions, not specific acts.

However, I tend to think of my self as an altruistic person and when I play WoW I find I like to help fellow guildmembers, Strangers on the Alliance side, and occasionally even a Horde player as a nice surprise. For me, giving, helping make me feel better whether it is in a game or in real life.

I wonder though, Now What? So we identify this spot in the brain. Can it be adjusted, removed, added in if missing? So we muck around with this chemically and have the world in giving Peace? The first step is identification (if you accept the facts), but the how, what, why...that will be the truly fasinating debate.

In the mean time, I will continue to help my fellow humans (real or electonic) and not worry if I have too much, too little, or just the right altruism in my brain.

Re:Lets be realistic about how much we can predict

[Annirak]

Many displays of altruism occur in the heat of the movement. I doubt just by playing a game a person can give any sign of whether or not they will throw themselves on a grenade to save a comrade's life five years hence.

And that's not the only reason the study's a little weird.

study on 45 volunteers

So they're measuring the altruism of... volunteers? Isn't that a bit self-defeating since a 'volunteer' is somewhat altruistic by definition?

Re:Lets be realistic about how much we can predict

[Rhone]

However, I tend to think of my self as an altruistic person and when I play WoW I find I like to help fellow guildmembers, Strangers on the Alliance side, and occasionally even a Horde player as a nice surprise. For me, giving, helping make me feel better whether it is in a game or in real life.

I was going to mention WoW, but since you already did I'll expand on what you said.

With the relative anonymity of an on-line game environment, there is generally less to lose from non-altruistic behavior, and less to gain from altruistic behavior. Hence, the predominance of assholes in on-line games. It thus occurred to me that a game like WoW could actually be better than "real life" scenarios for testing a distinction between genuine altruism and altruistic-seeming behavior that is aimed at maintaining convenient social relations.

Of course, the difference in behavior might be less due to differences in altruism, and more due to differences in how much people value positive social relations on-line. There are so many potential variables involved, it's difficult to be sure what you're actually testing.

Re:Lets be realistic about how much we can predict

[EvilIdler]

But at least they're working on it. Perhaps we may one day see a cure for altruism.

Re:Lets be realistic about how much we can predict

[gfxguy]

I routinely sacrifice myself in CounterStrike for the good of the team. I don't care about my "ranking", the people I play with generally like me just fine.

It's something I would never do in real life, considering I have a wife and children.

Re:Lets be realistic about how much we can predict

[R3d M3rcury]

I doubt just by playing a game a person can give any sign of whether or not they will throw themselves on a grenade to save a comrade's life five years hence. Actually, you know the games that they give people to play to test whether video games make people violent? They just used those and reversed the results.

Interesting game idea. Think "Grand Theft Auto" type of thing, where you walk around and have a choice between giving money to homeless person or kicking him, etc. Might be fun--if nothing else, to see how low a score you could get.

Re:Lets be realistic about how much we can predict

[Bucc5062]

And to some extent that's my point. The game reflects a trend or tendency, but allows more "sacrifice", more altruism because the consequences do not reflect back to the real world. However, in an extreme moment, I bet you will think of an action that may help save many even if in the end it costs you. Whether it is acted upon I would hope you never discover, but eventhe thought shows the root personality.

You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[Anonymous Coward]

Objectivists and Libertarians think voluntary altruism is entirely ok, i.e. I help other people because it makes ME feel good to do so. What they object to is mandatory altruism, i.e. the government forcing one at gunpoint to support others.

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[halivar]

You need to brush up on your Ayn Rand. The term "altruist" is used as a derogatory term, and "voluntary altruism" is something to be reviled and weakness.

"Nobody respects an altruist, neither in private life nor in international affairs. An altruist is a person who keeps sacrificing himself and his values, which means: sacrificing his friends to his enemies, his allies to his protagonists, his interests to any cry for help, his strength to anyone's weakness, his convictions to anyone's wishes, the truth to any lie, the good to any evil."

"It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master."

"Just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others - and, therefore, man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."

To that end, I suggest Ayn Rand was a self-serving bitch.

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[IL-CSIXTY4]

Rand was not opposed to someone giving food to a hungry person or a blanket to a freezing person. In fact, she didn't have any objection to charity (as she made clear in one of her Donahue interviews). She objected to the elevation of sacrifice as a virtue, the idea that you should give up your only blanket or food for another, and forced wealth redistribution which she considered to be slavery and which takes away the moral purity of the act of voluntary giving.

Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. (Rand 51)

If one's friend is in trouble, one should act to help him by whatever nonsacrificial means are appropriate. For instance, if one's friend is starving, it is not a sacrifice, but an act of integrity to give him money for food rather than buy some insignificant gadget for oneself, because his wefare is important in the scale of one's personal values. If the gadget means more than the friend's suffering, one had no business pretending to be his friend. [. . .] What, then, should one properly grant to strangers? The generalized respect and good will which one should grant to a human being in the name of the potential value he represents -- until and unless he forfeits it. (Rand 53)

"The respect and good will that men of self-esteem feel toward other human beings is profoundly egoistic; they feel, in effect: 'Other men are of value because they are of the same species as myself.' In revering living entities, they are revering their own life. (Nathaniel Brandon, qtd. Rand 53)

Cite: Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism. New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc. 1964.

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean? He made an assertion about Ayn Rand's obectivist philosphy, and then backed it up with proof--namely, a quote from her. For all you know, he can't stand her overall philosophy. That doesn't mean he can't discuss it and have opinions about it that aren't all "Oh, I disagree with the whole, so I must disagree with every part".

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[Kamots]

I haven't read Ayn Rand, but the quotes you've presented don't seem to show what you think they do.

It looks like she's preaching that altruism must be practiced in moderation; that noone respects someone who sacrifices values, friends, beliefs, etc; that one should critically examine who you're benefiting; and that you are at least as important as others and shouldn't place their needs above your own.

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[vcalzone]

No, her philosophy was that every person was only responsible to make themselves happy, and that trying to make other people happy is morally wrong. Altruism seriously was viewed by her as evil.

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[Oligonicella]

So, his producing context against your assertion makes you jump right into ad hominum? Rand didn't like those who behave that way either. She thought is was a sign of mental weakness.

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[gfxguy]

I've read a couple of Rand's books, and have a lot of independent thoughts on the subject as well.

One thing that is clear is that YOU are responsible for YOUR happiness. If "giving" makes you happy (as it does a lot of people, me included), then there's nothing wrong with sacrificing.

I think the problem Rand has (and libertarians, in general), is when someone tells you that you MUST sacrifice. In other words, I don't mind donating to charity, I do it all the time. I find it reprehensible that the government, through threat of imprisonment, can force me to give my money to "charity" (welfare). If I WANT to give to the Salvation Army, or Goodwill, or donate my time, that's one thing. Being told you MUST makes it not a sacrifice, but like she says, it's "slavery." You're being forced to work for someone else, as opposed to giving willingly.

The annectdote is about my son's public school class. He's had the same teacher for two years (no, he didn't get left back, she moved from first to second grade). In her class, all school supplies are given to the teacher, which are then handed out to kids as needed (from each according to their ability, in other words, to each according to their need), because some kids can't afford all the school supplies. One of the goals is to teach that we have to help others, we have to "share." I find it hard to believe that "forcibly" taking someone's property and giving it to someone else teaches a lesson in sharing.

Moreover, there's two other unwanted side effects that these classroom "socialists" fail to understand; the first is that many kids treat school supplies like garbage because it's not theirs, and the second is that many parents buy the crappiest, cheapest school supplies (you know there are vast differences in the quality of pencils?) because they know their kids are the ones that will be using them.

"Forced sacrifices" (an oxymoron, IMO) simply don't work as intended. Sacrifice comes from within.

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[diablovision]

Your hatred is all out of proportion to reality. Can't you just leave her alone? For crying out loud, you'd think she peed in your cornflakes or socked you in the mouth....

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[JavaLord]

Which is why they strenuously oppose all spending on things like the military, police, fire departments and anti-terrorism. After all, why should they have to pay to keep someone else safe. If someone wants to be safe then that person can either buy the necessary safety equipment and learn how to use it or hire a private corporation.

Some Libertarians think like that. I'm not a libertarian, but I personally I think you should be able to check off what your taxes go to. That way people don't have to pay for programs they don't like, and they would die a proper death. In America for example, if one person believes that paying for the Iraqi war is unjust, then they should be able to direct their tax money elsewhere. By the same token, if a religious person is against abortion, they should not have to pay for planned parenthood to stay open.

Things like the military, police, etc would continue to exist. It's hard to view income taxes today as anything but thievery by force. The founding fathers would not be proud.

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[Lord Ender]

What an unsophisticated view! The author of those statements must be the type who can look at any shade of grey and see either black or white. It must be difficult to get through life with such an intellectual handicap.

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[umbra_dweller]

I'll say upfront that I think Rand definatly took some extreme positions that I cannot agree with, however I find her writing interesting and think your analysis is incomplete.

All of those things talk about sacrifice, which refer to situations where I give up something I want in furtherance of another's goals. But if I actually get pleasure from the thing that I am doing, then it is not a sacrifice. Money (which she defends so strongly) is ultimately a means of achieving personal pleasure - but if I can get the same pleasure through alternate means, then I should. She doesn't only argue against people being forced to do "good" deeds by govenrment, though that is decidedly part of her politics, but she argues against social standards that idealize altruistic behavior as a high moral good.

If I volunteer at an afterschool program because I happen to enjoy helping kids in a tough situation, or I like my beach to be clean so I join a group that picks up trash, or I get a little warm-fuzzy feeling from dropping some coins in a salvation army box, but I also work a decent job that supports my needs, and I am more or less happy - then more power to me. But if I dedicate my life to the poor, or the environment, or I give money beyond what I can afford, or do anything else with a deliberate disregard to my own needs, then one of two things is very likely to happen.

1. I will end up a miserable wreck, living paycheck to paycheck and pouring all my effort into others - all the while cursing the rich around me as evil when they don't make a donation.
2. I will get sick of the good deeds I am doing, and figure out how to turn things to my advantage wherever possible, defeating the purpose of the original "selfless" act and turning it into a "selfish" act.

What I get from reading Rand so far is that doing good for others is not a moral good or a moral bad, but a morally neutral act. If you look at the "altruistic" villains in her stories, their altruism is false or twisted - their evilness does not come from simply acting altruistically, but because they throw away their own wealth and the wealth of the entire nation when they cannot afford it.

I know that Rand disliked the idea of defending "self interest" with the argument that rational self interest actually coincides with the public interest - "the public interest be damned", as she wrote many times - but I can't help but make such an argument because it makes sense to me.

To put a personal spin on what I mentioned above. I have a family member who is a home care nurse, and she told me her reason for being a nurse - to paraphrase - "I just can't not help people, if I see someone suffering on the street I want to take care of them. I figured I might as well get paid for this behavior, because if I was in any other kind of job then I would probably spend all my time taking care of wounded animals and street people."

This kind of attitude would make her a terrible businesswoman, policewoman, shopkeeper - really most jobs. But because her personal inclinations match her job description, she is able to excel at her job, go the extra mile for her patients. What motivated her to be in her job was a purely emotional (Randian = irrational) need to help others, but she made sure that it earned her enough money and she had enough time to fulfill her personal needs.

But all the time she runs into other people in her profession who do not have the same motives, they just want a steady paycheck, or the nursing profession is just a stop on their path to some other career - they may or may not act professionally, will pass problem patients to others to avoid hassle, they may be lazy in how they fill out paperwork for the patient, and generally won't go out of their way to do anything for them that doesn't immediatly equal more pay or a censure from the boss. These people stagnate, making themselves and everyone around them miserable, or they realize their problem and quit.

Whenever I am rea

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[zifferent]

"Being told you MUST makes it not a sacrifice, but like she says, it's "slavery." You're being forced to work for someone else, as opposed to giving willingly."

Calling taxes, slavery is both misleading, inaccurate and disingenuous. It's like calling grey, black because it has some black in it. Conversely, by the same logic grey could be called white. And while there may be an argument about acceptable levels of slavery as white follows black in grey so does freedom follow slavery in taxes.

In fact I would argue that a free man is NEVER totally free to pursue happiness nor is a slave totally EVER a slave. Is it better to be mostly free and part slave, or mostly slave and partly free?

Fighting towards personal freedom is an honorable goal, but not at the expense of others. (A point on which Ayn seems to agree.) And if a person is so poor as to not being able to afford food, shelter and clothing, let's just say that there's little social mobility with that as starting point, and hence absolutely no freedom exists for that person. The US system of welfare has more to do with making the playing field more level (true parity won't ever be reached.) across the socio-economic scale. It's about ensuring that the rich can't take complete advantage over the poor and create a state of slavery in all but the name.

Taxes are necessary to protect the common welfare of a state, and everyone who has the ability to pay the taxes, should be obligated by law to pay them, or else it wouldn't be fair if some paid and others didn't, but all benefited from services provided.

One parting thought: People that don't get enough to eat, have a place to live or clothing on their backs while others around them are living well tend to commit crimes, or even worse revolt.

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[Foolhardy]

If you look at the "altruistic" villains in her stories, their altruism is false or twisted - their evilness does not come from simply acting altruistically, but because they throw away their own wealth and the wealth of the entire nation when they cannot afford it.

Or hunger for power, be able to acquire it under some nefarious means, but be too stupid to understand it and use it effectively. Few people are that dense, yet able to get and keep power.

As with any philosopher and philosophy, one does not have to adopt Objectivism in its entirety to believe it has merit. I agree that a devotional attitude to Rand makes for a small and worthless mind, but an absolute following of any philosopher produces small and worthless minds. I try to pick through her arguments, extract the truly rational, and leave some of her rants and tirades behind.

Exactly. I'm always on the lookout for insight, regardless of the source. I trust myself to dissect the various propositions and ideas, and to have better confidence in the ones that are true. Rand makes some good points, but also supports serious fallacies. It's definitely possible to keep the good and toss the bad (to the extent each idea can be said to be either), given some thought, in any domain of knowledge. To borrow one Rand saying: "There are no evil thoughts except one: the refusal to think." The hallmark of the zealot is to refuse to think about the position they've taken and the position of others (even the existence thereof), e.g. by saying that a certain philosophy or person is pure good or evil.

But all the time she runs into other people in her profession who do not have the same motives, they just want a steady paycheck, or the nursing profession is just a stop on their path to some other career - they may or may not act professionally, will pass problem patients to others to avoid hassle, they may be lazy in how they fill out paperwork for the patient, and generally won't go out of their way to do anything for them that doesn't immediatly equal more pay or a censure from the boss. These people stagnate, making themselves and everyone around them miserable, or they realize their problem and quit.

Absolutely. IIRC, the first rule in career counseling is to find a job that you love to do. Anything else and you'll do it badly and be unhappy. I think one of the reasons that Americans tend to be workaholics is that by-and-large, each of us can find work doing something we love to do. We don't have castes, exclusive guilds, state mandated jobs, familial apprenticeships, or anything that determines most people's occupation against individual choice. If you can afford a college education, you can do almost anything. We work because we like to. The fact that it benefits ourselves and everyone around us is somewhat of a side-effect.

Great post. You deserve better karma :)

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[umbra_dweller]

Thank you. I'm not even sure how this karma system works really, I just post sporadically when a thought comes to mind while reading.

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[Form-o-Stuff]

That pretty much rules child-rearing out of the picture, don't it?

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[gfxguy]

I never claimed taxes were slavery - you pick a country, you pay for the government to run. But when the government starts donating my money to charities, there's a problem.

Moreover, you completely and totally mischaracterize what I wrote. I didn't write that people shouldn't donate money; I didn't say that at all. What I wrote is that when someone points a gun at your head and forces you to donate to charity, that's not sacrifice - it's what Rand called slavery.

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[gfxguy]

I'd like to add that it's certainly not altruistic!!!

Re:You've obviously misread Ms. Rand

[naasking]

You refuted your own argument. The highlights are the hints:

Nobody respects an altruist, neither in private life nor in international affairs. An altruist is a person who keeps sacrificing himself and his values, which means: sacrificing his friends to his enemies, his allies to his protagonists, his interests to any cry for help, his strength to anyone's weakness, his convictions to anyone's wishes, the truth to any lie, the good to any evil.

Which is not the same as saying that no cause is worth sacrifice as you imply. On the contrary, her "heroic" characters often sacrificed a great deal, including their lives, which to Rand was the ultimate good.

Very informative article.

[phorest]

Tasks requiring the perception of agency activate the posterior superior temporal cortex (pSTC), particularly in the right hemisphere

Wow, that is one informative article. I can't wait for the countering study that concludes the 'Greed' center of the brain has been found just opposite the posterior superior temporal cortex and there is big fight on the opposite left side of the brain in the soon to be named 'AynRandian degenerative temporal cortex'?

end:sarcasm

Re:Very informative article.

[jellomizer]

You think it is funny now. I expect there will be a drug in 10 years that will end cronic Jirks. Peace on earth via. Niceguyendidrex [tm] $100 a pill. Take 3 times a day. Where only the rich can afford to be nice.

Re:Very informative article.

[radarsat1]

I've got an idea, let's call it "Soma"!

But which game...

[D-Cypell]

...and were also asked to play a computer game designed to measure altruism.

Surely one of the CIV series right?

Subjects heard shouting phrases such as... "AAAAHA, Taste my ICBM you Iroquois scum", where marked down! ;)

Re:But which game...

[CrazyDuke]

I wonder how my razing all the enemies cities and using the citizens as slaves or starving to death the cities that are likely to revolt fits into it.

Thanks, science!

[Rob T Firefly]

That was really great of them to do this study and share it with us. They didn't even have to do that!

Re:Thanks, science!

[theskipper]

And it was awfully nice of you to share that comment! You really didn't have to do that.

Really. ;)

Duke scientists isolated the protein

[Anonymous Coward]

responsible for altruism, and immediately patented it.

Sample size == 45?

[turly]

And they're able to state this from a sample size of 45?

Jesus Christ. I mean, their shoe-size is as likely to correlate to altruism.

Re:Sample size == 45?

[Dunbal]

And they're able to state this from a sample size of 45?

      I'm waiting for the other study that will demonstrate that what they have indeed found is that people who lie on surveys to seem to be altruistic, and who pretend to be altruistic in computer games, have more activity in that area of the temporal lobe...

      Unfortunately neurophysiology is one of those areas in science where observing the evidence can in fact alter the results... everyone willing to participate in such a study (and with informed consent nowadays, the subjects HAVE to be willing) is probably going to want to "please" and "impress" the examiner as much as possible. Feigning altruism is much more likely to get on the examiner's "good side" than acting like a real asshole during the study.

      I'm not saying the study is BS, just that this is very very hard to actually PROVE until someone gives us permission to stick electrodes in their brain to try and evoke such a behavior change.

Re:Sample size == 45?

[Vellmont]

And they're able to state this from a sample size of 45?

I'm getting a bit tired of this criticism. It really depends on what they're trying to measure if the sample size is statistically significant. If you were an alien from the planet Zenon, you wouldn't need a large sample size of humans to determine there's two sexes. You would need a far large sample size to find trans-gendered people. Obviously because the two different sexes occour in equal numbers (so a small sample is very likely to contain both), whereas trans-gendered people are rare.

Re:Sample size == 45?

[risk one]

Thats a one-dimensional dataset where the sole (sorry) variable has a fairly high variance.

I don't know the details of their dataset, but I expect that before they let you use their very costly machinery for your research you have to be at the level where you can calculate (or estimate) the significance of your conclusion.

Using scanners like these is expensive, so you adapt your experiment to get the most out of a small sample. I doubt that 45 was an arbitrary choice. I guess that was just the smallest sample they could get away with for a minimum significance.

Re:Sample size == 45?

[turly]

Thats a one-dimensional dataset where the sole (sorry) variable has a fairly high variance.

Good pun!

Well, being altruistic may equally well have a "fairly high variance." I mean, it's hardly a binary attribute -- or is it?

Plus of course the volunteers, were, well, volunteers - already a sign of incipient altruism. Did they know that they were volunteering for an altruism survey? It's like asking people

"We're doing a survey on what percentage of people regularly lie, OK? Well, here's the question: Do you lie on a regular basis?"

Aside from the question of why would anyone believe any of the answers ;-), the parts of the brain lighting-up could equally well be associated with "Hmm, I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing here, not necessarily what I would normally do." Maybe they've found the conscience ;-)

OK, I'll shut up now.

Re:Sample size == 45?

[risk one]

I guess the variance of one's altruisticness (altruity?), depends entirely on how it's represented. You could chose to transform it into a binary attribute, but you'd lose a lot. I do agree that the variances of the most meaningful representations are probably higher than of shoe sizes. But I expect that that's why they chose several methods of measuring it. If the results from their questionnaire did not correlate at all with those from the video game, they would have had to go back to the drawing board.

I agree with all your points in general, and I think they are very important points to understand if you want to interpret the results correctly (especially for the casual BBC/Slashdot reader), but there are ways around these problems. I have some faith in peer reviewed journals like this (not much, but those $30 have to be going somewhere), so I expect that if the research hadn't addressed these issues, the paper would have been rejected.

Ayn Rand lurches from her grave...

[greg_barton]

Ayn: Nooooooooooooooooo!

Re:Ayn Rand lurches from her grave...

[Hoi Polloi]

She would label it a "brain defect"

WoW

[cheese-cube]

were also asked to play a computer game designed to measure altruism.

Probably playing WoW and running low levels through RFC with your level 60.

Re:WoW

[zyl0x]

Probably playing WoW and running low levels through RFC with your level 60.

..for gold.

Re:WoW

[Lemmeoutada Collecti]

That's not altruism. That's showing off. Not that I'd know personally, mind.

Unselfish behavior?

[XNormal]

This behavior is still selfish.
It's just collectively selfish instead of individually selfish (at least statistically).

Re:Unselfish behavior?

[Lemmy Caution]

I find this observation fatuous. What "self" are we talking about, then?

It's adaptive, yes. Just about every aspect of any organism that's made it this far is adaptive. That's not the same thing as "selfish."

Re:Unselfish behavior?

[spun]

Selfish in the same sense as Dawkin's book, The Selfish Gene .

Re:Unselfish behavior?

[i_should_be_working]

Well, everything can be called selfish to some degree. We all do what we want to do. If something had no return, we wouldn't do it.

The only reason I ever do anything nice for anybody is because it makes me happy to see them happy.

Re:Unselfish behavior?

[Jerf]

Doesn't "collectively selfish" strike you as a bit oxymoronic?

I'm perfectly happy with altruism stemming from a wise recognition that you are affected by the people and society around you. It's quite clear a lot of people aren't that wise and we all suffer for it; that they also suffer doesn't make it any more or less moral.

In fact, I'd reject the implied definition of altruism you (and several Slashdot posters) seem to be offering, which seems to be some sort of self-harming action that helps nobody and can't possibly be good for you in any way. That's not altruism, that's just plain evil , full stop.

Or, put another way, if you're going to stretch the word "selfish" that far, you've rendered the word meaningless and you are no longer allowed to use the moral connotations of the word to condemn any behavior since you've removed the foundation the moral connotations were built on. (Word games aren't morality.)

Re:Unselfish behavior?

[enharmonix]

The only reason I ever do anything nice for anybody is because it makes me happy to see them happy. From Forbes' coverage:

People may not perform selfless acts just for an emotional reward, a new brain study suggests.

Instead, they may do good because they're acutely tuned into the needs and actions of others.

"Perhaps altruism did not grow out of a warm-glow feeling of doing good for others, but out of the simple recognition that that thing over there is a person that has intentions and goals. And therefore, I might want to treat them like I might want them to treat myself," explained study author Scott Huettel, an associate professor of psychology at Duke University Medical Center, in Durham, N.C. ... For decades, psychologists and neuroscientists have puzzled over the tendency of humans to engage in altruistic acts -- defined by Huettel's group as acts "that intentionally benefit another organism, incur no direct personal benefit, and sometimes bear a personal cost." [emphasis mine]

In plain English, the part of you responsible for selfish behavior is not the same as the part of you responsible for altruistic behavior. Altruistic people really are helping others to help others rather than to just feel good about themselves or get something in return. I'd recommend reading the entire Forbes article on it, it's a pretty good read.

Re:Unselfish behavior?

[Lemmy Caution]

But genes don't have brains. People do. I understand Dawkins' metaphor, that humanity, and all species, are epiphenomena of the mechanist processes of evolution. I think he overstates his case. You may as well discuss the "selfish quark."

Re:Unselfish behavior?

[spun]

No, because quarks have no mechanism that we know of for expressing behavior that generates more quarks. Genes, like brains, are complex systems of multiple interacting feedback loops, capable of taking information from the environment, procesing it, and expressing behavior based on internal and external conditions. They are also capable of self-reproduction. One can't say the same thing about quarks.

I think the point that the GP post was trying to make was quite similar to the point Dawkins was making. Genes don't give a metaphorical rat's ass about the individuals that are expressions of those genes. Genetics always operates on a broader scale than that of the individual. Altruistic behaviors that are counterproductive for the individual may still be selected for genetically if they are adaptive for the species.

Re:Unselfish behavior?

[justinlindh]

Although it's probably more of a philosophical discussion than anything else, I don't believe that there is such a thing as an unselfish action.

While most would argue that giving anonymously to a charity is an unselfish act, the giver is still doing something to satisfy a selfish need. They'll feel better about themselves afterwards.

Even if the outcome of whatever the action is happens to be negative, it was still done to accomplish a self need. For example, a 15 year old emo kid cuts him/herself with glass. This is still selfish, as they're fulfilling a perceived need for themselves.

I want one!

[Hrodvitnir]

"linking the brain's posterior superior temporal cortex to altruistic behavior."

I want a posterior superior temporal cortex!

Re:I want one!

[spun]

You cannot be trusted with such power yet, young grasshopper.

Re:I want one!

[Jerf]

I want a posterior superior temporal cortex!

Here, you can have mine.

The target in evolutionary arms races

[Baldrson]

Thus the posterior superior temporal cortex should be the target of many evolutionary arms races seeking to gain or prevent extended phenotypic control of altruistic behavior.

One more domain

[RyoShin]

If confirmed this has applications in neurology, psychology, child-rearing, and a host of other domains.

How about politics?

If this can be proven to be accurate, perhaps it can be used on politicians before an election to see just how much good they actually intend to do for the public.

Or would the machine not be able to handle negative values?

Re:One more domain

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I think a test for an Authoritarian personality might be more useful. Sort of like Doug Adams notion that anybody who wants to be president is unqualified to be so.

Re:One more domain

[m0rph3us0]

What if doing things that are altruistic are bad for the country? Altruism usually fails to recognize the misallocation of resources it is doing because it is "good", and thus makes everyone worse off. See Steel Tarrifs, Medicare, Welfare.

Re:One more domain

[RexRhino]

The most vicious and dangerous people in the world are true believers trying to do the right thing. The corrupt and greedy usually have limits - they just want to get rich quick and that is that. The people willing to engage in true stupidy, cruelity, and destruction, are the people who are convinced they are doing the right thing.

Re:One more domain

[Ingolfke]

Sure, but I think all you're saying is that people who doubt what they're doing are less dangerous then those who don't question what they do.

That said... I'm not sure that your statement is really true, I think it really comes down to what they believe in. If someone is kinda-sure they want to shoot me and take my money, I think they're dangerous. If they're convinced that they don't want to do any violence (say like Gandhi) I'm not too concerned, he doesn't seem like a real dangerous fellow.

Re:One more domain

[Enzo the Baker]

I hesistate to define altruism as something a politician does with the taxpayers' money.

Sure, many politicians manipulate the system to benefit themselves or their friends. But the opposite of this (allocating the budget and making laws for the best public good) is not altruism. It's just honesty, wisdom, and diligence. Just like anyone else who conscientiously does the job they are paid to do.

Re:One more domain

[RexRhino]

If they're convinced that they don't want to do any violence (say like Gandhi) I'm not too concerned, he doesn't seem like a real dangerous fellow.

Gandhi was actually pretty much a racist, and a potentially violent one at that. Don't believe the white-washed Disney version of history people give you about Gandhi. His views about africans are probably more extreme and hateful than David Duke.

http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi4.htm

Re:One more domain

[Ingolfke]

Ah, could be... I guess my point was that someone who believed in non-violence wholeheartedly would probably be better then someone who sort of believed in using violence to rob me, all things being equal.

Re:One more domain

[LouisZepher]

Simple solution: Cauterize certain neurons to segregate the non-altruistic portions of the brain.

Re:One more domain

[misanthrope101]

it can be used on politicians before an election to see just how much good they actually intend to do for the public.

I doubt that many politicians, or even businesspeople, really set out consciously to screw the public and enrich themselves. I think people just spontaneously put more credence in arguments, policies, etc that happen to benefit themselves. So if all the people writing oil policy for a country happen to have been enriched by the oil trade, they are just going to be more open to energy policies that benefit the oil trade. I don't think there are many smoke-filled back rooms where evil men plan bad things--I think most bad things sound very plausible if you weed out all the arguments against them. There are exceptions, like Enron, but I really think that, say, Dick Cheney sincerely believes everything he has been saying over the last few years, and sincerely thinks that the Haliburton stock he owns has played no part at all in his decision-making. None of us, not one, is immune from the tug of self-interest, but it usually plays out that we just happen to sincerely believe things that also happen, by sheer coincidence, to align with our self-interest.

Heal it?

[EctoRaist]

Ok, how can you heal that cancer out?

from the source

[martyb]

Here's a link to the Duke University press release: Activation of Brain Region Predicts Altruism

BTW: Is this an altruistic link? <grin>

Re:from the source

[grimJester]

No. Your brain anticipates the imminent arrival of karma which, according to my sources caused salivation even before you clicked the "submit" button.

Several People Would Like Hear About This :)

[Jonathan Vargas]

I think this is a very important step in neuroscience to fight against destructive emotions, and a good notice for Buddists. Mind and Life institute and related colaborators (Richard Davidson, Daniel Goleman, Dalai Lama, Paul Ekman, etc) might like this as well.

Re:Great!

[zappepcs]

No surgeon needed, simply take a job selling used cars, and to speed things up get a second job working at the Verizon customer call center at night. That should pretty much kill any altruistic tendencies that you might currently have.

Moo

[Chacham]

This is so reidiculous.

The Duke University Medical Center study on 45 volunteers is published in Nature Neuroscience.

45 volunteers?

Firstly, 45 is not enough for a statistical analysis involving brain scans, there is enough multiplicity as it is, there was bound to be *some* congruence. Seriously, they are making predictions from 45 people?!?!

On top of that, they are volunteers?

Umm, in a study on altruism, there would have to be (at least) two separate groups, one which was paid, and one that donated their time...

The participants were asked to disclose how often they engaged in different helping behaviours, such as doing charity work

And they believe the answers? Why not ask people "Are you a liar?" and find out that 75% of the people always tell the truth.

Sheesh! This study is an affront to altruism.

and were also asked to play a computer game designed to measure altruism.

By who?

Altruism us unselfish behaviour. Guess what, what is unselfish to A may be tremendously selfish to B. Republicans and Democrats have severely different defintions of selfish and unselfish. And then there's Xians and Muslims. The list goes on.

Being selfish is an inherently subjective behaviour, making altruism also inherently subjective. It changes by the person. So, if this "game" could measure altruism, it would be only one person's subjective view of altruism, implemented in a game.

And even if it could measure altruism, it is a game. And as many people know, people use in-game personas for who they may like to be, or to act out immature feelings that the person would not normally act with. How many people play games exactrly as they live life?

On top of that, they knew this was for a study. Being self-concious would have an obvious affect on altruistic tendencies.

He said true altruism was a rare or even intangible thing.

*Sigh*

Sounds like he found what he wanted to find. There are many altruistic people. You just have to know where to look.

"Altruism is usually reciprocal - you do something for someone and you expect something back ultimately.

/me cries.

And _he_ is an expert on altruism???

"The other types are kin altruism, giving to ones relatives, and being cheated or cuckolded."

Oh please. We give to our families not out of altruism, but because of identification. This is very basic psycology.

He said it would be interesting to study people at the extremes of altruism and selfishness and see if their brains differed significantly.

So, now altruistic people are not normal?

===============

Moral of the story is, ask a hedonist about altruism and he'll tell you that it's an abnormality.

While it is true that we are born selfish, Freud explained why very well, because we cannot differentiate betwen our own ego and anyone else's for a couple years, and our own ego isn't fully developed until about age five. By that time we have a firm root in selfishness and it takes work to change it.

Trying to find the physiological manifestation of psycological behaviour is an arduous task that rarely yieds anything even remotely conclusive. Yet, as in any frontier, researchers are doing their best, and sooner or later it will likely yeild fruit. However, taking on complex behavioral systems which are based in culture, change by the person, and even in a given person changes throughout his years, assuming results is preposterous. Let alone in a small group, and by people who don't even know what it means.

I'd call it junk science, but even that name would give it too much credit.

Re:Moo

[$RANDOMLUSER]

On top of that, they are volunteers?

Umm, in a study on altruism, there would have to be (at least) two separate groups, one which was paid, and one that donated their time...

Good point. And another group should be forced to participate at gunpoint.

Re:Moo

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Firstly, 45 is not enough for a statistical analysis involving brain scans

Clearly you are unfamiliar with statistics or you'd never make such a ridiculous claim. Firstly, statistical analysis is agnostic about its subject matter. Whether or not its about "brain scans" or predicting the weather has no bearing on what's a good sample size. Secondly, you measure whether or not a sample size is good enough by looking at the statistical significance, not the absolute size of the sample. In an extreme case, if 50% of people were altruistic (by some measure), and you could predict this perfectly form a "brain scan" then this would be so statistically significant that it would be off the scale. In fact, it'd be pretty significant with only a sample size of 10.

Being self-concious would have an obvious affect (sic) on altruistic tendencies.

You really don't get it do you. If you find a statistically significant correlation, you find a statistically significant correlation. If it's significant enough, you can be confident that there's some kind of causal mechnanism at work (though what is cause and what is effect may be hard to determine). These people now have some information that gives them predictive power.

While it is true that we are born selfish, Freud...

Now who's talking junk science?

Re:Moo

[daenris]

You obviously need to read more about statistics as well as other imaging studies.

As another poster has pointed out, statistical significance is not only based on the sample size, but also on the size of the obvserved effect (deviation from the expected).

And 45 is a fairly large number of people to be used in an imaging study (in fact many experimental studies -- so non-survey -- probably use similar sample sizes, brain imaging or not). Many imaging studies get routinely published with far fewer subjects (I've seen them published on as few as 6 or 8 before). These are in peer-reviewed journals, and by the time they get accepted for publication they have likely gone through several rounds of issues that the reviewers point out to be dealt with.

Now I'm not saying that the study doesn't have problems, and I agree that a computer game inside a brain scanner probably isn't the best place to be measuring altruistic behavior, but I'd appreciate if you'd investigate the field a bit before forming baseless arguments about sample size.

Re:Moo

[radtea]

While it is true that we are born selfish...

What on Earth does this mean?

We are social primates, and therefore have evolved a variety of reciprocal-aid mechanisms in our behaviour. We are more likely to show helping behaviour toward our closer kin, but because we also (as a species) practice exogamy (breeding outside our kin group) rather vigorously we have a tendency to show helping behaviour toward anyone or anything that even looks remotely like us.

When raised in sufficiently violent, unloving circumstances that tendency may never be developed, but contra Freud it is not repression of our nature that makes us humane (anymore than feral, asocialized humans behave humanely) but rather a nurturing, loving and secure upbringing.

Re:Moo

[venicebeach]

Firstly, 45 is not enough for a statistical analysis involving brain scans, there is enough multiplicity as it is, there was bound to be *some* congruence. Seriously, they are making predictions from 45 people?!?!

IAAFR (I am an fMRI researcher) and I can say without reservation that this comment is blatantly incorrect. As with any statistical analsysis, you take into account the variability in the data when making statistical tests. You have some idea of what to expect based on chance alone, and you must exceed that by a tremendous amount. With fMRI we tend to be excessively conservative with statistics, since we do a statistical test at every voxel in the image acquired -- it takes very high levels of statistical parameters to be accepted as a significant result.

45 subjects is actually a very large sample for an imaging study (fMRI is very expensive). Most studies use 12-16 people.

As for the term "volunteers", anyone who participates in research in the U.S. is a volunteer. We cannot and should not force people to participate in research studies. The term volunteer does not mean they were not compensated for their time.

Re:Moo

[crush]

45 subjects is actually a very large sample for an imaging study (fMRI is very expensive). Most studies use 12-16 people

Your point about the statistical tests is well-taken. But the above quote has /nothing/ to do with whether the statistical tests were sufficient or adequate. The significance of a test isn't affected by how much it costs or how bad other people's analyses are. Their work either fails to fit some null hypothesis or doesn't.

Re:Moo

[neurophil12]

Others have already pointed out that the survey size is not an issue. More importantly is the question of the "video game". Did you even read the article?!?
FTA:
They "watched a simple reaction-time game, to earn money for themselves and for a selected charity (Supplementary Methods online). Informed written consent was obtained from all subjects and no deception was used"

Synopsis of the Supplementary Methods online (specifically from the methods):
They earn money by playing the game. For some trials the money would go to them, and on others the money would go to the charity. That would provide a control for an individual, since you wouldn't expect to see altruism on trials in which the individual was earning the money.

I'm not really sure what good the survey was supposed to do, except maybe just to have yet another measure.

Glad to see the score going down on this one, that post was anything but informative. Keep negging it though, should be a 1, not a 3.

Re:Moo

[Simetrical]

While it is true that we are born selfish, Freud explained why very well, because we cannot differentiate betwen our own ego and anyone else's for a couple years, and our own ego isn't fully developed until about age five. By that time we have a firm root in selfishness and it takes work to change it.

. . .

I'd call it junk science, but even that name would give it too much credit.

You're citing Freud as authoritative and then accusing others of junk science? I agree that the study was pretty pathetic, but at least they tried to perform concrete analyses. Freud did not practice anything remotely approaching science. Everything novel he came up with was either false or untestable. His beliefs about the roles of things like child abuse are directly traceable to people being hypnotized or pressured until they confabulate stories of abuse and end up actually believing them. He has corrupted the public perception of psychology, perhaps indelibly. A field that should be scientific sports many Ph.D.s who believe and practice utter tripe with no grounding in reality.

To address your more specific point, Freud did not explain selfishness at all, let alone "very well". A real explanation, a model, will make predictions about how the outcome will change if the circumstances change. Otherwise it's worthless, postdiction. Freud's claim about the ego not being developed makes no predictions at all and is consequently useless, unless there is either some way to measure the ego's development independently of its personality effects, or some way to influence its developments. If neither of those is the case, the statement "we cannot differentiate betwen our own ego and anyone else's for a couple years, and our own ego isn't fully developed until about age five. By that time we have a firm root in selfishness and it takes work to change it" is equivalent to "people under age five are always selfish and people over that age have to work to not be selfish", which is blatantly obvious to any human being.

Re:Moo

[Barlo_Mung_42]

"What on Earth does this mean?"

I'm going to guess you are not a parent.

My child is the most selfish being I've ever met. Ever since he was an infant he's clearly acted as if the world revolves around him. All hours of the night he would make noise and wake the whole house without even having a clear need. For all I could tell he just found that he was awake and wanted us to be awake too. He's three now and while he's gained the ability to communicate his desires they still mostly revolve around him. Sure, he'll occasionally give us a smile or hug but you can be it's because he wants something in return, be it a cookie or some affection.
Take right now for example. He's persistently patting my back and repeating "Daddy? Do you hear me? Daddy? Do you hear me?" in a selfish attempt to gain my attention, completely disregarding that fact that I'm trying to post a comment.

I'm told that someday he'll gain a sense that the world contains more than just his ego but to be honest I'm not holding much hope.

Re:Moo

[venicebeach]

My point was that it is possible (and typical) to achieve statistical significance with a much smaller sample size. Given the cost, you tend not to collect more subjects than necessary.

Re:Moo

[SpiritGod21]

Aren't volunteers, in some ways, inherently altruistic? That's sort of the impression I get... what we really need are 3 distinct test groups: people who volunteered, people getting paid, and people we drugged, clubbed, and strapped into a lab.

Re:Moo

[quarrelinastraw]

That's not correct. Statistical significance doesn't tell you anything about whether there's a causal mechanism at work. It doesn't even tell you whether the measured differences are real. It gives you an estimate of the probability of seeing your data given that there is no difference. It's possible for a p-value to be 0 while the probability that there is no difference is 100%. And for any given significance level (say, p=.0001), there are datasets such that differences almost certainly don't exist. This means that from an epistemological standpoint, statistical significance tells you next to nothing. Several statisticians have proven that in scenarios mimicking those in the social sciences with a .05 cutoff, the probability that there is no difference can be as high as 60%, meaning a 40% probability that an effect is real.

Re:Moo

[MojoStan]

We are social primates, and therefore have evolved a variety of reciprocal-aid mechanisms in our behaviour. We are more likely to show helping behaviour toward our closer kin, but because we also (as a species) practice exogamy (breeding outside our kin group) rather vigorously we have a tendency to show helping behaviour toward anyone or anything that even looks remotely like us.

When raised in sufficiently violent, unloving circumstances that tendency may never be developed...

Those who have read about kin selection and the related experiments by Robert Trivers know that even simpler life forms (e.g. ants) will act altruistically to "selfishly" maximize their own genes to the next generation. The differing behavior of queen/worker ants, which do not practice exogamy, toward their kin (offspring, brothers, sisters) and slave ants (which have no genetic relationship) shows more evidence that "helping behavior" might be in large part an evolved behavior (independent from upbringing) for maximizing our genes.

A quick-and-dirty summary of kin selection and Trivers's experiments:
Human chromosomes come in pairs: we receive one set from mom's egg and one set from dad's sperm. Thus, we possess a maternal and paternal copy of each gene. The probability that you share the same gene with your brother or sister is fifty-fifty, so your sibling is (in genetic math) the same as half of you. Your cousin is the same as one-eigth of you. Thus, Haldane's cryptic comment: "I'd lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins." Stephen Jay Gould wrote that if you were walking down a road with three siblings and encountered a monster, the genetically altruistic act would be to sacrifice yourself (and save your three siblings) rather than escape and watch your three siblings die (or something silly like that).

Haplodiploid species (like ants) do not have symmetrical genetic relationships between brothers and sisters: Queens are related to their offspring (both sons and daughters) by one-half. Sisters are related to brothers by one-fourth. Sisters are related to sisters by three-fourths. Queens lay eggs of male and female offspring in almost equal numbers. However, if you measure the ratio of female/male weight for all fertile offspring in an ant nest, it will be very close to 3:1 (since the worker offspring selectively nurture the eggs). If you measure the ration of female/male weight for slave worker ants (not genetically related), it will be very close to 1:1.

I don't want to over-relate human altruism/selfishness to ant behavior, but Trivers's experiments (and others) show strong evidence that altruism is a genetically evolved behavior even in the absence of exogamy and good upbringing. IANASociobiologist, but I can see how the practice of exogamy in humans probably extends "genetic altruism" outside our kin group. I can also see how the effect of upbringing might greatly alter (or even make insignificant) our "evolved" genetic altruistic behavior.

Re:Isn't Randroidism dead?

[s122604]

A contingent of the sociopathic dork cult used to be a fixture of college campi, but now they are all gone. Oh no, the "all we have to do to make the world a better place is be selfish/greedy assholes" is alive and well throughout this country; Turn on any AM radio and you'll hear this message evangelized....

Could be used to manipulate people

[ewg]

This whole body of research linking brain function to behavior is fascinating, but it's not hard to picture a scenario where it could be used to manipulate people. Imagine choosing job applicants based on this analysis in order to save on compensation costs. Or denying someone a promotion because their brain scan shows they're working only for themselves. "Sorry, Bob, you're just not a team player. It says so right here on these lab results!"

Re:Could be used to manipulate people

[Ingolfke]

Sorry, Bob, you're just not a team player. It says so right here on these lab results!"

Actually...

Sorry Bob... you're such a fucking puss that you're going to be walking around asking how everyone's day is and trying to get money for charity runs and girl scout cookies. We need a ruthless son-of-a-bitch whose going to get shit done. You understand our predicament don't you Bob?

Mark Twain's "Man Without a Conscience"

[sidles]

Mark Twain wrote of a man lacking a conscience in The Facts Concerning the Recent Carnival of Crime in Connecticut:

... "Out of this with your paupers, your charities, your reforms, your pestilent morals! You behold before you a man whose life-conflict is done, whose soul is at peace; a man whose heart is dead to sorrow, dead to suffering, dead to remorse; a man WITHOUT A CONSCIENCE! In my joy I spare you, though I could throttle you and never feel a pang! Fly!"

She fled. Since that day my life is all bliss. Bliss, unalloyed bliss. Nothing in all the world could persuade me to have a conscience again. I settled all my old outstanding scores, and began the world anew. I killed thirty-eight persons during the first two weeks--all of them on account of ancient grudges. I burned a dwelling that interrupted my view. I swindled a widow and some orphans out of their last cow, which is a very good one, though not thoroughbred, I believe. I have also committed scores of crimes, of various kinds, and have enjoyed my work exceedingly, whereas it would formerly have broken my heart and turned my hair gray, I have no doubt.

Available on-line via both file download and html text.

Once again, Art anticipates Science!

but

[genegeek]

they are not giving the information away. If you want to know, you have to PAY!

Charity Work?

[sugarmotor]

Well, I became suspicious when I read "in different helping behaviours, such as doing charity work" - I see a big difference between a disposition for helping, and participating in charity work.

Maybe someone likes to be the boss of a few volunteers, or is looking for a job, or likes travelling. Plus you need time for charity work. Does a single parent without financial support have time for volunteering?

On the other hand a helping attitude shows itself in much more simple ways: Somebody asks for help - you provide it if you can.

I wanted to check the article itself, but I didn't want to give them $30, just for doing their homework: why would they not publish their work in such a way that other's can easily read it? Or are they unaware of this issue?

In summary, this "work" probably needs to be repeated. It's not even an original idea for that matter.

Stephan

Re:Charity Work?

[sugarmotor]

Well, you are not addressing my reasoning. That is a bad sign. Instead your criticism goes to externalities. Hard to say whether it is surprising that it contains gaps:

    * who knows whether this "full team of professional scientists" thought of the issues I brought up; (you say "obviously")

    * the article was published in "Nature Neuron", not "Nature". This suggests that it was not deemed suitable for Nature itself.

Thanks anyway. I'll take a look at the paper once I can obtain it.

Stephan

Selfish bastards get all the money...

[Savage-Rabbit]

I'm sick of being altruistic while selfish bastards get all the money. Why are you complaining? Now that you know which portion of your brain you have to get a doctor to remove your altruism problem should be easily fixed. A glorious career for you as a selfish, greedy, backstabbing bastard is practically assured to follow!!!

Re:Is /. still relevant?

[hiroller]

I know this is posted by an AC but I still have to respond

This story has been on MSNBC for days. I see the same thing increasingly with /. Like some of the members must read nothing else but /. and are totally unaware of mainstream news.

Sure it is. Just b/c it's not first with the news doesn't mean it's not relevant.

/. is a discussion forum and even if the news is a little bit older, you still get new points of views, new links to more information, and counter arguments to the article. Hell, for me, most of the time the real "news" comes from the member postings. So quit hatin. ;)

chip

[fantail]

Does this mean that we are one step closer to being able to put a chip in someone's brain to make them more altruistic?

Re:chip

[Ingolfke]

Does this mean that we are one step closer to being able to put a chip in someone's brain to make them more altruistic?

Only if they're willing to volunteer in order to improve the lot of future generations.

Re:chip

[fantail]

Does this mean that we are one step closer to being able to put a chip in someone's brain to make them more altruistic?

Only if they're willing to volunteer in order to improve the lot of future generations.

If they were volunteers, they wouldn't need the chip.

Altruism? Nonsense.

[clintp]

"Of all the nonsense that twists the world, the concept of 'altruism' is the worst. People do what they want to do, every time."

-- Jubal Harshaw, Stranger in a Strange Land

Indeed, people like *other* people to be unselfish

[Colin Smith]

Basically because they benefit from the other person. It's the same reason we see heroism as a great thing. Other person is heroic, we benefit.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's just worth considering the motivation people have for encouraging altruism, heroism, patriotism etc etc.

Re:Altruism? Nonsense.

[silentounce]

Jubal is the man. "My dear, I used to think I was serving humanity... and I pleasured in the thought. Then I discovered that humanity does not want to be served; on the contrary it resents any attempt to serve it."

Why should thinking of others be altruistic?

[shaitand]

Is it still altruism if you do something to advance the colony? What if it is because you identify the colony as an extension of yourself? Those who believe in altruism as a natural thing might be inclined to jump on this selfless bandwagon. I see no reason to believe that this region of the brain is associated with anything more than base functions of social and group interaction. If you identify yourself as part of a group then actions to benefit that group are merely selfishness on another level.

Furthermore, in a general sense, helping others is merely promote self interest. Say you are nice to people at the office and help them out whenever possible. When you take these actions there may not be a specific self interest in mind at the moment but you are aware that you are building goodwill toward yourself that may benefit you when you in turn need help.

Re:Why should thinking of others be altruistic?

[E 99]

Is it still altruism if you do something to advance the colony? What if it is because you identify the colony as an extension of yourself? ....If you identify yourself as part of a group then actions to benefit that group are merely selfishness on another level.

No one identifies AS MUCH with the group than they do with their actual selves. (unless they've been brainwashed by a cult or something) So If you sacrifice of yourself for the benefit of the group, it IS altruism, even if you identify also with the group. The marine who was just awarded the medal of honor for throwing himself on a grenade, saving his unit at the cost of his life, did not do it out of self-interest.

Furthermore, in a general sense, helping others is merely promote self interest. Say you are nice to people at the office and help them out whenever possible. When you take these actions there may not be a specific self interest in mind at the moment but you are aware that you are building goodwill toward yourself that may benefit you when you in turn need help.

Yeah, well, that's why a certain person once said said, "when you give a lunch or a dinner, don't invite your frineds, your brothers, your relatives, or your rich neighbors, because they might invite you back, and you would be repaid. Rather, when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lamed, the blind."

Re:Why should thinking of others be altruistic?

[neurophil12]

Altruism can be defined several ways. One of them is behaviorally, which only occurs because on average it is good for the agent. However, what we feel is an emergent property, that is more than and different from the sum of the components. While it exists in our brains because it has that evoltionary trait of improving fitness for the individual or population (and in many population cases altruism may result in not being good for the individual), the agent itself may very well feel true altruism.

Additionally, it doesn't have to be an either or scenario, one can feel true altruism on the one hand and still see a benefit for oneself. Our brains clearly are complex enough for this. After all, our brains are certainly complex enough, and "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." --F. Scott Fitzgerald

Re:Why should thinking of others be altruistic?

[Lord Ender]

Those who believe in altruism as a natural thing

There really is no question as to whether altruism is a natural thing. It certainly is. The question is how much of it is genetic and how much of it is memetic.

One may argue that memes are not natural--but since they are observed in animals, that's a tough argument to make.

Re:Why should thinking of others be altruistic?

[gitchel]

Look, it really doesn't matter WHY we are able to be altruistic, or compassionate, or generous, or whatever. I imagine that these psychologies exist because they did not make the carriers dead fast enough to avoid reproducing - or it even helped them get laid - or it helped them create societies that aided in survival. It doesn't matter to me. The fact is that humane humans - by any definition I care to respect - have compassion. Those who do not have compassion are not humane humans. And - in my world - humane people are better. What I haven't been able to determine is whether this study measures Compassion - the ability to perceive the experience of another empathetically. I don't care about measuring "altruism" if it is simply a measure of how helpfull someone tends to be. I think altruistic people have a myriad oof reasons - selfish AND unselfish - for helping. However, when generosity comes from COMPASSION, all actions occur because they are CORRECT actions. Actions that stem from compassion occur because they're simply appropriate reactions and corrections to obvious difficulties. Jeff

Re:Why should thinking of others be altruistic?

[shaitand]

"I think altruistic people have a myriad oof reasons - selfish AND unselfish - for helping."

This is the fundemental flaw in your post. You need to look up the exact definition of altruistic. In order to be altruistic the act must be selfless. Helping others in a manner that is not completely selfless is not altruistic.

Nation x and y form an alliance. Nation x is attacked by nation z and nation y comes to their aid and helps fight off nation z. The aid nation y gave is not altruistic even though it cost them without direct gain. Nation y was acting in their own self-interest believing the aid they gave would result in nation x aiding them if the need arose.

Re:Why should thinking of others be altruistic?

[shaitand]

"No one identifies AS MUCH with the group than they do with their actual selves. (unless they've been brainwashed by a cult or something) So If you sacrifice of yourself for the benefit of the group, it IS altruism, even if you identify also with the group. The marine who was just awarded the medal of honor for throwing himself on a grenade, saving his unit at the cost of his life, did not do it out of self-interest."

You bring up a poor example to make your case. Anyone who has been in the military can tell that the military literally brainwashes recruits into a groupthink. The more advanced the military unit, the greater degree of brainwashing that occurs.

I would also argue that you shouldn't make a blanket statement of 'nobody'. There are crazies and exceptions to every rule. Individuals who make exceptional sacrifices in the interest of a group are probably those who have the strongest tendencies toward group identification.

That aside, technically every neuron in the body is independent and they only operate in the higher level sense we know as a community or collective of independent effects. If your hand lifts to protect your head, is it acting altruistically? Or is it because of a strong collective bond between the parts you identify as your body? Is it because that group of completely independent parts that are acting in a concert you identify as self knows that the portion of the collective known as the hand is less essential to the collective than the portion known as the brain.

Anyway, lets drop the details of what consistutes altruism for a moment. My core point was that on some level you do identify yourself as part of a collective and the activity of the parts of the brain associated with this may be what they are measuring.

Re:Socialists have better sex.

[good soldier svejk]

Dirty, hot, raw, nasty socialist sex. Even as I write this, socialists are fucking your daughters, you capitalist pigs. They may go on to marry Biff Uppercrustington III, but they will always masturbate to the image of that dirty, smelly French socialist that fucked the living shit out of them in college.

God I wish I still had mod points. The only flaw in your otherwise acute analysis is that you left out Jewish. They will masturbate to the image of that dirty, smelly Jewish, French socialist that fucked the living shit out of them in college. A minor but important detail.

Are you sure about that?

[NDPTAL85]

This is all assuming of course that dirty socialist sex is better than affluent wife swapping/swinging/orgy sex in high end neighborhoods.

I think not!

Re:Are you sure about that?

[spun]

As someone who has tried both affluent swinging and dirty socialist hippy swinging, there is no comparison. The affluent are too uptight. Plus, most suburban swingers are in their 40s or 50s, who wants to tap that? Most dirty hippy socialist swingers are hardbodies in their twenties. No fucking contest.

Re:Are you sure about that?

[stinerman]

As someone who has tried both affluent swinging and dirty socialist hippy swinging

Given that this is slashdot and you have a low 4-digit UID, I don't think I'm too far off base to say:

Pics or it didn't happen.

Re:Selfish Bastard Number One: +1

[maxwell demon]

Not here?

Re:Isn't Randroidism dead?

[pluther]

Nah, there's still a few of them around.

I help run a non-profit organization that sets up computers and related technology to schools, orphanages, medical clinics, and the like in third-world countries.

One of our annual fundraisers is at a science fiction convention in Seattle, and every year there we get at least a couple of them come to our booth and try to explain how we're such terrible people for doing this, and don't we know we're only making them weaker and hurting America and so on.

OK, it's actually more amusing than annoying usually. I've read a couple of her books, and like pointing out all the logic holes in them. They usually run off though as soon as I start doing that, though, sadly...

Re:Scientists Had to Look Twice

[Quiet_Desperation]

That's a really uncharitable viewpoint.

Just in Results Disputed

[ajnsue]

... the studies findings were just formally retracted when it was discovered that the cells composing the alleged "Altruism" center of the brain - were in fact only exhibiting this response in an honest effort to make the researchers feel better about themselves...

hI

[SnarfQuest]

We're from the USO, let us attach this little box to your head, then we can discuss your donation.

Only if you count "churches" as "charities."

[StarKruzr]

That's a nice try, though.

Re:Altruism? Nonsense.

[TheWoozle]

That's a non-sequitur. Since when does altruism = not doing what you want? If you *want* to help people without any expectation of personal gain, does that mean you're not being altruistic?

You might be suggesting that people who want to help others receive pleasure from doing so, and in that sense they are really motivated by the expectation of satifaction. But then you'd have to explain *why* helping others produces pleasure... which brings us back to the point of identifying the area of the brain involved.

Re:By conclusion, Ayn Rand wrote for money?

[UbuntuDupe]

Actually, I'm just implying that Ayn Rand, rightly or wrongly, placed a low value on altruism, and therefore, if propensity for altruism is reflected in something that appears in a brain scan, whatever the most striking difference between her brain scan and the average is the place where altruism would manifest. (And Rand's promotion of her philosophy was not necessarily itself altruistic.)

Would you agree with that?

Gunpoint Lab Rats

[Ungrounded Lightning]

On top of that, they are volunteers?

Umm, in a study on altruism, there would have to be (at least) two separate groups, one which was paid, and one that donated their time...

Good point. And another group should be forced to participate at gunpoint.

Back when I attended the Big U, one of the requirements for completing any Psych classes was to have participated in at least one psych study. A humanities minor was required for graduation, and if you picked Psych you had to be a lab rat. Typically this occurred during the intro psych course - parallel with a heavy load of other classes. It was considered an onerous obligation.

Would that do for "forced to participate"?

(Interestingly, in my case this was during the Vietnam draft period, and if you were initially registered in a region with a high draft quota you'd be snapped up in a heartbeat if you ever had a semester where you didn't have (credits needed for graduation) * (semesters completed) / (nominal semesters required - typically eight) of passing credit. So if you didn't do your rat-race and thus didn't pass the psych class you'd be off to boot camp and the jungles for a couple years - and hunted down by armed feds if you didn't go willingly. Would that qualify for "at gunpoint"?

Ghandi's a bad example.

[Medievalist]

Despite his non-violent rhetoric, Ghandi's political activities caused a tremendous amount of sectarian and racist violence, which he was never able to control.

A better example of your point would be some of the Tibetan Bhuddists - if you REALLY REALLY piss them off, they will douse themselves in gasoline and (carefully, with due consideration for bystanders) IMMOLATE THEMSELVES! Take that, you opressors, guess we showed you what for!

Yeah, I don't worry much about those guys getting out of control.

Re:Ghandi's a bad example.

[Ingolfke]

Thank you... that would be better example... I mean except for the pollution and using up our fossil fuels an all :)

Re:Why should thinking of others be altruistic??

[redelm]

Agreed. The main question is the timeline for benefits. The ability to delay gratification. The recognition of others as posessing independant choice you'd best consider. Kids are an obvious example in both senses.

Even Ayn Rand ["The Virtue of Selfishness"} said "The better the mind, the longer the range [of planning]".

Predators [noncooperators]mot certainly exist. In a balanced cycle with their prey.

Clearly the seminal work in Dick Cheney's youth

[Eternal Vigilance]

What do you say about all your liberal high school English reading lists now?

You know, the Bush family is from Connecticut...and Clemens started out as a reporter.

Re:Isn't Randroidism dead?

[orkysoft]

Odd. In the thread above, it was explained that the Randists object to FORCED charity, yet these people objected to your totally voluntary fund-raiser. Is the explanation given in the thread above erroneous, or were those people a little too far to the left of the IQ curve?

Also, are those logic holes in Rand's books themselves, or in the interpretations of those who seem to see her views as some kind of infallible truth?

Re:Prepare yourself for death threats, bub.

[UbuntuDupe]

That observation triggered the holocaust denial reflex big time... The only way to get more incoherent hate mail is to criticise Apple.

Oh really? Have you ever tried criticizing Ubuntu?

Duke researchers

[JonLatane]

Duke researchers wouldn't know altruism if it hit them in the face. It would just be perceived as "unwise decisions."

I kid, I kid. But seriously now, go UNC!

maybe this is just biophilia in action?

[ankhank]

Other work on that brain area says it's involved in perception of 'animate' motion --- motion that appears to be alive, intentional. Basically motion that doesn't follow physical laws of motion.

So perhaps the better we are at telling something's animate, the more 'altruistic' we are?

E.O. Wilson's "biophilia" perhaps?

Child-rearing ?

[bibi-pov]

Is that a new politically correct term for pedophilia, which of course is an altruistic way to "share the love" or something ? :)

Re:By conclusion, Ayn Rand wrote for money?

[h2_plus_O]

Actually, I'm just implying that Ayn Rand, rightly or wrongly, placed a low value on altruism

This is an interesting conclusion to draw, and not the one I came to in my reading of Rand. She did say good things about being 'selfish' and bad things about being 'selfless', but she did so in a very particular context, in which their meanings were (in her view) perversely inverted. Unfortunately, Rand was not as adept as her contemporary, George Orwell (who called it 'doublespeak' in his book 1984) at providing quotable, simple pithy catch phrases- she instead favored long and somewhat dramatic exposition to convey her points, and her message is generally poorly understood as a result.

In a 'Randian' view, the productive and inventive are the ones whose effort and ingenuity create the rising tide that floats all boats. She describes their behavior as 'selfish', in the sense that they deliver to the market what people value the most, and are paid accordingly. In other words, there's an intersection of mutual interest between buyer and seller and the free market will signal how best to serve humanity.
In the same context, she articulated 'selflessness' as a cynical meme designed to induce the wealthy to give up their their wealth and power to its authors, in exchange for not being chased out of town by a pitchfork-waving mob, or having their wealth/power appropriated 'for the common good'. In other words, the advocates of 'selflessness', in a Randian view, are not the champions of the common man they style themselves to be; they are parasites, racketeers, and thugs willing to ransom civil behavior and freedom for wealth and power (without, of course, having had to create any real contribution to society of their own).

To imply that Rand "placed a low value on altruism" without noting the context in which she wrote is arguably to fall prey to the very doublespeak she and Orwell decried.

Re:By conclusion, Ayn Rand wrote for money?

[UbuntuDupe]

Yes, I understand you feel the need to show everyone how well-read you are, but this:

To imply that Rand "placed a low value on altruism" without noting the context in which she wrote is arguably to fall prey to the very doublespeak she and Orwell decried.

doesn't follow. It only "falls prey" to assuming people know what I'm talking about and that I chose not to rehash it in the interest of saving time. For whatever definition of "altruism" you want to use, my claim holds true as long as you carry the same meaning through.

If it makes you feel any better: "Gosh, you sure have a big dick."

Communism would work if people didn't suck

[misanthrope101]

Communism (or socialism, or whatever you call it) would only work if people didn't suck. Not only that, it would be spontaneous if people didn't suck. We have capitalism because greed is the most consistently successful way to motivate people--what's more, large swaths of the population are mystified and suspicious of anyone who is motivated by anything else. See OSS, communes, co-ops, etc. The world is the way it is not because we haven't found the right way to tweak society (or the legal system, or the tax code) but because we are the way we are. People don't share, and as soon as a few of them do (on a scale larger than a few friends, and often even then) freeloaders immediately ruin it for everyone, almost on principle.

It's not that I mind capitalism, only that I think it's made a virtue of selfishness, and we pride ourselves on taking as much out as possible. No, I don't have an alternative. But as Jesus said (and Tolstoy later wrote a great book about), "The Kingdom of God is Within You." If we would act differently, most of the problems we faced would go away. If we made the mutual decision to share but not abuse that sharing, poverty would vanish. If we made the mutual decision to not wage war, there would be no war. We are the problem. Some days I find myself rooting for the meteor.

Re:Communism would work if people didn't suck

[rtb61]

Actually greed only motivates a minority of people, these contemptible individuals go on to user more coercive techniques to force the rest of us to attempt to fulfil their insatiable lusts. Techniques used include starvation, adverse exposure to harsh weather conditions, torture, indefinite imprisonment and even threats against the future well being of family members (hmm sounds like the current US legal system).

Certainly mass media has gone out of it's way to promote greed as good and normal but the internet is really starting to demonstrate that the majority of people consider greed to be nothing but a curse upon society.

As for the egotistical freaks who just can't get enough no matter how many millions they already have, the PR BS machine that tried to make them look good is finally loosing its momentum against the beliefs and moral values of the majority who always pay the price for that bloated and corrupt minority.

Ditto for capitalism...

[taiwanjohn]

Communism COULD work if you had a way to sort out the most altruistic individuals for committee positions, the next most altruistic individuals for bureaucrats, and keep the greedy away from power or resources that could be used to harm society.

The same is true of any government system, no?

--jrd

Re:Ditto for capitalism...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Absolutely, though communism is an ECCONOMIC, not GOVERNMENTAL system, and so is capitalism. The problem is that capitalism discourages such discrimination. In fact, capitalism rewards those who are the most dishonest, in all cases. Capitalism is anti-government in that it rewards CEOs far in excess of anybody else on the planet, including those at the highest levels of government (President George W. Bush's salary is a mere $200,000/year).

Re:$30 for a paper from Nature -- fuck that shit

[crush]

Whoever modded this as "Troll" is an imbecile. It may be rude, but there's no question that Nature is restricting the flow of knowledge and making an inappropriate profit.

Re:Isn't Randroidism dead?

[pluther]

Odd. In the thread above, it was explained that the Randists object to FORCED charity, yet these people objected to your totally voluntary fund-raiser. Is the explanation given in the thread above erroneous, or were those people a little too far to the left of the IQ curve?

Well, halivar, above, posted a few quotes from Rand showing an opposition to any charity, forced or not.

And, whether these quotes were taken out of context or not, this does seem to be the attitude of most of her followers.

It was also the impression I got from reading her books: Altruism was, at best, something to look down on and sneer at, at worst a dangerous concept likely to lead to the destruction of society. Of course, "society" itself was a pretty bad idea, as it led to people being forced to cooperate, which gets in the way of inherent selfishness, so is bad.

At one point in Atlas Shrugged, she has one character renting a car to another for a quarter. Why not just let him use it as a courtesy? Why because that would be selfless, thus horribly wrong to do.

Maybe in her other writings she's got a different point of view, but I've only read her novels. But I don't think I've encountered any "Objectivists" that have ever espoused any ideas not mentioned therein.

Also, are those logic holes in Rand's books themselves, or in the interpretations of those who seem to see her views as some kind of infallible truth?

In the books themselves.

For instance, in Atlas Shrugged, we have a bunch of industrialists - the "thinkers" of the world - fed up with having to work together for a common good so they go off, secede from society, and all work together, for the common good of themselves. Note that, of course, every "thinking" person in the world did this, leaving just the non-thinkers to try to run things. (Which, of course, makes it all fall apart.) Any of them could have made billions by betraying the group, but they won't because selfishness is a virtue, and thus they all selflessly support it.

When I mention "thinkers" and put it in quotes like that, that's because that's very much what Rand, and her followers, do. The world is divided into two classes, one of which is smaller but, by right of being able to think and understand better, is naturally the leader of the other, larger, class. All of Rand's followers, of course, believe themselves to be in this "elite" class which, conveniently, requires no actual deeds as proof that you belong there.

This division is especially pounded in in The Fountainhead, which centers on a young architect who, though of course brilliant and far superior to those around him, can't sell his designs. Never mind the idea that, by any kind of "objective" (to borrow a word and use it correctly for a change) measurement, a good architect would be one whose designs sell well. A thing is worth only what others will pay for it, right? No, in this case, everyone knows he's the better architect, but the senior architects are holding him back because they know if they let him go out unfettered he'll make them all look like the old has-beens they are. This is a very appealing philosophy for adolescent males, of course, and anybody else who wants to believe they are hidden geniuses but don't have any actual accomplishments to back it up.

This works in the worlds of Rand's novels, where everybody fits neatly into one of these two classes, and knows exactly which group they're in, and which group everyone else is in as well. The non-industrialists in Atlas Shrugged know that they're not fit to lead. They acknowledge that they just want to be in charge but, as they are the wrong class of people to be making decisions, want the industrialists to come back and think for them.

Re:By conclusion, Ayn Rand wrote for money?

[h2_plus_O]

For whatever definition of "altruism" you want to use, my claim holds true as long as you carry the same meaning through.

Does it? In that case, you either meant that she placed a low value on [thuggery|caving in to thuggery] or she placed a low value on doing stuff that benefits others. One of these is accurate, the other is not. Rand placed a very high value on liberty, and regarded true altruism (that is, the variety that is freely chosen) to be an expression of integrity, which she also valued highly.

Re:Isn't Randroidism dead?

[orkysoft]

Thank you for your reply.

I had never heard of this author or philosophy before I started reading Slashdot, and last week, I noticed Atlas Shrugged in the bookstore, and I remembered that it was that book that sparked so much controversy here.

I was wondering whether the author was actually endorsing the objectivist philosophy, or just writing about it because it made for a good story.

I think it's a twisted view of things, to see charity as evil. It's actually a kind of insurance (distributing risk), and has been a powerful survival mechanism for people for millennia.