I read your post and thought, "well that can't be right! It's desserts, you know, like the dessert that you deserve to get!" So I googled it, and sure enough, you are right although I think very few people know that. Deserts like deserve, got it.
Well said. That is how I view consciousness, and interestingly, it corresponds very well with the Buddhist theory of psychology. I have a theory regarding a very important event in human history, 70,000 years ago or so when you see an explosion of evidence for symbolic thinking.
I think that many other animals have evolved the ability to make abstractions. We had a particularly well developed mechanism for creating abstractions, but I think it was hard wired for a set number of levels of abstraction. What I think happened is that we evolved the ability to abstract the process of creating abstractions, which meant that our mental models could be infinitely complex.
Good point. I've read Wealth of Nations but not the book your recommend. I'll see if my library has it. In the spirit of reciprocity, I'll recommend the short essay "What is Man?" by Mark Twain. Good stuff.
Tribal warfare during times of scarcity is usually more along the lines of an extreme sport than what we think of as war. When times were tight, the young men of the tribe would sense that there was no certain place for them and would attempt to gain position by counting coup against members of another tribe, wife-raiding, or other low-level forms of combat. It was only younger men that participated, it did not usually mean full scale hostilities between the two groups, and it often lead to just enough death to relieve population pressure.
I learned of some of this from a good friend who happens to be, I shit you not, a Navajo ex-military gay Republican.
I know exactly the research you are talking about. Google for "fairness reciprocity economic research." Also, here's a list of games in game theory, it's probably in there.
Good points, and not at all counter to what I was saying. Knowing that "good" behaviors are natural and beneficial removes the need for an imposed morality, doesn't it? I would only add that cooperation is usually a more effective strategy in the conditions we are likely to encounter. Strict competition is only superior, as I said, when there is incredible abundance or scarcity. When one is likely to encounter, over time, both local surplus and local scarcity, cooperation is the better strategy.
If you aren't seeing altruism in nature, you aren't looking hard enough. There are cases of species knowingly raising orphans of other species. Just saw a lioness that was found raising a baby antelope. Sure, you cynical types are going to say lions don't have refrigerators, that's a smart move on the lion's part.
I would say that altruism is often the first step towards reciprocity. It works out either way. Give something away and it works out either as a 'handicap principle' brag or the start of a reciprocal relationship.
There is no real altruism. Creatures only ever do what gives them pleasure in the moment. If you watched the episode of Penn & Teller's show, Bullshit! that looked at so-called saints like MT, you'll remember that that sicko had a serious pain and suffering fetish. She liked to watch people suffer, going so far as to refuse the patients in her hospitals any kind of treatments which would lessen pain.
Being as there is no real altruism from the giver's point of view, I think it is better to define it from the receiver's point of view. If they aren't giving anything in return for it, it's altruism.
Altruism is enlightened self interest. Let's take your points from the top: first, kin selection in evolution is broader than you think. When it gets down to it, every human being is your kin, at least from your gene's point of view. If you inherit genes that can make you act altruistically towards other humans, you have increased the fitness quotient of the entire species.
Second, I mentioned tit-for-tat for a reason, and I assumed it would be obvious why, but evidently not, so I will give you a clue. In tit-for-tat, what is your opening move?
One can be a selfish bastard and altruistic at the same time. Your MacBook analogy is less than apt, as I am not suggesting one purchase sex (not that there's anything wrong with that). I am saying, and this is a well known scientific theory which has some good evidence backing it up, that people act altruistically in order to impress the ladies. It's selfish from the "I want sex!" point of view, but still altruistic from the point of view of whoever you just helped.
Hmmm, let me ask my invisible friend who lives in a cloud. What's that, invisible friend? Grub is a heretic and I should kill him? Sorry grub, my invisible friend says I have to kill you now.
I don't think you understand how evolution selects for altruism. You see, your genes don't need you to breed in order for them to be passed down to the next generation. All you have to do is ensure that enough of your fellow humans, especially those with genes similar to yours. pass on their genes, and you have passed on yours through them. Genes are selfish bastards.
On average, if your actions help even three cousins breed, statistically speaking it is very likely that all the genes you carry have been passed on even if you never breed. Genetics works on much larger than individual scale. But it gets deeper, that is only one reason that evolution selects for altruism.
Another reason is strategic. The world is full of local scarcities and surpluses. Iterated prisoner's dilemma has shown the 'tit-for-tat' strategy to be quite effective, and other research has shown the general case that cooperation is the most effective strategy unless there are no local surpluses or no local scarcities. Altruism is the first step to cooperation and a proven superior strategy.
The final reason is known as the handicap principle. Since much of evolution is driven by sexual selection, things that help get a mate are selected for even if they hurt the chance of survival. Witness the peacock's tail. Not only does it make him easier to see and catch, if he has any parasites at all it will look ragged and tattered. His tail is a handicap, and therefore a brag to the peahens that is hard to fake. It is saying, "look at my genetic superiority, ladies! I'm so superior I can sport this gaudy monstrosity and get away with it!"
Altruism is the same. By sacrificing resources you prove your worth to the opposite sex. With all those evolutionary reasons for altruism, it is no wonder it is such an important motivating factor. In fact, recent economic research has shown that the basis of the free market, the "selfish actor" theory, is false. People are not primarily motivated by self interest. They are motivated by a sense of fairness, reciprocity, and altruism.
Have you ever noticed that altruism is denigrated by people who are selfish and have no empathy? And have you considered the final implications of pure selfishness?
...I don't see how GPLv3 gets involved. Can anyone tell me?
Of course not. Well, someone might, but no one here. First of all, perhaps 1/10% of all slashdotters understand the ramifications of GPLV2, let alone V3. Second, mentioning that Microsoft will be involved with Linux in some way creates such overpowering waves of cognitive dissonance in most slashdotter's minds that all reason is overwhelmed and the mind is reduced to repeating a mantra of "bad...bad...bad..."
Is the hidden "all your base" clause not revealed until you buy Suse?
We use Novell and Suse here where I work, and although the EULA says that I will have to give up my firstborn for telling you this, the kid's a brat so here goes: Bill Gates doesn't get all your base, only half.
You will find that I frequently challenge libertarianism. And by that, I mean I'm a right bastard to libertarians, so you probably don't want to friend me. I'm a socialist-anarchist and believe in democratic control of the means of production. I also think protection of private real property (not possessions) amounts to initiation of force. But I'm not completely dogmatic and can be swayed by a good argument. So far, I haven't seen one. Just lots of libertarians going apoplectic and spluttering out ad-hominems. I do remain ever hopeful that I'll get a good debate out of one of them someday.
I don't really see how libertarianism can deal with free market failure modes such as imbalance of information, natural monopoly, and externalities both good and bad. Who knows, maybe you'll be the one to show me the light.
I saw that the half-wits had modded you down for a very innocuous joke, so I thought it only appropriate to show them what a REAL anti-Christian troll looked like.;-)
Your "God" is a prick, so suck it, fundamentalists
on
Hummer Greener Than Prius?
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Now, now grub, this is slashdot. You can't make fun of the Christian Taliban here.
You see, the fact is that God loves nothing more than tricking his creations into believing falsehoods by planting fake fossils, creating light already underway from the far reaches of the universe, and sundry other tricks. If you fall for His tricks, He sends you to Hell to suffer for all eternity. That's just His way of showing you He loves you. Kinda like the way Daddy showed Mommy he loved her by coming home drunk and beating her.
Liars, con men, and drunken wife-beaters everywhere agree, there's no better role model than God!
You're too late, someone already pulled the "no true Scotsman" card. Believe what you want, I'm just going by my experience. People who devote their lives to environmentalism don't generally own cars at all, they're too poor. People who drive Priuses, tend to do only that. Perhaps they recycle a little if it's not too difficult where they live, and maybe they buy organic vegetables but that's about it. They consume resources like mad, live in large houses, spray chemicals on their huge green lawns, drive more than necessary and generally don't do anything except drive a Prius to earn them that title of "environmentalist."
To use your analogy, if a non-Scotsman went around talking with a fake Scottish accent, would the other things they do reflect on true Scotsmen?
No doubt. An empty bus is a waste of gas. Buses only work in population dense areas. No one will ride a bus unless it goes where they want. In less dense areas, this means many routes that are barely used. In big cities, though, they make sense.
Where are you getting those ideas about environmentalists from? Who is saying those things?
Having been an environmental, labor, and political activist for many years, I can tell you the things that I have heard from people who put their money where their mouth is, environmentally speaking:
Nuclear power is less polluting, if the storage and safety issues can be worked out. You'll find the people who really oppose nuclear power are suburban NIMBYists who just don't want a nuke plant in THEIR backyard.
Solar panels are not now worse for the environment, nor have they been for a long time. Where are you getting that idea?
The damn Prius/Hummer study is fatally flawed and put out by a marketing firm that was most likely hired by Hummer. Hummers aren't more environmentally friendly than Priuses. But the real environmentalists I've met are too poor to own either.
Your CFL argument makes no sense, maybe you could explain it better? Because it sounds like you are saying that no one should ever try to reduce energy usage, as it will always be futile. Is that what you are saying?
Slashdot Mirror
I read your post and thought, "well that can't be right! It's desserts, you know, like the dessert that you deserve to get!" So I googled it, and sure enough, you are right although I think very few people know that. Deserts like deserve, got it.
In a chess game, you don't get that thrilling sensation of witnessing evil bastards getting their just desserts.
It seems like 'cheating' to me.
Creatively Hacking Extended Acronyms To Integrate Names Good?
Uh, I thought that if you have to think about it, it's not morality, it's ethics.
Well said. That is how I view consciousness, and interestingly, it corresponds very well with the Buddhist theory of psychology. I have a theory regarding a very important event in human history, 70,000 years ago or so when you see an explosion of evidence for symbolic thinking.
I think that many other animals have evolved the ability to make abstractions. We had a particularly well developed mechanism for creating abstractions, but I think it was hard wired for a set number of levels of abstraction. What I think happened is that we evolved the ability to abstract the process of creating abstractions, which meant that our mental models could be infinitely complex.
There's no denying it. We're getting older. There are now more jokes about wives not having sex than there are about parent's basements.
Good point. I've read Wealth of Nations but not the book your recommend. I'll see if my library has it. In the spirit of reciprocity, I'll recommend the short essay "What is Man?" by Mark Twain. Good stuff.
Tribal warfare during times of scarcity is usually more along the lines of an extreme sport than what we think of as war. When times were tight, the young men of the tribe would sense that there was no certain place for them and would attempt to gain position by counting coup against members of another tribe, wife-raiding, or other low-level forms of combat. It was only younger men that participated, it did not usually mean full scale hostilities between the two groups, and it often lead to just enough death to relieve population pressure.
I learned of some of this from a good friend who happens to be, I shit you not, a Navajo ex-military gay Republican.
I know exactly the research you are talking about. Google for "fairness reciprocity economic research." Also, here's a list of games in game theory, it's probably in there.
Good points, and not at all counter to what I was saying. Knowing that "good" behaviors are natural and beneficial removes the need for an imposed morality, doesn't it? I would only add that cooperation is usually a more effective strategy in the conditions we are likely to encounter. Strict competition is only superior, as I said, when there is incredible abundance or scarcity. When one is likely to encounter, over time, both local surplus and local scarcity, cooperation is the better strategy.
If you aren't seeing altruism in nature, you aren't looking hard enough. There are cases of species knowingly raising orphans of other species. Just saw a lioness that was found raising a baby antelope. Sure, you cynical types are going to say lions don't have refrigerators, that's a smart move on the lion's part.
I would say that altruism is often the first step towards reciprocity. It works out either way. Give something away and it works out either as a 'handicap principle' brag or the start of a reciprocal relationship.
There is no real altruism. Creatures only ever do what gives them pleasure in the moment. If you watched the episode of Penn & Teller's show, Bullshit! that looked at so-called saints like MT, you'll remember that that sicko had a serious pain and suffering fetish. She liked to watch people suffer, going so far as to refuse the patients in her hospitals any kind of treatments which would lessen pain.
Being as there is no real altruism from the giver's point of view, I think it is better to define it from the receiver's point of view. If they aren't giving anything in return for it, it's altruism.
Altruism is enlightened self interest. Let's take your points from the top: first, kin selection in evolution is broader than you think. When it gets down to it, every human being is your kin, at least from your gene's point of view. If you inherit genes that can make you act altruistically towards other humans, you have increased the fitness quotient of the entire species.
Second, I mentioned tit-for-tat for a reason, and I assumed it would be obvious why, but evidently not, so I will give you a clue. In tit-for-tat, what is your opening move?
One can be a selfish bastard and altruistic at the same time. Your MacBook analogy is less than apt, as I am not suggesting one purchase sex (not that there's anything wrong with that). I am saying, and this is a well known scientific theory which has some good evidence backing it up, that people act altruistically in order to impress the ladies. It's selfish from the "I want sex!" point of view, but still altruistic from the point of view of whoever you just helped.
Hmmm, let me ask my invisible friend who lives in a cloud. What's that, invisible friend? Grub is a heretic and I should kill him? Sorry grub, my invisible friend says I have to kill you now.
Is it fully buzzword compliant?
I don't think you understand how evolution selects for altruism. You see, your genes don't need you to breed in order for them to be passed down to the next generation. All you have to do is ensure that enough of your fellow humans, especially those with genes similar to yours. pass on their genes, and you have passed on yours through them. Genes are selfish bastards.
On average, if your actions help even three cousins breed, statistically speaking it is very likely that all the genes you carry have been passed on even if you never breed. Genetics works on much larger than individual scale. But it gets deeper, that is only one reason that evolution selects for altruism.
Another reason is strategic. The world is full of local scarcities and surpluses. Iterated prisoner's dilemma has shown the 'tit-for-tat' strategy to be quite effective, and other research has shown the general case that cooperation is the most effective strategy unless there are no local surpluses or no local scarcities. Altruism is the first step to cooperation and a proven superior strategy.
The final reason is known as the handicap principle. Since much of evolution is driven by sexual selection, things that help get a mate are selected for even if they hurt the chance of survival. Witness the peacock's tail. Not only does it make him easier to see and catch, if he has any parasites at all it will look ragged and tattered. His tail is a handicap, and therefore a brag to the peahens that is hard to fake. It is saying, "look at my genetic superiority, ladies! I'm so superior I can sport this gaudy monstrosity and get away with it!"
Altruism is the same. By sacrificing resources you prove your worth to the opposite sex. With all those evolutionary reasons for altruism, it is no wonder it is such an important motivating factor. In fact, recent economic research has shown that the basis of the free market, the "selfish actor" theory, is false. People are not primarily motivated by self interest. They are motivated by a sense of fairness, reciprocity, and altruism.
Have you ever noticed that altruism is denigrated by people who are selfish and have no empathy? And have you considered the final implications of pure selfishness?
...I don't see how GPLv3 gets involved. Can anyone tell me?
Of course not. Well, someone might, but no one here. First of all, perhaps 1/10% of all slashdotters understand the ramifications of GPLV2, let alone V3. Second, mentioning that Microsoft will be involved with Linux in some way creates such overpowering waves of cognitive dissonance in most slashdotter's minds that all reason is overwhelmed and the mind is reduced to repeating a mantra of "bad...bad...bad..."
Is the hidden "all your base" clause not revealed until you buy Suse?
We use Novell and Suse here where I work, and although the EULA says that I will have to give up my firstborn for telling you this, the kid's a brat so here goes: Bill Gates doesn't get all your base, only half.
You will find that I frequently challenge libertarianism. And by that, I mean I'm a right bastard to libertarians, so you probably don't want to friend me. I'm a socialist-anarchist and believe in democratic control of the means of production. I also think protection of private real property (not possessions) amounts to initiation of force. But I'm not completely dogmatic and can be swayed by a good argument. So far, I haven't seen one. Just lots of libertarians going apoplectic and spluttering out ad-hominems. I do remain ever hopeful that I'll get a good debate out of one of them someday.
I don't really see how libertarianism can deal with free market failure modes such as imbalance of information, natural monopoly, and externalities both good and bad. Who knows, maybe you'll be the one to show me the light.
I saw that the half-wits had modded you down for a very innocuous joke, so I thought it only appropriate to show them what a REAL anti-Christian troll looked like. ;-)
Now, now grub, this is slashdot. You can't make fun of the Christian Taliban here.
You see, the fact is that God loves nothing more than tricking his creations into believing falsehoods by planting fake fossils, creating light already underway from the far reaches of the universe, and sundry other tricks. If you fall for His tricks, He sends you to Hell to suffer for all eternity. That's just His way of showing you He loves you. Kinda like the way Daddy showed Mommy he loved her by coming home drunk and beating her.
Liars, con men, and drunken wife-beaters everywhere agree, there's no better role model than God!
You're too late, someone already pulled the "no true Scotsman" card. Believe what you want, I'm just going by my experience. People who devote their lives to environmentalism don't generally own cars at all, they're too poor. People who drive Priuses, tend to do only that. Perhaps they recycle a little if it's not too difficult where they live, and maybe they buy organic vegetables but that's about it. They consume resources like mad, live in large houses, spray chemicals on their huge green lawns, drive more than necessary and generally don't do anything except drive a Prius to earn them that title of "environmentalist."
To use your analogy, if a non-Scotsman went around talking with a fake Scottish accent, would the other things they do reflect on true Scotsmen?
Not any more, but ironically, when I lived in San Francisco I didn't own a car, and now I live outside of California and find I must own a car.
You know how I know? You have no sense of humor. Therefore, I must explain that this, too, is a joke.
No doubt. An empty bus is a waste of gas. Buses only work in population dense areas. No one will ride a bus unless it goes where they want. In less dense areas, this means many routes that are barely used. In big cities, though, they make sense.
Where are you getting those ideas about environmentalists from? Who is saying those things?
Having been an environmental, labor, and political activist for many years, I can tell you the things that I have heard from people who put their money where their mouth is, environmentally speaking:
Nuclear power is less polluting, if the storage and safety issues can be worked out. You'll find the people who really oppose nuclear power are suburban NIMBYists who just don't want a nuke plant in THEIR backyard.
Solar panels are not now worse for the environment, nor have they been for a long time. Where are you getting that idea?
The damn Prius/Hummer study is fatally flawed and put out by a marketing firm that was most likely hired by Hummer. Hummers aren't more environmentally friendly than Priuses. But the real environmentalists I've met are too poor to own either.
Your CFL argument makes no sense, maybe you could explain it better? Because it sounds like you are saying that no one should ever try to reduce energy usage, as it will always be futile. Is that what you are saying?
since we're ultimately fuelled by carbon from plants,
Not my boss. He's such a tight-ass, he eats coal and shits diamonds.