Slashdot Mirror
The Drive For Altruism Is Hardwired
Dekortage writes "The Washington Post is reporting on recent neuroscience research indicating that the brain is pre-wired to enjoy altruism — placing the interests of others ahead of one's own. In studies, '[G]enerosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex... Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.' Such research 'has opened up a new window on what it means to be good,' although many philosophers over recorded history have suggested similar things."
Altruism != generosity even if they go hand in hand.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
The principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others. For those that didnt know.
What does this say about people who complain about the GPL and open source? (The GPL is a cancer. Open source is un-American.)
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Now we just need to develop a reliable test for this, and make it a requirement for public office.
So I guess chicks that put a man's sexual interests ahead of her own...REALLY lights up her own pleasure response!!!
I gotta make a note of this one...sounds like material to submit for an investigational grant!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
what they are saying is people are only generous because it feels good. That is, if it did not give them that feel good feeling, they would not be generous. Thus, everyone is generous for their own selfish purposes. Ergo, everyone is 100% selfish.
Go ahead, try to follow my logic. I dare you.
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
Well, I wasn't, but that's because it gave me more pleasure for someone else to get it.
Apologies in advance for what is about to be a match to an evolution vs. creation flamewar, but I'm in a bit of a cheeky mood and feel like "getting some back" in this old argument.
Specifically, I've been getting a bit tired of hearing the old "science disproves the existence of a higher being" B.S. that's constantly thrown around. I recall it starting with the baseless Human Genome Confirms Evolution (archive) story a few years back. The author of the article was quick to jump to the conclusion that finding fewer genes than expected *proved* that man must have evolved. (Too bad we never saw his formal proof of that. Would have been fascinating to see how well it stood up to scrutiny.)
Now that's not to say that the theological side of the argument hasn't made some pretty dumb steps itself. e.g. Intelligent Design can't be a true scientific theory, because science can only deal with that which is inside our universe. If we are positing the existence of an extra-universal being who set the universe in motion, then science does not have the reach to make that determination. Science is restricted to the laws of the Universe in which we inhabit. It would be very poor form for a being who trancends time to be an inhabitant of a universe that would forcably constrain Him. Therefore "God" is a concept that must be dealt with in Theology, not the investigation of the laws of nature. (Even Newton was smart enough to know this!)
However, this argument usually gets a "thinking logically, if X happened, is it not more likely that it was a natural occurance rather than the hand of an almighty being?" Which, of course, completely misses the point. (And spurs quite a few eyerolls.) If we are in a Universe put in motion by an extra-universal being, then the laws of nature are *His* laws of nature. They work according to how He says they should work.
Again, since I'm feeling cheeky, I figured it would be fun to respond with a similarly goofy argument:
It seems to me that if man is hardwired with an sense of altruism and a desire to believe in a super-being, there can be no other answer to this question than the existence of a Creator.
Ok, go have fun tearing each other up over that. I guarantee that you'll get nowhere, but it might be fun to watch. Lame noodly-appendage references and ID arguments, HO!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I'm broke; give me money :)
Get off my launchpad!
First post
It is thus logical that a truly superior human will learn to abandon any primitive altruistic tendencies.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
If it's so "basic" to the brain then why is it the exception in human society and not the rule?
Sure you've got the basic need as a parent to provide for the family and to others of your pack/tribe. But "altruism" in its known sense as just giving to somebody you don't even know? If it's so "basic" we'd all be in the homeless kitchens in Thanksgiving (in the US) instead of at home.
I know it may be slightly warm and fuzzy, but imagine a world where we lifted each other up, instead of constantly tearing each other down. Not to say that due criticism would be curtailed, but instead that our efforts be focused on others, instead of ourselves. The world would be much easier if we weren't constantly bombarded with what could be summed up as "drama" from others and instead worked together. It's just really hard when everyone around you is a stranger, the idea of family has been all but lost, and the world is going at a pace that you can hardly keep up with.
...that's similar to that when you get food and/or sex from doing "good things", doesn't that possibly mean that doing good things is historically/genetically programmed into us as one common way to get more more food and sex? And if you are doing good deeds in anticipation of that "dinner and a movie," it isn't really altruistic, is it?
warning, possible flamebait follows:
If you're a Christian, is it impossible to be altruistic? If you do good deeds, don't you ingratiate yourself witht he Lord, thereby increasing your chance of being admitted to heaven? So, even if you don't really "get" anything for doing good deeds, you're still going to get a reward for it in the afterlife right? Which would mean it wasn't really altrustic.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
God's not gonna be pleased to hear about this one...
What this is saying is that people are basically good. This makes you wonder what influence causes us to behave in the selfish, malicious manner we have all come to love.
If this pans out, it's gonna play hell with objectivist theory.
"Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable."
So, if altruism creates pleasure in the brain, is it still considered altruism? You ARE getting something out of it, after all.
I knew I should have paid more attention in my humanities courses, particularly Philosophy.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Altruism can impart a survival and reproductive advantage, although not directly but indirectly. Altruism can benefit the survivability of your immediate community. A stronger community increases your chance of survival in hard times. Its the same argument for morality being involved.
I'd suspect a lot of our higher functions, such as altruism, charity, morals, and the like are influenced a lot more by our genetic programming than people would like to believe.
Drugs, sex, violence, pigging out, now altruism. All are chemical reactions that make us feel good without necessarily doing good. Are humanity's signals disconnected from their results?
technical writing / development
It is co-operation. The human being is a social animal because if you don't watch each other's backs, the sabre tooth tiger will first eat the other guy and then eat you. (A simplistic example of why if we are all selfish, we will all just die out).
If the evidence is that giving triggers a similar part of the brain as food or sex, might it be that those who give are anticipating receiving food or sex?
...."
-----------
"Honey, take a look at this paycheck. Want it?"
"Sure. I made meatloaf. Mrs. Green called and they are having a garage sale at the school, to raise money for the dance. You know about the dance, the one I told you about last week when we were picking out the wallpaper for the kitchen. Mrs. Green says they should be able to open up the whole gym for the dance, unless the football team wins at State."
"It's a really big paycheck."
"Are you even listening to me? You don't care at all! All I am to you is a cook and bedwarmer. Why won't you
-----------
[I don't remember my point.]
sigs, as if you care.
there could be many more parts of the brain that derive immense pleasure in the P.T. Barnum Effect: scamming some poor chump out of his hard earned money. Or from the Highlander Movie Viewer Effect: lopping the head off of some S.O.B. just because he's annoying.
Altruism is also observed in vampire bats, curiously, who remember who shared blood with them previously, and who did not. Altruism is a simple kind of savings scheme. When you are lucky, you share. When you are unlucky, you borrow. It depends on a good memory and a set of rules that have to be instinctive, so everyone agrees with them. (No point if everyone randomly invents "good" and "bad" behaviour.)
Guilt, on the other hand, is waiting for the blow to fall. We don't feel guilty when there's no risk of being punished, and we don't act altruistic when there's no-one watching.
So even if the moral compass is in-built, it only activates in the presence of others.
My blog
If I want to give money to a charity, that's selfish, but by denying my selfish desire and refusing to give to charity, I become altruistic.
Chalk another one up to the big list of predispositions I cleansed myself of...
Go to hell, communists. You democrats are trying to destroy the United States' only hold over China: They need Microsoft software. When they can get crappy free solutions to do the same, the United States will just continue to become indebted to China and other countries. And it will be all your fault, you Hillary fanboys. For the sake of national security, free software efforts must become against the law. Besides, free software destroys our free market, creating monopolies, by selling at excessively low prices. Would Microsoft get away with giving away free products to take competitors' market share away? No. Neither should these ****ing tree-hugging, Prius-driving free software zealots. The captcha is appropriately "planking." Yes, I am the same Anonymous Coward.
the lack of altruism in society today is a direct result of people becoming more "civilized" and less "humane". We've all heard the old saying about how individuals are smart, while crowds/mobs are very dumb. Maybe this is simply a function of acceptable behavior in a civilization trumping the inate humanity in people.
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
these people were obviously conditioned to expect food and sex in exchange for sums of money.
I see alot of people discussing what this means... It's all very simple. Way back in time when we all lived in small tribes we were surrounded mostly by people who we shared DNA with. Most of the people around us were immediate or extended family. We can also assume that a group of people who are sometimes generous with each other will survive better than people who are strictly selfish. If we put those two facts together and stir it with some evolution... what do you get? People who help each other are more likely to survive as a group. So if we have two tribes, one family that has only selfish tendencies and one that has generous tendencies; the generous family is more likely to survive as a whole. There's no secret here. Nothing ground breaking has happened, simply more evidence for evolution.
So when they pass the plate in church, it's kind of like public sex?
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
According to evolutionary theory: since society benefits the individual evolution ought to favor traits that help form and maintain societies. For instance: faith and altruism. I would imagine other animals that live in colonies or collectives have similar mechanisms. Perhaps not faith, but feel reward for performing whatever their limited role is before dying without the opportunity or even ability to reproduce.
What's most surprising is that scientists are still surprised by this, as if they have never heard of evolution or thought about it's affect on society. Perhaps these are the same scientists who agree that emotions are in primitive parts of our brain yet insist "primitive" animals don't have emotions.
I'm not sure why the Post is just getting around to this when everybody else was discussing it back in March:
USA Today
The BBC
Reuters. This last one has some interesting speculation on why altruism may be related to the similarly-entrenched idea that it's not OK to kiss your sister.
I was going to put something troll-ish in here about the fact that Slashdot seems to be serving up quite a bit of this warmed-over stuff recently--days and days after it's hit the mainstream news outlets. It would probably be a more effective use of time to go and read the article about Google and malware...
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
another study that aids reckless selfish people in justifying and rationalizing their habits and routines. don't get me wrong on this. my mother has worked with special / mr / autistic children since i was about 13, and she is still in the field all these years later. i, myself couldnt handle that type of work, but she genuinely cares about the children (amazing how few of those types of teachers exist in the usa anymore). my problem is that people use a supposed diagnosis to back up their actions.
"oh, sorry i threw that coffee in your face, im bipolar"
who cares? im bipolar, when i was a child they tried to put me on lithum. i was one of those kids that refused to take medication, and during the initial years of my diagnosis --i also-- used it as an excuse. my add and bipolar2 became my pass to do whatever i wanted whenever i wanted. a few years later i realized just how childish that is and snapped out of it--but alot of people dont. ever. does that make me better than them? no. i do believe i have the seemingly rare ability to judge myself and my actions. im convinced other people had it, too, they choose not to use it until it became lost in a perpetual habit.
some of those autistic children were something else. almost like savants. one was really mild mr, he couldn't add 1 and 1 regardless of how many times you told him how-- but, if you played a rap song one time, he could repeat the lyrics word for word (and did, much to my mothers disliking.)
i always thought as a child "i cant wait to grow up, adult life will be great, all this childish nonsense will be a thing of the past" only to find out, the childish nonsense doesn't disappear, it matures into something far worse.
I mean other than electroshock or a blow to the head?
As I write this, one person owes me $80, another owes me $75, one owes me $30, and two more owe me ten each. I'm storing three homeless friends' possessions in my basement for them until they can get back on their feet.
Somebody help me! I'm worse than a junkie or a runner!
-mcgrew
Humanity is a social animal. We form packs. We are hardwired to be pack-supporting; you see a huge natural disaster and people rush to the area to help...They don't turn and run the other way. A child gets lost in the mountains, and you get hordes of volunteers tromping around and getting themselves lost in the search.
This is not behaviour that is smart for the individual. Risking your own life for others? Not something you see often in the animal kingdom. But it is something that occurs among humans, and it is a big part of what we consider "good".
Philosophically, ethics falls into two distinct branches: relativism, and objectivism.
Relativism basically states that good and evil are relative...Relative to you personally, relative to your culture, relative to your psychological state. It fits with people's differing views on what is right and wrong; I think it's right, you think it's wrong, we're both correct. Basically it's worthless. If you're a relativist, morals are meaningless, because you can only apply moral judgements to yourself, and what the hell point is there in that?
Objectivism states that good and evil are objective...That there are things that everyone should agree are right and everyone should agree are wrong. Logically, objectivism must be correct, because the alternative is relativism, and relativism is worthless. But no one agrees about right and wrong, so how can it be right?
But when you look at it in terms of humanity as a social animal, it becomes a little clearer. The "Robin Hood" story is a classic example: Stealing is bad, except when you're stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, right? Obviously the group that is being stolen from (the rich) still think it's bad, but since the vast majority of people are not rich, historically it's been considered good.
Mill came up with the theory of Utilitarianism to attempt to explain this sort of thing: in a nutshell, whatever makes the majority happy is right, and whatever makes the majority unhappy is wrong. Politicians live by this one, because they never have to actually consider the greater good, they just have to make 51% happy until the next election. So adding a tax on gasoline to reduce consumption and using the money to pay for better public transit and research into cleaner energy, while probably the "right" thing to do, would never fly because it would piss off 80% of people and the guy'd get canned in the next election by someone running on a "repeal the gas tax" platform.
So utilitarianism clearly needs some work...Reduce "good" into "happy" and you end up with nothing but bread and circuses, because that would make people happy, and happy == good. This, in a nutshell, is the problem with democracy.
So we have a hardwired inclination toward altruism. It definitely explains a few things. The problem is, humanity has a lot of hardwiring. We have tons of instincts, reflexes, automatic responses. Most people learn to override those things as part of their day to day life. Can't live purely on instinct. So what value is it to have a piece of altrustic hardwiring in a society that preaches just the opposite? Altruism is an irrational response, from the point of view of the thing that's about to put its squishy coropreal self in harm's way.
Still, it's nice to know that, if you're trying to be altrusitic, if you're trying to be selfless, you're instinctive responses are going to be in line with your conscious actions. Maybe everyone...most everyone...really does have some good in them, whether they like it or not.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
For one, the research doesn't show that altruism is "hardwired", despite what Shankar Vedantam writes in the Washington Post. The brain has very little "hardwired" responses, especially for such complex and abstract behavior as "altruism". There are organs, nerve bundles, and the like, and surely some consequential neural connects at all scales of influence are determined by human genetics in a very consistent behavior (eg, the 12 cranial nerves). But even those "hardwired" connections aren't well understood, nor are the possibilities that environment after conception can make them very different.
For another, just because altruism stimulates (some of) the same brain parts that sex and good food stimulate, doesn't mean that altruism is not "higher moral behavior". If higher moral behavior didn't stimulate neurons that we feel as pleasure, then higher moral behavior wouldn't feel good. Why not? Does god hate pleasure? Must all pleasure come from doing wrong? What kind of sick, immoral person thinks like that?
This is just another journalist copout: we're not really good, or even responsible for what we do, because "we're wired that way". It's stupid, immoral, and should feel awful. But journalists like Vedantam and their editors seem to like it.
--
make install -not war
Behavioral neuroscience has been putting out some interesting findings (look at any issue of Scientific American Mind), even if they are easily distorted and used as excuses for crappy behavior. That includes, IMHO, conservatives who are looking to neuro to justify their worldview - selfishness, selfishness, selfishness. But reality cuts in many ways, and at the end of the day science is going to reflect the whole of human nature expressed across all society's stripes. So while there is plenty of work supporting the reality of selfish, cowardly and lazy citizen that conservatism presupposes, the other side of human nature is becoming equally represented, in research like TFA talks about.
On an even happier note, game theory continues to undercut the "rational economic actor" that underlies the precious free-marketeering so many slashdotters jerk their knees to... All in all, it looks like, while behavioral neuro is going to spawn a thousand shitty covers of Time Magazine ("Are You Hard-Wired to Hate Mexicans?") at the end of the day, a lot of bull is going to get cut, and people will be brought down to earth, de-ideologized. That's good.
Ignore these heathen scientist and their secular morality fantasies, everyone going to heaven knows that true morals come from [insert religion] and atheists are immoral swine. Oh, and don't judge others.
So I guess these researchers have never played EVE Online?
Scammers, pirates, ore thieves, gankers, suiciders, n00b killers, bullies and griefers.
(of course, there are some nice folks still playing. I salute you, 3 people outside my corp I've never met)
Any philosopher worth his salt could have told you something similar to this. No one does something they don't like to do. Period. You always do want you want to do.
It is a tautology. That you find pleasure in helping people isn't a surprise because people help others. But not all the time. So being lazy or unhelpful is in the mix too.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I've tried that bit about generosity being as pleasurable as sex, but the hookers still insist on cash in advance.
Have gnu, will travel.
But, taking money from you and spending it sound like work. I don't like work but I'll do it anyway for the altruistic good of society.
Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous
SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.
The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.
In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.
The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.
When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."
For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."
Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.
Outside professional circles, he's best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.
One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him). Another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.
Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact.
He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.
His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light.
His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.
The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.
Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth.
All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.
"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."
Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.
In an interview, Brooks said he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as we
"I'd unravel any riddle
For any individ'le
In trouble or in pain"
What?
Assuming that the reason we have altruism is because as a species, one of our survival strategies is to work together (like ants, bees and wolves), then the brain needs a method of motivation towards the behaviors that optimize long term survival of the species (e.g. food, sex, helping others when appropriate, etc.) This attribute is probably not found in sharks.
So, your logic is, well, logical.
[G]enerosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex...
Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb.
I submitted this article, largely because it is of personal interest. I do a lot of communications-related work for nonprofit organizations (U.S. and international) and I know how hard these people work to raise money. So when scientists come along and say, "Look, people are predisposed to be generous/altruistic!", I feel like asking the old question from those Wendy's commercials: where's the beef?
I think the fatal flaw in the research is that participants were responding to hypothetical and closely monitored situations. It cost them nothing (except a little time) to make an altruistic choice; there was no actual money involved. And when people are watching you make a choice, you tend to make the one that looks more acceptable. I'd like to see another test: send people $100 in the mail along with donation forms for a bunch of charities, and see how much money those charities get back via that form. Throw in the incentive of a matching donation program (e.g. for every dollar they donate, you will also donate a dollar). I would be shocked if people sent back a third of the money you sent them.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
I under no circumstances like to just give hard earned bread crumbs away just like that. Do I care if people in other places starve? Yes... but can my bread crumbs really help them without impacting me? Definitely not.
If the 1-2 % of the human population that has 98% of the capital in this world dispenced and let go of their capital it would help MUCH more than us "normal" providing for both poor and rich.
I deem the article a lobyistic plant at best to sifen even more money from the ones who barely have any.
Trade always and *only* occurs because that which is received is valued more than that which is given away in exchange. That's only reason a person gives up "this" for "that". Both parties by definition benefit. It's also just a true with all actions which are chosen. As such, you are posting or reading on this thread by having traded away the possibility to have done something else at that moment. This is also true of charity. Nor is charity universal. People don't make donations to the "general charity fund". People are more likely to get married to persons of their own race. Why also wouldn't they be more charitable to subjectively more valued "biased" charitable causes? You know, people with breast cancer or who know those with that disease seem more likely to devote resources and energy to "their" charitable cause than some other non-related charity. People discriminate against some they feel are "not worthy of charity". As such, the only way to maximize wealth *and* maximize charity is free trade. That irrefutable conclusion runs 100% counter to scripted government justifications for interference and theft. First of all, the study is flawed, because it asks a politically motivated question to a demographically flawed sample. It's as groundbreaking a revelation as some conclusions about "white lies". It should also be noted charity is a *voluntary* act. Voting to take others' property (for whatever reasons, including "charitable") by a means such as taxation is not altruism. But you don't hear people advocating "no rape without representation". Rape is rape, and theft is theft. So let's keep that clear when talking about alleged "altruism". That people believe they own their own bodies, that people choose, that people willingly act, is by it's very nature selfish. That's why people are pieces of meat that anyone can do whatever they feel like doing to, which would be a more true form of "altruism".
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
If we didn't get something out of giving, we wouldn't do it.
I can say without cynicism that if I didn't get incredible joy out of caring for my infant son (who is teething, very expressive about it, and quick as a ninja monkey) I don't know that any force on earth could make me change a dirty diaper- yet somehow it's strangely enjoyable and I come back for more.
It's pretty obvious if you think about it that we get a LOT out of contributing to others. My most-satisfying jobs have all been ones where I helped people out, my least-satisfying ones have been the ones where I couldn't tell that I was making any difference for anybody. I once put together a program to teach at-risk teens how to kayak, and when I told people what I was doing and asked for their help, they thanked me for creating the opportunity to donate gear, time, money and expertise. My experience asking for help to put the program together was quite surprising- I had thought it would be hard, they wouldn't want to, but it was the opposite: people are hungry for any chance to help others.
If you look broadly, people are willing to die in order to make a difference. People join the army in time of war to serve. They strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in a crowded market, in order to serve. People will open their checkbooks and donate money, they'll give blood, they'll use their vacations to go build houses for people- there's not much people won't do for the chance to make a difference for others.
If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
Someone has 10 pieces of candy. He may split it with you any way they wish, and you can either accept his division or reject it completely, which leaves both of you with nothing. Most adults will accept a distribution up to about 70-30; any more than that and you think the decision-maker is greedy and you'll punish him by rejecting the deal. That is, you take a personal loss to enforce a notion of fairness. This is an "irrational" choice in economics, because you are not pursuing your narrow self-interest and accepting anything they give you. Interestingly, this is how children behave -- they'll take even one piece of candy and let the other have 9.
Obviously, we need these sorts of traits if we're to stick together and stop a rhino from charging. Surprise! Humans are a social species.
I guess that from now on we will have to say that the selfish jerks suffer from a mental disease instead. They will be called the Altruistically Challenged.
We are hardwired to perform altrusim, but we mostly tend to prefer our groups. This is called ethnic nepotism. A study (I can't find the link; here's a summary) performed several years ago by the political scientist Frank Salter monitored beggars in Moscow and found that Russians preferred giving to beggars in this order: Russians, Moldavians (Eastern Europeans), and Roma (a.k.a. Gypsies).
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
Because the rich are generally conservative.
But mom! Some article on the internet says I'm hardwired to share mp3s.
This attribute is probably not found in sharks.
In sharks, the part of the brain that responds to altruism is replaced with a part that responds to well-aimed laser beams.
paintball
It is co-operation. The human being is a social animal because if you don't watch each other's backs, the sabre tooth tiger will first eat the other guy and then eat you. (A simplistic example of why if we are all selfish, we will all just die out).
NO! Watching each other's back against a threat in a pack setting IS selfish. That's the whole point. It's selfish to act in your own self interest - that's the concept's MEANING. When a threat that's bigger than you requires teamwork for you to survive (large predators, seasonal weather, etc), then there is both cultural and biological evolutionary pressure to do the things that help keep that team (the family/clan/tribe/pack/herd) glued together and aware of the other members' status/condition. Each member of the pack can face vulnerable circumstances (pregnancy, injury, etc), so cultivating - at that small family/tribe level - some reciprocal ass-covering is entirely, productively, and rationally selfish.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I would point out that this may lead us to understand the true foundation of morality and the laws that govern us everday. Moreover, as the article stated, it might give us clues as to why some neglect that morality when committing horrendous acts with any empathy at all.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
"Neuroscience research, Greene said, is finally explaining a problem that has long troubled philosophers and moral teachers: Why is it that people who are willing to help someone in front of them will ignore abstract pleas for help from those who are distant, such as a request for a charitable contribution that could save the life of a child overseas?"
Or certain groups who work tirelessly on emotional issues like telling gays they are bad or saving the unborn but couldn't give a rat's ass about global warming sinking entire island countries of the already-born underwater...
Hey, wait, can I interpret this article to say they those who disagree with me are acting on animal instinct while I am using higher brain functions? It feels good, so it must be true.
I was wondering when the defense of selfishness would begin. As capitalism and the free market are based on the Selfish Actor theory, which has been proven to be inadequate even before this finding, perhaps we need to rethink our economic system. Spin it all you like, people don't act in their own rational self interest, this has been shown over and over again in hundreds of different kinds of experiments. Our system is based on the premise that they will. Therefore, our entire economic system is based on a false premise. By focusing on the selfish aspects of our behavior, it actually encourages them. People would rather be selfless, but in a selfish system, being selfless means you get taken advantage of. So people choose to be selfish because our system requires it.
The natural world and systems such as our economy are incredibly complex. One could find evidence of almost anything if one looked at them carefully enough. People look to nature and natural systems, and for the most part, they see what they want to see. Selfish people want evidence that the world is selfish in order to justify their feelings. So they look at the world, they see selfishness, and they discount everything else.
There is no evidence that evolution and capitalism are effective because they involve selfishness. It is equally valid to say that they are effective despite this fact, and are effective because of the inherent cooperation involved. Do cells in your body compete with each other? Do divisions of a corporation compete? No, they both cooperate, and that is why a body and a whole corporation are more effective than a cell or a corporate division: cooperation, not competition.
But you keep on telling yourself that selfishness is natural, right, and good if that lets you sleep at night.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
A discussion of altruism on Slashdot, and no one's quoted from "Star Trek: Wrath of Kahn" yet. Must be 'too obvious'.
[Insert pithy quote here]
People talk about the brain being this lovely, elaborate machine. In reality, it's a mass of chemical signals and nerves that were selected over millions of years by evolutionary pressures. Yes, there may be some parts of the brain that trigger pleasurable feelings when giving to others. There's also clearly parts of the brain that trigger pleasurable feelings when taking things from others.
Your mind is really a collection of competing and cooperating neurons and signaling mechanisms. Complex concepts like "altruism" get generated by billions of nerve cells doing their thing. It's a classic example of emergent behavior.
Romans 2: 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. (NIV)
Even the nonreligious "Gentiles" are accountable to God since all have the requirements of the law written on their hearts. It seems these scientists have found evidence to confirm this.
In other news, Mother Teresa has been demoted from sainthood. Authorities explained: "Apparently there's no longer any virtue in being altruistic anymore." Riiiiight.
I always liked the take one of my economics professors had on the concept of rational behavior: "All behavior is rational. That's not the interesting question. The interesting question is how people are measuring the costs and the benefits."
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
My criticism of the article is that much of it is retreads old studies that have looked at how people with certain forms of brain damage are less empathic than the average person. Ergo logically an undamaged brain has a higher empathy/altruistic level and that is a GOOD thing. Which others extrapolate to pointing towards the existence of God, etc.
Of more interest to me is the fact that they now have done detailed brainwave pattern analysis that showed that a "horrible" AKA evil decision sets off a mental storm between parts of the brain. From what I can determine, this storm between parts doesn't happen when a so-called "good" (altruistic) decision is to be made. Which could be construed to be a form of "hard wired" design except for one problem: Socio-pathic individuals don't seem to suffer from the mental storm. Which then leads me to another interesting question: why do normal individuals react with visceral horror to a person known to be sociopath but not to an undetected one, where some extremely attuned individuals who will react with the same visceral horror to the sociopath even when they do not know whom they are interacting with?
It is as if the very concept of differentiating the so called morally good choices from morally reprehensible choices seems to part and parcel of the human organism as well as the social implications of following those implications (admiring the saint, shunning the baby killer) -- and that -- for me is an indicator of design, not evolution.
In KJV speak, then Slashdotters, what think ye?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Since when is the Washington Post a respectable neuroscience journal? Now, if the author had even cited the original paper (PubMed) I might be impressed, because that would imply he read it. That said, the original was published in PNAS (see link above), which is pretty prestigious, but I haven't actually read it, and I've seen some god-awful stuff get printed in PNAS (and Nature and Science) simply because it sounded cool.
Thank you.
The most important observer is oneself. When you choose to behave a certain way, you are also choosing to be a certain kind of person. When you act selfishly or altruistically, you know about it. It changes who you are. This can probably be over-analyzed in terms of reinforcing neural pathways in the brain or somesuch. What matters is that we cannot escape our actions, regardless of who may or may not be watching, no matter the praise or punishment. It's the source of endless nobility and endless tragedy.
I would say it only activates in the presence of self. If not, something is missing from that self - so even then the actions define the person.
"A good marriage is based on both sides giving."
We were talking about sex, where the hell did this marriage stuff come from?
The GPL has nothing to do with altruism. Like all licensing, the GPL is intended to protect the interests of the owner.
1. The "reward" center is not the feel-good center. Reward is used in the behavioral sense -- reinforcement. Feel-good often happens at the same time. That is not due to the reward system. They both activate in parallel. Thus "enjoy" as used in the article is incorrect.
2. The origin of the reward system is the substantia nigra. It is indeed in a primitive part of the brain. As mentioned in the article (re: Damasio et al) in humans, during testing on morality/altruism/etc. it acts on the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. This is the most recently developed part of the brain. Questions of morality, or even just confusing morality with brain science, requires this recent development.
3. When part of the brain "activates" on a scan (both metabolic PET and hemodynamic MRI), that does not mean the system results activity. The scanner cannot differentiate between excitatory and inhibitory activations. In fact, "activation" is less interesting. 85% of the brain is excitatory and is spontaneously driven. The interesting stuff happens when spontaneous activity is inhibited.
4. The dopamine "reward" system is in fact inhibitory. It inhibits random or undirected activity, and "sculpts out" desired activity from the possibilities. When it is activated, the dopamine system "lights up", but as it does it stops activity elsewhere.
The WP isn't alone. I've seen actual research articles published -- meaning got peer reviewed and accepted -- that confuse scan activation with excitatory activity.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
What you say is certainly a core tenant of many Christian denominations, but not all. Whether or not there is original sin, whether or not divine grace is given or earned, the extent to which goood works can "get you in" to Heaven are all points of dispute and debate between different sects.
Do otherwise "good" people who generally do the "right" thing (in other words, they commit rare and seemingly minor sins, without malice or evil), but don't believe in Christ, still get into Heaven? If you think so, fine, but many Christians say no, which actually undermines the logic of Pascal's Wager: if I'm only following Christian teaching because I'm heding my bets in case God exists, God would see right through that that I'm not a true believer, and thus it wouldn't earn me anything. So I'd have to really *believe* in order to reap the benefits, in which case, I don't need the logic of Pascal's Wager to believe.
Now, another interesting argument is that "acting" Christian is necessary first in order to allow for the possibility of *true* belief, so by assuming the trappings you open your heart to the real thing. Something like method acting evoking real emotion, I suppose.
With quantum theory there is no objective reality and A does not necessarily equal A.
Thus does Rand's house of cards collapse.
>The GPL has nothing to do with altruism. Like all licensing, the GPL is intended to protect the interests of the owner.
Such an intention does not at all rule out altruistic motive. On the contrary, one interest of the owner may be in promoting freedoms that others may want, i.e., an altruistic interest. The GPL promotes four such freedoms. Therefore, the GPL is a tool that promotes this altruistic intent.
I don't want to diminish the scientific achievement of (starting to) identify the regions of the brain involved in altruistic versus non-altruistic behaviour.
But we've known that humans are fundamentally social creatures for a pretty long time. It's been a scientific conclusion for like 50 years. This is only news to the unimaginative homo-centric people who think anything slightly complicated about humans has to be explained in terms of free will or culture.
People have evolved to feel good being generous because it has proven helpful for people and for society as a whole in the past. Therefore, by transitive logic, people are generous because it is helpful and promotes the wellbeing of society.
That it makes them feel good is simply an intermediate step, mechanism, or bonus.
What, so scientific research is redundant because philosophers have already come up with everything?
Here's a clue: Philosophers suggest lots of things. Scientists are the ones who actually bother finding out which of those suggestions are reliable.
http://outcampaign.org/
I moved back in with my parents after I got laid off, and use their connection, you anonymously insensitive clod!
Get off my launchpad!
Well, give yourself a hand.
Get off my launchpad!
If you do good deeds, don't you ingratiate yourself witht he Lord, thereby increasing your chance of being admitted to heaven? So, even if you don't really "get" anything for doing good deeds, you're still going to get a reward for it in the afterlife right? Which would mean it wasn't really altrustic.
I'm probably making a mistake for making a religious comment on Slashdot, but here goes:
The point of doing good deeds in Christianity is not to increase your chances of going to heaven; rather Christians are called to do good deeds in response to being forgiven of their wrongdoings. Being allowed to enter heaven comes from choosing to "accept salvation." One way of looking of this is that if one chooses to acknowledge Jesus their ultimate ruler then they become a citizen of the kingdom of heaven. Not only is this person going to heaven, but they are called to live as according to the requirements of a citizen of heaven while they are still here. As such a citizen, they are asked to do 2 things above all else, love God and love and care for those around them as they would themselves.
There is, in Christianity, a notion that how you live in this life changes how you exist in the afterlife. However this proportionality is secondary in most Christian understandings to if you ultimately decide to follow Jesus or not.
NOTE: I hate speaking about Christianity as a whole because there is a wide spectrum of belief. I have tried to be ecumenical in my description as I can be. If my explanation seems inaccurate from your perspective, let me know, I'd love to improve it.
I like my beverages with warning labels!
This is in contrast to cooperation, which can very often be in your self-interest, is not necessarily a self-sacrifice, and therefore not the same as altruism.
Mine is Good
It is not good deeds and being good that gets you to heaven. It is a gift (grace) from God to everyone who wants to believe in his Son. The good deeds come as a consequence of accepting that gift, for you can not truly believe in the Lord and continue to do what you know is wrong.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
...and what does this say for the mindset of warmongers?
Seems clear that due to this uncovered evidence, the majority of us will follow this natural tendancy when we are secure enough in our own needs.
Peter Kropotkin pointed this out over 100 years ago
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
I wrote a paper a few years back for a philosophy of biology class defending altruism as an adaptive trait. Generally we look at selection as a process that takes place within a group for (or against) an individual. The problem with altruism, obviously, is that self sacrifice is not adaptive for an individual. Coming from Wyoming I tend to think of prairie dogs as an example of this. The one that stays above the surface screaming its little head off to warn the others is more likely to get snagged by a predator. However, if the process of selection includes the fitness of the group and not just that of the individual then altruism is really no problem at all. Within the herd the individual is going to share genetic traits with much if not most of the others. Just as a parent is often willing to risk it's own life for its offspring, which makes sense for individual selection, an individual risking its life for all its cousins is still protecting at least some of its own genetic traits. In effect the act of sacrifice is actually selecting for altruism as it allows the herd, with all its altruistic tendencies, to live on. Altruism is an adaptive trait, ergo "hard-wired", and should present no problem for evolutionary theory and no advantage for ID "theory".
The Architect: It is interesting reading your reactions. Your five predecessors were by design based on a similar predication, a contingent affirmation that was meant to create a profound attachment to the rest of your species, facilitating the function of the one. While the others experienced this in a very general way, your experience is far more specific. Vis-a-vis, love.
Ramen
"Generosity is inborn. Altruism is a learned perversion." - Robert Heinlein, quite a few years before this study came out.
To say that altruism is "learned" is too passive. It is not only learned (as one can learn things from cause-and-effect observations in the natural world). It is also taught, as in, instigated by other human beings who have their own selfish (and often sinister) motives.
Evil person: You should think about other people's needs instead of your own.
Potential dupe: (recognizing the existence of 6+ billion "other people") Which other people?
Evil person: (dons politician hat) That's my job to tell you whom you should think about. Pay attention!
Potential dupe: But what about my own needs?
Evil person: How selfish of you to ask that question! (dons social engineer hat) Now, on to the schools!
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
yes.. i've seen many people generous with the same smile that a paedophile, a pig or a sex abuser has...
i prefer being just "fair" than beeing a generous fucker
have a nice day!
?
I guess the scientific community has finally proven that my brain is highly dysfunctional. I can't say I'm surprised though, my ex used to communicate this to me regularly.
As you point out his genes actually gain a survivability boost. It probably feels good in order to reinforce the behaviour.
Deleted
Very well put (although you surely will get flamed for those suicide bombers)!
The most obvious hint I receive is when I travel by public transport: There are loads of people I don't know, but I can fairly rely on a safe journey. Nobody tries to kill me, nobody tries to rob me (as a rule) and if I or anyone else has trouble to manage his luggage or is to frail to manage to enter or leave the train he *will* get help from someone. It's just amazing how we can think of humans to be "egoistic" when actually altruism is the very thing that keeps our society working. It is often not rewarded and surely not enforced but in normal living it's just the most important thing to rely on. The next time you're in an elevator with people you've never seen before, just think about the simple fact that you're very probably *not* to be killed and eaten. This should tell us something.
For eternal happiness, send $1 to "Happy Dude, 1742 Evergreen Terrace".
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
You think lack of fear - "complacency" - is the root of evil? You believe the "most guilt-ridden or paranoid of people" are the most altruistic - or at least behave the least selfishly? On the contrary, I suspect they are the ones whose sense of guilt is most imposed by others - and therefore most susceptible to being lifted when that enforcement is gone.
The instrumental argument that all human motivation can be reduced to selfishness is frequently used to rationalize away guilt and responsibility for atrocious behavior. But that requires convincing oneself and others that the argument is valid. This need is even stronger for those most sensitive to or apprehensive about the judgment of others. Are the defenders of this argument insecure because of others who (perhaps hypocritically) claim superiority? Or do they secretly believe that others behave better, and are simply afraid that other people will find out - or that they will have to admit it to themselves?
Regardless, the point doesn't hold water. All people are sometimes selfish. It does not follow that all people are always selfish. Attempts to prove that they are hinge on very fuzzy or peculiar definitions of "selfish" combined with absurdly reductionist models of human behavior, often relying on an assumed human rationality that simply doesn'h hold up (e.g. misuse of the "rational man" of economics). Science is incapable of proving the point one way or the other. In the end, moral and ethical judgments must be left, as always, to human beings.
You can't prove that people are essentially selfish - though you can try to pursuade others. The question is, why? For selfish reasons?
You know, intelligent beings in general couldn't find altruism if they Googled it. That's the tongue in cheek explanation for the need to have it hardwired. If it wasn't we'd have cut down all the trees before we ever swung out of them. Intelligence at our level is to blame, I suppose. We're generally not smart enough to know what's best for us and if it wasn't built in, we'd be as good as zombies.
So let's go with this premise for a bit: most of our "good character" requires a built in urge. Can we really conclude that the war on terror is moot because our ultimate instinct will save the day? Would the mechanism for intelligence be extrapolable as an inheritance of smart experiences, based on the idea that good results become encoded in genes? Hence, is it possible to use genetic algorithms to arrive at intelligent computers?
So it's pleasurable...and therefore has selfish backing. That pretty much invalidates the whole damn thing.
The human animal is really not so complicated.
Every human being will do anything they can get away with if it means a net personal gain in the end.
You need no further explaination for 90% of human behavior than that solitary sentence.
Question everything
TFA is talking about finding that humans are not making the pure rational decisions (like the examples above) and it is hard wired.
f _needs
People who are being altruistic are satisfying *their* own needs. Self-actualization, self-esteem, and belonging. There is nothing irrational about it. See Maslow's Hierarchy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_o
There are also mathematical models that show the best strategy is to cooperate until the "other person" cheats you, or you are facing the last interaction with that person. This extends to the "extended family". If I look after children of the group, the group looks after my child when I am not there. Again, all very rational.
All this research may be valid unless it can be found that the brain hardwires itself along the way.Even over generations if a single lifetime isn't a convincing amount of time.
Dunno why this is released when all the questions arent answered.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Numb3rs is a rather well-produced series about two brothers, one a mathematician and the other an FBI agent. I understand that academics from some major universities act as consultants for the show, in order to assure that the math used to help solve crimes is legitimate, and that the scientists themselves are portrayed fairly. I'd never heard of "tit for tat" in this context until they used it in a recent episode.
That book does look interesting. Thanks for the recommendation.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Finally, an explanation for writing Free software. What else could a programming geek possibly use for stimulating his brain pleasure centers?
Wow. I was just pointing out that it's surprising how many people's ethical structures can fail at their security in the knowledge they won't be caught, but how deepseated the idea that "someone is always watching" is. I agree with you that being confident in oneself can engender more consistent actions. The weak-willed, as it were, do seem to have a tendency to crumble. The Stoics and all that jazz. I wasn't expecting to get my ass blown off for posting earlier. Perhaps I should have posted on shiney.happy.people.net instead of slashdot. Nice response, though, Geof.
-
I went back to the store, which is on the other side of town, because I thought they'd undercharged me a few hundred dollars for a TV (I didn't check my receipt until I got back home). It turned out that I was wrong, but I'm still glad I checked and I'd do it again.
One of the people in customer service said pretty much what you did about how she wouldn't have mentioned it.
Then again, I'm certainly not perfect. I never did pay an extra $3 or so for that box of pizzas, but the cashier insisted on scanning them for me even though I was in the self-checkout lane because I had a dozen boxes. Again, I didn't notice it until later, but it was only $3 and most stores have a policy where if it scans wrong it's free. I still kinda wish I'd paid for it, but I can't feel that bad when the self checkout at the very same store didn't give me almost $20 worth of change I had due (I had just been to the ATM and had nothing but $20s). I guess it evens out, or else I'm just getting better at rationalizing *shrug*
and give their time as a way of staying connected to the cause. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, ya know. But volunteering doesn't register as work -- it feels good!
By the way, notice how hard people search for reasons to explain what's *wrong* with helping others. "They're truely selfish because they're only helping to feel good themselves." Sheesh. Regardless of the motive, they're helping -- what is the critizer doing? Oh yeah I thought so -- less than nothing.
Sorry, I wasn't sure whether you were advocating the position I criticized or not. It's hard to tell sometimes :) I do agree with you however: it's unfortunate too many people don't get beyond the "just don't get caught" stage.
And my two posts were modded Troll. As you say, this is Slashdot...
"Enlightened self-interest" can think its way into justify the Golden Rule by arguing that by acting nice to other people, they might return the favor and create a society of nice people (which is presumably better than a society of backstabing jerks).
But if this is true, then why does it need smarts to make it work?
If everyone being nice benefits all, then if a mutation caused social animals to tend to be nicer to each other, the whole pack/tribe would benefit. If the "nice" pack/tribe is propering and the "not nice" tribe/packs are struggling, then when hard times happen, the "nice" ones may have a better chance of making it through the bad times.
The problem is when the other guy isn't reciprocating. If you are Nice and the other guy is just taking advantage of it, then "Nice guys finish last". Maybe thats why people get so enraged when they think they are being taken advantage of -- as a counter to our "niceness" urge...
What, no one's supposed to feel good? And there's no way we'll let them just *be* good?
Anyone who doesn't feel good helping others, or who feels good hurting others, is what we call a sociopath. Now science is starting to show us what their chemical handicap is. And anyone who helps others, no matter how it makes them feel, is altruistic. Our biggest heros make big sacrifices for others. Altruism is still altruism even if it makes us feel good at the same time. Only our sophistric intellects could twist things to the point that we argue that there's no such thing as altruism.
Everyone is, to greater or lesser extent, a social creature, taking pleasure in helping and in the successes of others. How great the extent is the measure of a man. The more we balance our head and our heart, the more positive our life becomes.
And let's not forget what humans in history have done to receive that feeling as that center of the brain lights up.
It's not as simple as saying if that part of the brain lights up the person is good. Personality disorders already record people who abuse others in order to feel needed, superior or even another's saviour which equates roughly to a substance abused who will do bad deeds to get it.
If this research is true then I know a few selfish SOBs that are seriously brain damaged.
Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=
Feeling good, is supposed to be bad now?
Those of us who volunteer is of course well aware how it makes you feel. It makes you gain self-confidence, gets you more deeply in touch with reality and has benefits on many scales beyond just "feeling good". It develops you as a person in all respects depending on what you do of course.
Feeling good is just the beginning. In time, being altruistic becomes part of your nature as a true human being.
Are you adequate?
If your primary motivation for performing an altruistic act is the pleasure it brings, then it is not virtuous. It is not even an expression of genuine love. True love means total self-giving, especially when you don't want to give or don't feel like giving. It means giving with no expectation of anything good or pleasurable in return.
I also do not believe in 'dis-organized' religion. I will take the 'organized' religion, with it potential pitfalls like over-institutionalization and the potential for ritualism over a churchless 'fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants'/'make-up-as-you-g
Regarding the last example in the article, there IS a big difference between pulling the feeding tube from the patient, and feeding him the killer drug. In the first situation we have a built-in guarantee the patient gets some benefit from dying, since he was not able to survive independently of medicine. The second situation opens up many more possibilities for murder. Applied broadly it would be more harmful society, thus the law is correct to view it differently.
This is a complex logic that probably wouldn't have occurred to the law makers, same way it failed the author of the article. But emotion guided the law makers correctly.
I could give a similar logical explanation to the "don't kill a baby" scenario. Again it would be too convoluted (however correct it might be) for fast decision making, again emotions would have guided correctly.
altruism is not a "savings account" and doesn't "kick-in out of guilt". that is precisely the opposite of altruism, which is giving or acting even in the face of significant risk to one's self.
what the parent describes has far more akin to game theory, specifically tit-for-tat models.
as for the guilt argument, i can only hope that i never get stuck in a tight jam with pieterh, and no one is watching. we see in others what we see in ourselves.
interesting? perhaps, but in an off topic way. incorrect? totally.
simple is as simple does.
People donate to charity, but donating to charity is not as good as actually doing stuff to help people.
It also doesn't specify the number of people in this trial. For all we know it was one person who they noticed this on. Also, even if you have a lot of people, most people are conditioned from a young age that you enjoy giving things away because it's the "right" thing to do. If it was really hardwired like they claim, how come children have to be taught to share? If they really want to test if it's hardwired, you need to do the study on children that haven't been taught that you do X to be good and Y to be bad.
Sheesh. RTFA, and _then_ comment, rather than spouting off on your own personal beliefs, like a typical Stupid Slashdotter.
This is just another journalist copout: we're not really good, or even responsible for what we do, because "we're wired that way". It's stupid, immoral, and should feel awful.
I see you have not modified your research and debating skills since age 2.
Anonymous Coward hasn't learned to read.
Shut your fucking face for the good of the readers.
--
make install -not war
damn straight!
It seems that always these scientific studies of the biological roots of "moral" decisions, which are intended to show that "morality", "free-will" and "cconsciousness" are illusions (don't ask who it's fooling), invariably end with the researcher losing his "objectivity" and making moral decisions about the research!
"Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable."
Huh? I see that the experiment wonderfully showed how the brain responds to moral decision making and where those decisions take place, but where (and how) were they able to show that "altruism was not a superior moral faculty"? To do so would require a scientific definition of "superior moral faculty" and then an experiment designed to prove it wasn't that.
"The reason people are slow to answer such an awful question, the study indicated, is that emotion-linked circuits automatically signaling that killing a baby is wrong clash with areas of the brain that involve cooler aspects of cognition. One brain region activated when people process such difficult choices is the inferior parietal lobe, which has been shown to be active in more impersonal decision-making. This part of the brain, in essence, was "arguing" with brain networks that reacted with visceral horror."
Must be amazing to watch these debates being played out on the screen of the brain, but this also just sounds like the old "good vs. bad conscience" scenario, with the pro-anti antagonisms played out by the brain.
"U.S. law, for example, distinguishes between a physician who removes a feeding tube from a terminally ill patient and a physician who administers a drug to kill the patient.
Hauser said the only difference is that the second scenario is more emotionally charged -- and therefore feels like a different moral problem, when it really is not: "In the end, the doctor's intent is to reduce suffering, and that is as true in active as in passive euthanasia, and either way the patient is dead."
Here he takes upon himself to make a "moral" decision based upon his own interpretation of what is "right" and "wrong", what possible scientific basis can this statement have? For example, his analyses assumes that the only important factor is the final result of the physical system (patient dead), without any regard for the state of the brain of the physician and relatives involved in making the decision. It is rather odd for a brain researcher to analyze a system and ignore the state of the brain! While the patient is dead in both cases the resulting state of the brain of all involved could be very different!
The strongest evidence offered here against free will was the case of patients who had damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Oddly, the article emphasized that they did not make "immoral" decisions, but rather made difficult decisions without anguish. What would be good evidence against "free-will" would be damage (or a drug) that would take away all sense of morality or restore it (in the case of psychopaths), or even increase/decrease the amount of empathy a person has (empathy drugs in the water supply anyone?)
In conclusion, In defense of free-will, I would find it surprising indeed if decision-making did not cause brain activity and am rather surprised that every time this brain-activity is observed it's assumed to "prove" somehow that free-will doesn't exist. Again, to disprove something scientifically you first need a working definition of what it is!
So let me get this straight: you get to save money, AND you don't have waste two hours of your Sunday? It's like a bizarro version of working a part-time time job. Your wealth increases in exchange for not doing unpleasant things and not believing in retarded crap.
I keep seeing couple of misconceptions in this thread, which show up quite often elsewhere, and I just thought I'd help clear them up:
First, psychological altruism != ethical altruism != evolutionary altruism.
Psychological altruism is the tendency to act from certain non-selfish motives; see below for more on this.
Ethical altruism is the doctrine that the rightful object of ethics is the wellbeing of other people, and that selfish considerations are entirely amoral if not even immoral. Not all people who are psychologically altruists (people who are motivated to do certain acts for non-selfish reasons) subscribe to the doctrine of evolutionary altruism; you could be an ethiical egoist (holding that what is ethically right is looking out for yourself) and also a psychological altruist (motivated to do nice things for other people regardless of what you get; maybe you don't even enjoy doing it, but you feel motivated for some unselfish, possibly irrational reason).
Evolutionary altruism is a precise technical term specifying a quality of certain inherited traits such that they confer a fitness benefit on other individuals at a cost (or at least, at no benefit) to the fitness of the individual organism with those traits. Note that this is a quality of *inherited traits*, not of the individuals who bear those traits, and that the benefits conferred are strictly reproductive fitness. Giving a person suffering a painful death a painkilling drug to ease their suffering is not evolutionarily altruistic, though it may be psychologically or ethically altruistic; being sterile but otherwise a normal, productive member of society is evolutionarily altruistic but not related to psychology or ethics at all.
Now the second, and more important point: psychological altruism is not "sacrificing oneself for the good of others" or "putting others before oneself" or even "doing good for others regardless of the costs to oneself". There are plenty of small acts of kindness and charity that we rightly call altruistic, which people would not have done had it cost them more, e.g. someone would probably not donate to charity if it meant they were not going to be able to eat this week; thus demonstrating that there was self-interest involved in the consideration of that act. Altruism is simply doing good for others regardless of the BENEFITS to oneself; acting from a desire to help other people, without asking "what do I get out of it?", even though you might still ask "what will this cost me?". Ethical altruism requires that you put others before yourself; but the article seems pretty clearly to be talking about psychological altruism (in particular, as an inherited trait, which may or may not be evolutionarily altruistic; if being nice gets you laid more, it's not evolutionarily altruistic).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
It comes down to this: Either
- You are correct, in which case those who disagree with you are either stupid, ignorant, or stubborn -- all three of which are reasons to hold someone in contempt and surgically neuter them to prevent the possibility of them breeding.
- Or you are NOT correct, in which it doesn't matter what you think because you're a goddam moron. So you might as well be a moron with some gusto and hate those who are smarter than you are for whatever reason you please.
Either way, you can and should despise those who disagree with you. Of course, you can always get around this by changing your views to agree with the other person -- if you have good reason to think that they might be correct. So ultimately, you can always either be correct and despise the incorrect, or be too stupid to held accountable for hating those who are correct. It works out very nicely.Leninism is based on the selfishness of the Communist party, and willingness of the people to work very, very hard for the benefit of a party that doesn't need their help. It has zero to do with, say, the welfare state or charity. And you'll note that during the same period, America had welfare, public education, farm subsidies, and a massive military-industrial system that is for all intents and purposes just a massive work-fare program employing over 20% of all working Americans.
Oh, and lets look at the pride of lions again. Notice how all of the female lions work together and share their kills? Or how they leave food for the male lions, who don't even have to hunt? I guess they're engaging in some kind of selfish capitalist behaviour that just LOOKS like a communist society. They probably have a barter system or something that I'm just not seeing. Hey, while you're at it, why not try to claim that ant colonies and bee hives are models of capitalism too!
You get an A for effort, but an F for content. And the professor may suggest that you be placed in the "special" class for retards who fail at basic reasoning.
For example:
Families are the very epitome of cooperation in Human society -- but you can find hundreds of books and thousands of papers on the subject of intra-familial competition. Siblings compete with each other from the moment they're born, despite simultaneously cooperating. That period where babies wail all night and keep their parents from sleeping? Research has shown that it's quite literally an reflexive behaviour that evolved to allow babies to establish dominance over their parents. Meanwhile, parents begin transferring chores and labour to their children the very moment that they become physically capable of it. And yet no one would question for a moment that parents and their children are cooperative.
Always beware of, and soundly beat the asses of, those who try to create dichotomy where it needn't exist.
Of course, we're not particularly capitalist. They say that about 30% of all working Americans work either directly or indirectly for the government or military. I don't know what the figure in Canada, Mexico, or the EU is, but I doubt it's much lower despite their vastly smaller military squanderage.
My father, a reverend who performed a lot of weddings, always had this to say about marriage: that it's not about sharing 50%-50%, it's about sharing 100%-100%. Of course, he went through two divorces himself... whether that's a qualification or a disqualification for expertise on the subject is really up to you to decide.
It follows that the most advanced Humans are the American white-trash, who spend all their money on beer and wrestling pay-per-view, watch Fox News, and never leave the couch except to obtain more deep-fried veal-burgers and vote for the GOP (at least until you can vote for the GOP using a remote control or a $15 cell-phone). They resist all of their "primitive" instincts for advancement, ethics, knowledge, altruism, and personal growth.
Besides, your analogy has the answer contained within it. Being at home on Thanksgiving, you get to EAT -- and not just some orphanage-grade soup either. You get to eat turkey and stuffing and pie. You don't think that lights up the reward centers of the brain? And later that evening, you might get to have sex with your spouse, which also lights up the reward centers of the brain.
The fact that you don't want to think through these very obvious deductions suggests that you just don't WANT to see them, because this research threatens your GOP-inspired worldview. It's sad, really. But it's not really your fault; the Republican sub-species has never been able to deal with facts and logic. It's just who you are. I'd no sooner fault you for it than I'd fault someone for being disabled or for being short.
Wasn't there an episode of the Dilbert animated series on that very subject?
That's why there is no such thing as a moral Christian. You can't follow that system of belief and still be a good person. You can't believe that the serial child-rapist is more deserving of reward in paradise than the selfless atheist, and simulataneously lay claim to an "elevated" system of ethics. A truly good person simply can't believe that a murderous war-monger like George Bush is going to heaven while a compassionate pacifist like Gandhi is in hell, simply because Bush sucked up to the right deity.
here we do not have a church tax, but someting near.
the 8/1000 of the tax we pay may be donated to a church with the excuse of charity ( in italy mainly to the catholic church who use only 23% of those money for charity) or remain to the state alwais for charity purpouse.
it does not cost you nothing, BUT!!!
if you do not specify who you donate to your money is divided between the various churches and state based on the % of those who chose.
given that about 80% of the peolple do not choose, and that maybe the 90% of those who choose are chatolich, this mean that 90% of those money go to the chatolic church.
You must be one of those people that believes in some magical soul floating around, letting us do things for no reason. Sorry, no. Our behaviour is dictated by a biomechanical brain. We do what we do because our brain makes us do it, and the reward system is ultimately what governs it.
Do you really doubt for a second that the pleasure centers of the brain don't light up in a scam-artist's head when he runs a successfull game of "cups"? Or that a wallstreet trader doesn't get a similar rush when he makes a cunning trade and wipes out the economy of a third-world nation? Or that George Bush doesn't get a little rush to the pleasure center of his admittedly chimp-like brain when he signs an execution order for a prisoner?
We have LOTS of instincts. This research shows that altruism is one of them -- something that anthropologists and evolutionary biologists have been claiming for decades. It's just nice to now have some physical proof.
Well, you could always anthropomorphize something or just imagine up a few associates.
The process of becoming self-aware involves the formation of an ego which observes the universe rather than being an integral part of it. Our responsibility for this separation causes us to be hard-wired for guilt, causing us to seek to re-integrate ourselves with the universe through the act of consciousness. Altruism is an artefact of this process of atonement.
Actually Altruism has a much simpler and more primative basis. Our primary urge is to survive, and that includes our urge to survive in groups. Giving to other members of your group increases their ability to survive, and therefore your ability to survive. That is why we feel good when we are altruistic - because we are increasing both our own odds of survival, and our group's odds of survival.
Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
This is one of the core beliefs/tenants of Buddhism- that we are all inherently good and that helping others is the path to true happiness. So, it's actually old wisdom, not a new discovery.
People engage in "altruistic" practices because they LIKE doing so. Therefore it is not actually altruistic; it's done for one's self.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Food I dig, it's that stuff I put in my mouth while I'm programming... But that sex part, what's that all about?
Not about altruism perhaps, but something at the end of the article troubled me:
'U.S. law, for example, distinguishes between a physician who removes a feeding tube from a terminally ill patient and a physician who administers a drug to kill the patient.
Hauser said the only difference is that the second scenario is more emotionally charged -- and therefore feels like a different moral problem, when it really is not: "In the end, the doctor's intent is to reduce suffering, and that is as true in active as in passive euthanasia, and either way the patient is dead."'
Am I the only one that does NOT see this as a difference based solely on emotion?
In the first case, the doctor returns the situation to what it was previously - the patient about to starve through being unable to eat. In the second case, the doctor introduces a new factor - the lethal drug. I think people are more comfortable with passive rather than active measures, because it lets them leave the question of their intent open to interpretation. For some, altruism might mean that preserving life has a higher priority over reducing suffering, for others the opposite. But, beyond emotion, I think that with passive measures, there is always the possibility of hope. A friend told me once how a patient twitched a thumb after she pronouced him dead. Two weeks later he left the hospital, alive and well, to her mingled relief and embarrassment. She continues to make a point of speaking aloud the various steps of assessing a patient's responses just in case they can hear her. For her, the lethal drug option would be too final, excluding that 'what if I'm wrong?' possibility that haunts the fallible. In one case the patient is definitely dead, in the other there is a tiny possibility that they might not be.
Why do you assume that a person teaching altruism has selfish motives?
Because it is a psychological fact. There is no action that any human being will take which does not contain a selfish aspect. In other words, if the human considers taking an action and asks himself, "What's in it for me?" and comes up with nothing, then the human will not perform that action.
I'm going to make a grand assumption here that you're a pretty liberal person. That said, would you consider donating money to the Ku Klux Klan? It would be a completely selfless action. Nothing in it for you. Totally altruistic. Donating money to poor and oppressed minorities would be more selfish of you, since it would help people that you like and that would make you feel good.
how can altruism arising from selfish motives be a bad thing if the alternative is selfishness anyway?
I never argued that altruism could arise from selfish motives as I believe such an idea is bogus. Furthermore, you assume that selfishness is immoral. It is not. Selfishness is amoral. Morality comes from our choices in how to act upon the selfshness from which we shouldn't try to escape. This is a tough concept to grasp if you've been taught that "selfishness is wrong" for your whole life. The lesson "selfishness is wrong" may be somewhat appropriate for kindergarteners (and also for those grown-ups who see great wisdom in certain books), but as people gain in understanding and wisdom than more nuanced lessons in morality are required.
Do you believe that it is always wrong to tell a lie?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
It's pretty obvious if you think about it that we get a LOT out of contributing to others.
That blows holes in the "selfless" claims to "altrusism", doesn't it?
If contributing to others really was selfless, then you would get NOTHING out of it.
In fact, if would be even more selfless if you were HARMED by contributing to others.
In fact, you can take that a step further and be even more selfless if contributing others harmed not only you, but all your loved ones, too, and also helped your enemies to harm more of your loved ones.
Why not go whole hog and realize that it would be most selfless of all if contributing to others harmed you, harmed your loved ones, helped your enemies, and also violated every sense of morality that you had.
For example, if you were to spend all of your money to help the new Neo-Nazi party build and deploy a nuclear weapon against your family, millions of oppressed people, and for the purpose of increasing Neo-Nazi party power worldwide, then that action would be really, really, really selfless of you.
THAT is altruism. The fake "altruism" that people insist upon is actually really selfish in comparison, as you've admitted that you get "a LOT" out of doing it.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
4 posts in a thread, all falsely modded as flamebait at the same time.
Someone has mod points they don't deserve, a personal grudge, and no moral fiber.
You can't take the sky from me...
The metaphor used in the news item ("hard wired"), although apt for /., is misleading.
It is one thing to hypothesise that brain activity has EVOLVED to make altruism pleasurable; it is another entirely to say it is WIRED to do so, with all the connotations of inevitability and even creationism that entails.
And the experiment itself doesn't appear to account for highly significant cultural variables, such as the meaning of money and charity for the subjects. Those meanings need qualitative analysis.
Similarly the experiment fails to account for the distinction between imagination and action - a glaring omission for an ostensibly cognitive-behavioural experiment. Simply thinking about giving money to charity doesn't necessarily produce the same brain response and actually doing it.
Also the claim that such a response is "like food or sex" is flimsy. People respond to both these things in very complex ways that aren't necessarily simply "pleasurable". For instance a person might have an eating disorder.
It's typical dumb sociobiology, making grand pseudo-ethical claims with inadequate evidence, IMO.
Here's a clue, people: when you see someone trying to glorify selfishness and denigrate selflessness, RUN. That person is a very selfish person, and will likely not think twice before hurting you if it profits them.
That is a very insulting statement for you to make because I specifically think you are talking about my ideas.
First, I do not glorify selfishness. I exalt rational self-interest as moral and defend selfishness as amoral. But I think that you would gladly spin that statement as my choosing to "glorify selfishness" because it serves you to have my ideas ignored, suppressed, or otherwise be unheard.
Second, because I exalt rational self-interest I specifically regard the choice to harm someone else ("harm" meaning, deprive them of life, liberty, or property through force or fraud) for the sake of my own profit as an immoral choice and the behavior of a predator. Predators do not deserve to live in society! You are likening me to that individual that I specifically hold in contempt through deliberate mischaracterization of my own ideas. The fact that I exalt rational self-interest means that I seek to make win-wins with people, not predatory behavior. I interact with other people only when the interaction makes both people stronger. I do not want to be a mugger or a leech and will not allow anyone else to mug me or mooch off me, either.
You can hate my ideas for what they are, and that is totally fine with me. It's silly of me to expect that everyone will unflinchingly accept all of my own opinions. But it is wrong of you to miscast my ideas as something they are not. Please educate yourself about my ethic before you defame it. If it sucks as badly as you think it does, then let it fail based on its own lack of merit instead of based on your failure to understand it.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
what they are saying is people are only generous because it feels good.
Accept.
That is, if it did not give them that feel good feeling, they would not be generous.
Accept.
Thus, everyone is generous for their own selfish purposes.
Accept.
Ergo, everyone is 100% selfish.
Non sequitur.
The correct next statement is, "There is no action which does not contain a selfish motifivation."
Take generosity, for example. If you give money to someone who "needs" it, then A) it helps the other person instead of you (unselfish), B) it might harm you if that person then decides to use that money against you (very unselfish), and C) it makes you feel good (selfish). There is (at least) one unselfish part of generosity, and (at least) one selfish part of genorosity. And it follows with every other action you choose to take. There may be one million unselfish parts to the action you choose to take, but if there isn't at least one selfish part, then you won't take that action.
Try to dispute my logic. I dare you.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
However you frame it, we are all entitled to roundhouse-kick the people who disagree with us in the face. :p Think about it -- if you're correct, you'll probably cling to your views despite the occasional roundhouse-kick from idiots (who would probably roundhouse-kick you anyway, since that's the kind of thing that idiots are known for), whereas if you're incorrect, you might eventually have some sense beaten into you.
How about you give me pleasure first, and then I give you money?
Co-operation has always co-existed with competition, from the first multicellular organism onward.
Why does this still confuse allegedly sentient beings?
Rational Self Interest, the benign form of Selfishness (which you and so many others so easily confuse), INCLUDES helping others:
- helping you creates a positive environment, which helps me
- helping you may leave you in my debt, which helps me
- helping you may increase my positive PR value, which helps me
- helping you may make you more self sufficient, therefore less dependent, which helps everyone, which helps me
etc etc etc
~!J!
Hmm, interesting experiment, but I am not sure it is not biased.
t m
While it seems possible to tell a gipsy from a non-gipsy due to skin colour and clothing (roma females tend to wear colourful stuff with flower patterns, my personal observation), it's pretty much impossible to tell a russian from a moldovan without engaging in a conversation.
People from Moldova tend to speak Russian with a specific accent, which is different from the accents typical to other ex-USSR peoples; so I am assuming they figure out the beggar is from Moldova by parsing their 'I need money' message and then mapping the accent to a country. I think this is the only way to do it, unless the beggar is wearing^ a national costume, or is dressed up in their country's flag.
The problem is that when people give money to beggars, they do it 'on-the-fly' and I've never seen anyone engage in a dialogue.
I am from Moldova, and Russian was my first language - so my Russian sounds like a russian's Russian. Also, moldovans with non-Russian as their first language can easily get rid of 'the accent' if they really try to. So I'm not sure we can trust the observations of that study.
^ The study claims the beggars "were dressed in the distinctive garb of Moldova", but I find that hard to believe - this is what one of those 'skins' looks like: http://www.galenfrysinger.com/moldovan_costumes.h
The saddest poem
That altruism is hardwired into the brain (selected for by evolution) was already published nearly 30 years ago by Edward O. Wilson in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book On Human Nature (recently had to write a thesis paper on the subject). I'm surprised this article doesn't even mention that.