Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Drive For Altruism Is Hardwired

Posted by kdawson on from the good-feels-good dept.

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."

5 of 582 comments (clear)

  1. So... by Normal+Dan · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
    1. Re:So... by writerjosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not true:

      Or I should say, only partially true. You're saying that altruism is a selfish endeavor, meaning, giving away something is only done because the brain will reward you with pleasure. True. However, you're missing the bigger picture of this article: altruism is not just about pleasure, it's about survival.

      Take this altruistic concept back to a primitive, tribal society level. One hunter brings back a deer to the village. He can hoard it all to himself and ensure the survival of himself and/or his family, OR, he can divvy out the deer to the entire tribe even though this means he'll get less for himself. Why would he do this? According to you, it's simply because it feels good to give, but the point of this article (imho) is to show that it's actually beneficial to his survival. And his survival is 100% dependent on the survival of the tribe.

      So, yes, it is selfish, but it's selfish on a tribal/societal level. Sharing ensures the survival of the tribe, therefore sharing ensures the survival of the individual (because it's really hard, if not impossible, to survive on your own in a hostile world).

      That's my two cents.

      --
      Health Insurance Quotes
  2. Easily Explained by CompCons · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:If you're getting brain activity... by moderatorrater · · Score: 5, Funny

    No...No, you don't...Wrong...Wrong again... Wow, I never thought of it that way. Thank you, you changed my life with that amazing revelation!
  4. Re:Why do conservatives donate more? by larkost · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have heard this statistic many times and tend to believe it, within reason. The import thing to remember about it is that this also includes contributions to some organizations that you are a member of, most importantly your church. My bet is that if you look at donations to your own church as something other than "charity", then this statistic may swing the other way.

    Another way of looking at this might be that "Religious Conservatives" spend a lot more money (primarily) improving the well-being of those they consider to be part of their own group, while "Secular Liberals" contribute a smaller amount to people outside of their own group. Both seem like perfectly natural responses.

    Also remember that many religions have the concept of a semi-inforced tithe, and many European countries have gone so far as to make this a part of tax law. That sort of thing is going to skew the statics to almost meaninglessness.