Guardian "Face to faith"

[jimbob]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2057074,00.html

Spot the logical errors and strawmen...
For example:

A "religion" is a story we inhabit that makes sense of what would otherwise be nonsense. You don't have to be explicitly "religious" in order to do this (Marxists, Darwinists and Freudians are all in the same game


Yet why do we assume that a better future will necessarily follow from an increase in scientific knowledge, or that the spread of global capitalism will bring about universal salvation? Is it really true that competition - whether in evolution or economics - is more basic to human nature than, say, cooperation?

[CapelDodger]

Exactly the sort of self-regarding, woolly flop-doodle you'd expect from someone who wants to be a Crutch of England "priest" (they used to be called "vicars", as I recall. To distinguish them from Papists. Back when they wanted to be distinguished from Papists). If this is the enemy, we've got it made, bro'.

An Oxford man, you'll have noticed. Cromwell and Fairfax should have done a full Drogheda on the place.

[Wheezebucket]

This part was particularly fun to read -

"In the days of the Roman empire Christians were called atheists because they did not worship the gods of the state. We have come full circle: Christians are once again atheists and heretics because they do not worship the "gods" of today's orthodoxy. Now that atheism is the new "religion", religion is the new "atheism". To be a Christian in such circumstances is to be unconventional and nonconformist: it is to be something of a freethinker, espousing a radical vision of human flourishing that shows us how we can be more than what we are, rather than reducing us to less than what we should be."

[CapelDodger]

This part was particularly fun to read ...

What adds to the pleasure is the knowledge that he's been building his tower of babble to reach this point. Technically known as the "peroration". You just have to scan it to know "Oxford man". (Greek rhetoricians have less impact in Cambridge and London.) Also good for nothing but the CoE since it's such a crap example of the genre.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

An Oxford man, you'll have noticed. Cromwell and Fairfax should have done a full Drogheda on the place.


Steady,man! Couldn't we just sort of gently mock? :)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

All the replies on the website, except one, agree that this is woolly-headed piffle.

What a load of malecow defecant.

:jaw-dropp

[Glen.Nogami]

This nonconformism thing really is a scream.

I reiterate:

Two billion Christians in the world. Christianity, therefore, is not really nonconformity. Sorry.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I hope this isn't too obtuse, but are they not reading George Orwell at Oxford any more?

[ReligionStudent]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2057074,00.html

Spot the logical errors and strawmen...

Yet why do we assume that a better future will necessarily follow from an increase in scientific knowledge, or that the spread of global capitalism will bring about universal salvation? Is it really true that competition - whether in evolution or economics - is more basic to human nature than, say, cooperation?
For example:

Yes, compotition is more basic than cooperation. True altruism does not exist.

[Hawk one]

Yes, compotition is more basic than cooperation. True altruism does not exist.

Actually, co-operation is pretty much the entire reason for humans eventually turning so successful that we're one of the few species that covers the entire planet. Can't get much more basic than that.

Whether true altruism exist, it's hard to say. But true co-operation does exist, and you find it just about everywhere in nature as well. Most obvious example are all the ones where the biological parent of a child/chick/fledgling/etc. will feed it and keep it safe from harm until it's capable of being on its own.

[ReligionStudent]

Actually, co-operation is pretty much the entire reason for humans eventually turning so successful that we're one of the few species that covers the entire planet. Can't get much more basic than that.

Whether true altruism exist, it's hard to say. But true co-operation does exist, and you find it just about everywhere in nature as well. Most obvious example are all the ones where the biological parent of a child/chick/fledgling/etc. will feed it and keep it safe from harm until it's capable of being on its own.

Yes, but cooperation that does take place is part of competition, basically cooperation seeks to make it better for one's own genetic legacy, so I would say competition is certainly more natural to humans.

[Hawk one]

But what can be more natural than what your genes want you to do (in this case make your body co-operate)?

[ReligionStudent]

But what can be more natural than what your genes want you to do (in this case make your body co-operate)?

But the cooperation is only a method of genetic competition. ie kinship altruism (Trivers etc)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Yes, compotition is more basic than cooperation. True altruism does not exist.

I'm going to disagree because I think that statement is a bit mammal, and more specifically human centric. Many humans who have not reproduced have given thier lives in times of war or emergency to save fellow humans and other mammal species like cats and dogs have done things that if not exhibit altruism border on it (a mother saving her offspring for an example of the latter), but when you look at certain swarming insect species they clearly exhibit a form of altruism.

Obviously a bee drone with a brain the size of a pinhead doesn't think about defending the hive being an act of self-sacrifice, but it's just what it does. But humans, because of a billion+ year legacy of altruistic or borderline altruistic (mothers {and fathers} sacrificing themselves so their young may survive) actions as well as instincts inherited by our common ancestors with insects which had social groupings like we have are a perfectly naturalistic way of explaining altruistic behavior in humans.

I myself take exception with Dawkins idea of a Selfish Gene in this particular area. As I observe the biological world, many species are individually genecentric to coin a phrase, but many others are speciescentric and exhibit behaviors where collective survival is as important as the survival of any particular individual.

Some people might take offence to any suggestion that humans and cockroaches or bees might share behavioral characteristics, but when I look at the overwhelming evidence of common ancestry, it weaves a beautiful tapestry of life that I am proud to be a string of.

[Elaedith]

What is the relationship between a better future from scientific knowledge, the spread of capitalism bringing salvation, and competition being more basic to human nature than cooperation?

These sound like three completely distinct claims to me, and one could well believe the first without believing the other two.

[ReligionStudent]

I'm going to disagree because I think that statement is a bit mammal, and more specifically human centric. Many humans who have not reproduced have given thier lives in times of war or emergency to save fellow humans and other mammal species like cats and dogs have done things that if not exhibit altruism border on it (a mother saving her offspring for an example of the latter), but when you look at certain swarming insect species they clearly exhibit a form of altruism.

Obviously a bee drone with a brain the size of a pinhead doesn't think about defending the hive being an act of self-sacrifice, but it's just what it does. But humans, because of a billion+ year legacy of altruistic or borderline altruistic (mothers {and fathers} sacrificing themselves so their young may survive) actions as well as instincts inherited by our common ancestors with insects which had social groupings like we have are a perfectly naturalistic way of explaining altruistic behavior in humans.

I myself take exception with Dawkins idea of a Selfish Gene in this particular area. As I observe the biological world, many species are individually genecentric to coin a phrase, but many others are speciescentric and exhibit behaviors where collective survival is as important as the survival of any particular individual.

Some people might take offence to any suggestion that humans and cockroaches or bees might share behavioral characteristics, but when I look at the overwhelming evidence of common ancestry, it weaves a beautiful tapestry of life that I am proud to be a string of.

Bees support the hive, since it and the queen are their only means of genetic survival. The same is true of many hives, etc. Especially since those within the hive all have an extremely high rate of genetic similarity, thus at the very least atributable to kin selection. This is not true, unconcerned for the life of self (or more accuratly the survival of one's self to pass on genes), altruism.

As for parent sacrificing for child == Trivers' kinship altruism, which I do not dispute, but which is a way to ensure the survival of genes, not true altruism

Additionally, theories concerning those who go to war or rescue others are likely part of social instincts, likely inherited from periods where these behaviors would have been necessary fo the survival of the group. It is important to remember that early homo likely developed in small groups based on kin. Survival of the group would have been a necessity for genetic success. As for cats, dogs, etc these have been integral parts of human groups for millenia, helping them to succeed and have. They been bread to present the equivalent of infant/young child attraction to humans. One can also possit that the increased attractivness of one able put his or her life on the line for an animal and succeed adds to his or her attractability as a mate, by both displaying strength and fitness and ability to parent.

I don't believe there is a clearly defined example of species centric. There may be examples of group centric behavior, but these would still be to the individuals benefit more than detriment.

If altruism or species selection were to be present in a given species, it would only take one selfesh individual to ruin it and outbreed/outsurvive the altruistic individuals.

Aditionally, saying that humans have common ancestors with bees/roaches etc, does not offend me. But it seems to create questionable support. Bees can fly humans cannot, but we have a concestor at some point. Even if this concestor had bee's hive mentality there is no reason to presume that it would have passed on to us through other mammals, such as catarine ancestors of modern homo. additionaly, if such behavior were to give humans some survivable advantage, and thus be more likely to have survived, its equaly likely to have re-evolved seperatly as a convergant evolution. Perhaps more likely when one looks at the many intervening types of mammals etc beteen humans and insects which do not have hive behavior or the countless insects without hive behavior which could just as likely have a more recent concestor with humans than bees do.

[cyborg]

Bees can fly humans cannot, but we have a concestor at some point.

Right - which was neither bee nor human so comparing bee and human characteristics misses the point.

[ReligionStudent]

Right - which was neither bee nor human so comparing bee and human characteristics misses the point.

My point was just because there was a concestor, it does not mean one can say "well bees have this behavior" so humans must too. Even with some relaitionship, it does not lead to any valid comparisons, except for things we know for sure about the concestor (probably carbon based)

[cyborg]

I don't think that was the argument - it was more a case of not arguing that humans cannot behave in a similar way to bees just because some people may have a problem with any argument that makes humans less removed from the rest of biology.

As far as I can see any social construct needs to apply certain rules in order to function. As such I would not argue common ancestry but parallel evolution.

[ReligionStudent]

I don't think that was the argument - it was more a case of not arguing that humans cannot behave in a similar way to bees just because some people may have a problem with any argument that makes humans less removed from the rest of biology.

As far as I can see any social construct needs to apply certain rules in order to function. As such I would not argue common ancestry but parallel evolution.

Arguing parallel evolution between bees and humans is problematic, as one lives in a collony, and only the queen and a few males (who are gaurded inside the hive) reproduce. The others, those who "altruisticly" will give their lives cannot reproduce, and thus ensure their genetic survival by defending the queen and the males, who do not defend the hive till death.

Humans each (generally) have chances to reproduce. There is no reason to see parallel evolution between these two.

Additionally, UnrepentantSinner said
overwhelming evidence of common ancestry] and I appologize for missinterprating this. But I stand by the idea that the presence of behavior in one species is not evidence of it in another, even with the possibility of parallel evolution.

[CapelDodger]

Steady,man! Couldn't we just sort of gently mock? :)

I wouldn't advocate the Sack of Oxford today, obviously. It's a very different moral climate, after all. Too late now, or hopefully just too soon ... It's one of those coulda, shoulda, woulda moments that litter history.

[CapelDodger]

Yes, compotition is more basic than cooperation.

There's no simple dichotomy between competition and cooperation in human terms. Competition dominates between human teams, but cooperation also has its place; cooperation dominates within human teams, while competition also has its place. We're not a hive-species, not are we rugged individualists. We're pack-animals.

[ReligionStudent]

There's no simple dichotomy between competition and cooperation in human terms. Competition dominates between human teams, but cooperation also has its place; cooperation dominates within human teams, while competition also has its place. We're not a hive-species, not are we rugged individualists. We're pack-animals.

But competition in a survival of the fittest way. Humans work in a "pack" because it favors their own success. If it didn't, rugged individuals would do better and be more successful at preserving their genes. My statement is that the cooperation survives in humans because it is a successful way to compete.
If other people look out for the lion for you its good for you, but raises their energy and risk, so you have to do it sometimes too to get in on the deal. But overall the group works better than you just trying to watch for the lion all the time.

Think vampire bats puking blood.

[CapelDodger]

But I stand by the idea that the presence of behavior in one species is not evidence of it in another, even with the possibility of parallel evolution.

Quite. There's a wide variety of strategies that species can adopt to survive. The hive strategy works, the broadcast strategy works, the nurture strategy works, the lone predator strategy works, the pack-hunter strategy works. There's no understanding to be gained by picking out one aspect of a strategy and equating it with a superficially similar aspect of a different strategy.

[CapelDodger]

But competition in a survival of the fittest way. Humans work in a "pack" because it favors their own success.

That's true at a strategic level, but it's not why humans - individual humans - choose to form packs, or why they will commit themselves so thoroughly. Leonides and his 300 Spartans can serve as the iconic example.

If it didn't, rugged individuals would do better and be more successful at preserving their genes. My statement is that the cooperation survives in humans because it is a successful way to compete.

I would say that cooperation is a fundamental aspect of the strategy our species has adopted. I would expect it to survive as long as the species does. Henry Ford is a cultural role-model; Howard Hughes ain't.

Think vampire bats puking blood.

I'd rather not. Were I a vampire bat I'd probably feel differently :) .

[ReligionStudent]

That's true at a strategic level, but it's not why humans - individual humans - choose to form packs, or why they will commit themselves so thoroughly. Leonides and his 300 Spartans can serve as the iconic example.



I would say that cooperation is a fundamental aspect of the strategy our species has adopted. I would expect it to survive as long as the species does. Henry Ford is a cultural role-model; Howard Hughes ain't.



I'd rather not. Were I a vampire bat I'd probably feel differently :) .

Its part of the human strategy because it works, but not because it works for the species, just because it works for the individual (or more accuratly the individual's genes).

[Beerina]

What do you mean by competition? "I'm working to push others down so I can rise up" is radically different from "I'm just gonna do my best to run faster than you so I can get the business."

[ReligionStudent]

What do you mean by competition? "I'm working to push others down so I can rise up" is radically different from "I'm just gonna do my best to run faster than you so I can get the business."

Well, the model usually accepted is that an individual does whatever is best for the self, and survival of self's genes. This may mean helping others or harming others, but not specifically doing either for its own sake.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Additionally, UnrepentantSinner said
and I appologize for missinterprating this. But I stand by the idea that the presence of behavior in one species is not evidence of it in another, even with the possibility of parallel evolution.

It was written within a certain context that is lost if you snip the entire paragraph down to that one blurb. The entire paragraph was more about the metaphysics of finding homologous behaviors in different species.

Fish swim in shoals, birds fly in flocks, corals grow in reefs, whales swim in pods. The entire tapestry of life is full of group behaviors so just because we can rationalize about our pack mentality doesn't mean we're somehow special. That was my main point in that last paragraph.

[ReligionStudent]

It was written within a certain context that is lost if you snip the entire paragraph down to that one blurb. The entire paragraph was more about the metaphysics of finding homologous behaviors in different species.

Fish swim in shoals, birds fly in flocks, corals grow in reefs, whales swim in pods. The entire tapestry of life is full of group behaviors so just because we can rationalize about our pack mentality doesn't mean we're somehow special. That was my main point in that last paragraph.

my point was never that we were special, but that group behavior is not indicative of species selection or altruism, but merely a form of competition.

[UnrepentantSinner]

my point was never that we were special, but that group behavior is not indicative of species selection or altruism, but merely a form of competition.

Bah. I agree with that somewhat, but I don't think it's as much about pure competition or pure altruism, but just an example of a survival skill that skews more towards the species than towards the individual. This seems like a point where we're generally on the same level but are diverging on minutae.

[chriswl]

my point was never that we were special, but that group behavior is not indicative of species selection or altruism, but merely a form of competition.
I don't think you can call cooperative behavour "a form of competition". I mean, by definition, it just isn't.

Genes cause behaviour that favours their own propagation. You could say that the genes are in competition, but it doesn't follow that the behaviour they cause is competitive rather than cooperative. It could be either - whichever works best.

So to return to the question from the article:

"Is it really true that competition - whether in evolution or economics - is more basic to human nature than, say, cooperation?"
No, it probably isn't true. Evolution equips humans with a nature that enables us to act in cooperative ways as well as competitive ways. No need for a God to explain this.

[ReligionStudent]

[QUOTE=chriswl;2528307]I don't think you can call cooperative behavour "a form of competition". I mean, by definition, it just isn't.
QUOTE]

Somtimes the best way to win is to give a little and help someone else. Think about somthing like the prisoner's dilema.

[chriswl]

[QUOTE=chriswl;2528307]I don't think you can call cooperative behavour "a form of competition". I mean, by definition, it just isn't.
QUOTE]

Somtimes the best way to win is to give a little and help someone else. Think about somthing like the prisoner's dilema.
But if you can both "win" (as with cooperative solutions to the Prisoner's dilemma) it's no longer a competition.

[chriswl]

Duplicate post deleted.

[ReligionStudent]

But if you can both "win" (as with cooperative solutions to the Prisoner's dilemma) it's no longer a competition.

Its still part of the prolonged competition. It's not altruistic, because it is done out of selfish means.

I guess there is a difference that has been ignored on this thread between altruism (doing somthing at cost to one's self for another's benefit) and cooperation (doing something for another's benefit).

Any cooperation is done for one's own benefit as well (well the benefit of one's genes as in Trivers' Kinship Altruism), and not on an altruistic basis.

[chriswl]

Its still part of the prolonged competition.
I don't think there is any reason to say that. Think of it as a response in a game. There are cooperative and competitive responses available. Either can be chosen. Each player tries to maximise their own outcome. Which is not the same as saying they try to "win".

It's not altruistic, because it is done out of selfish means.
The selfishness is often on the part of the genes, not us. Cooperative strategies are programmed into us and we execute them blindly, without doing any self-interested calculation.

We can act genuinely altruistically, too. A mother who sacrifices herself for her child is acting altruistically, not selfishly. It's the genes that induce her to behave in this way are "selfish".

The question was about "human nature". Cooperation does exist as a type of human behaviour. It is intrinsically part of our nature. Evolutionary explanations of how this is possible don't explain cooperation away or redefine it or debunk it. They just explain it.

Any cooperation is done for one's own benefit as well (well the benefit of one's genes as in Trivers' Kinship Altruism), and not on an altruistic basis.
But of course we don't stop calling it cooperation and pretend that its *really* competition, because of that.

[ReligionStudent]

I don't think there is any reason to say that. Think of it as a response in a game. There are cooperative and competitive responses available. Either can be chosen. Each player tries to maximise their own outcome. Which is not the same as saying they try to "win".


The selfishness is often on the part of the genes, not us. Cooperative strategies are programmed into us and we execute them blindly, without doing any self-interested calculation.

We can act genuinely altruistically, too. A mother who sacrifices herself for her child is acting altruistically, not selfishly. It's the genes that induce her to behave in this way are "selfish".

The question was about "human nature". Cooperation does exist as a type of human behaviour. It is intrinsically part of our nature. Evolutionary explanations of how this is possible don't explain cooperation away or redefine it or debunk it. They just explain it.


But of course we don't stop calling it cooperation and pretend that its *really* competition, because of that.


Human nature does allow for cooperation, but not altruism. And a mother sacrificing herself for a child is not true altruism, its still genetic selfishness. That's why there is a specialized term for such behavior. And attempting to maximize ones own outcome is competition, it is selfish, because you are doing that and not attempting to just go out and help people at your own cost willy nilly. If you did that your genes would not survive as well as those who didn't

No one says individuals of any species calculate, but Kinship Altruism still functions allong those lines in animals, with aid being more likely to go to individuals who show a larger probability of shared genes.

Just because the genes are competing, does not mean that we are not expressing those genes as competition. (phenotypic gambit). If you say someone is cooperating, it still does not mean they are not doing it because it benefits them and their genes.

[chriswl]

Human nature does allow for cooperation, but not altruism. And a mother sacrificing herself for a child is not true altruism, its still genetic selfishness.
You're just repeating yourself. The fact that the behaviour has its roots in genetic selfishness doesn't give you any reason to say that it is not *really* altruism, at the human level.

This mistaken idea is behind the author's insistence that naturalism cannot be compatible with moral values and therefore we need God. He's wrong.

And attempting to maximize ones own outcome is competition, it is selfish, because you are doing that and not attempting to just go out and help people at your own cost willy nilly.
No. Competition is when I want to succeed relative to others. Scoring five goals in a football match is no good to me if my opponent scores six. But there are situations where I may merely want to maximise my own benefit and don't care whether someone else does even better as a result. Not all games are zero-sum. It is silly to use the same word, competition, for both these scenarios. The second scenario usually favours cooperation. They are two distinct situations and we have different words for the behaviour involved (competitive versus cooperative).

As for just going out and helping people at your own cost, this is neither competition nor cooperation - its altruism.

[ReligionStudent]

You're just repeating yourself. The fact that the behaviour has its roots in genetic selfishness doesn't give you any reason to say that it is not *really* altruism, at the human level.
Human behavior, the phenotype of the genotype, is still displaying the selfish genes (the phenotypic gambit)

This mistaken idea is behind the author's insistence that naturalism cannot be compatible with moral values and therefore we need God. He's wrong.
Yes i understand that, my origional post started as a smart aleck answer which developed into a real discussion

No. Competition is when I want to succeed relative to others. Scoring five goals in a football match is no good to me if my opponent scores six. But there are situations where I may merely want to maximise my own benefit and don't care whether someone else does even better as a result. Not all games are zero-sum. It is silly to use the same word, competition, for both these scenarios. The second scenario usually favours cooperation. They are two distinct situations and we have different words for the behaviour involved (competitive versus cooperative).
It is competition if you look at it over the longer span of the individual's reproductive/genetic career. If you are doing something, even if it helps someone for the moment, that is calculated to help yourself more in the long run it is selfishness and cooperation. And why is it silly to use the same word? In any scenario, the persons genotype is compteing with all others.

As for just going out and helping people at your own cost, this is neither competition nor cooperation - its altruism.
I didn't label it as cooperation. My point was that all actions are inherently based on selfish genes, and not on the ability to just cooperate with no benefit. I am trying to switch from the cooperate vc compete dichotamy to the perhaps more apt competative vs. altruistic one.

[chriswl]

Human behavior, the phenotype of the genotype, is still displaying the selfish genes (the phenotypic gambit)
Agreed, but this isn't an argument against the point I'm making.

Yes i understand that, my origional post started as a smart aleck answer which developed into a real discussion
You understand that evolution can be compatible with moral values? I don't think you do. You seem to be saying that evolution debunks morality, that it exposes cooperation as selfishness in disguise. You are in agreement with the author of the article at least that far.

It is competition if you look at it over the longer span of the individual's reproductive/genetic career. If you are doing something, even if it helps someone for the moment, that is calculated to help yourself more in the long run it is selfishness and cooperation.
Where did "more" come from? Perhaps you live by the maxim "it is not enough that I succeed, others must fail". That would be competition. But there are non-zero sum enterprises where I don't care about relative success. I want to maximise my payoff and I'm indifferent to whether others get even bigger payoffs.

Or are you talking about the long-term relative reproductive success of my genes? Well, I am not my genes. They may compete by making me cooperate. There is nothing unreal about that kind of cooperation.

And why is it silly to use the same word? In any scenario, the persons genotype is compteing with all others.
Why is it silly to use the same word for two different things? Is that a serious question?

I didn't label it as cooperation. My point was that all actions are inherently based on selfish genes, and not on the ability to just cooperate with no benefit. I am trying to switch from the cooperate vc compete dichotamy to the perhaps more apt competative vs. altruistic one.
And I was just pointing out that cooperation is neither out-and-out altruism nor self-interested competition.

[ReligionStudent]

Agreed, but this isn't an argument against the point I'm making.


You understand that evolution can be compatible with moral values? I don't think you do. You seem to be saying that evolution debunks morality, that it exposes cooperation as selfishness in disguise. You are in agreement with the author of the article at least that far. I believe evolution can be compatible with morals. Morals are an assential part of existing in a society as humans do, which gives an evolutionary advantage. So being moral is good for passing on one's genes.


Where did "more" come from? Perhaps you live by the maxim "it is not enough that I succeed, others must fail". That would be competition. But there are non-zero sum enterprises where I don't care about relative success. I want to maximise my payoff and I'm indifferent to whether others get even bigger payoffs.

Or are you talking about the long-term relative reproductive success of my genes? Well, I am not my genes. They may compete by making me cooperate. There is nothing unreal about that kind of cooperation.
I did not say cooperation was unreal, but that it is a social manifestation of competition, where a person is looking out for self. As for someone being their genes, this is the phenotypic gambit, an essential part of studying human behavioral ecology (see Barrett, Dunbar, and Lycett, 2002, Human Evolutionary Psychology Princeton University Press). Even if you are only caring about your own net pay off, and not that of others, you are still competing with them in the long run, the entire genetic competition. Just because in one instance you cooperate, you are not competing in the long run.

Why is it silly to use the same word for two different things? Is that a serious question?

And I was just pointing out that cooperation is neither out-and-out altruism nor self-interested competition.
My point is that the cooperation is never altruism, its at its heart competition, the long term competition of the individual. Even someone gives their life for their child its benefiting them it the long run.

[ReligionStudent]

In my origional comment I said Yes, compotition is more basic than cooperation. True altruism does not exist. And I stand by this. There is no altruism, and competition is behind not only the human ability to cooperate, but the decisions which lead to it.

[jimbob]

In my origional comment I said And I stand by this. There is no altruism, and competition is behind not only the human ability to cooperate, but the decisions which lead to it.

I'd beg to differ. Slightly.

Cooperation and empathy might have evolved to help social animals gain an advantage over non-cooperators, and indeed the punishing of cheats to enforce the cooperation.

However as an inevvitable result of this, humans (and some other social animals) seem to feel sympathy for "cute" animals/humans in trouble.

Somebody who looks after stray dogs *is* behaving altruistically, as it can't really benefit their genes. There is a good evolutionary explaination for the origin of the behaviour, but it still is altruistic.


Frans der Waal quotes an old chineese philosopher on this subect, asking why one rushes to save a neighbours child from falling down a well. The philospher dismisses arguments about acquiring status and reputation and gratitude, indeed most of the machiavellian reasons, and says the real reason is the pleasure in seeing someone happy, or because of empathy.


That is not to say that the machiavellian reasons aren't valid; indeed it is probably why this behaviour succeded in the evolutionary "race"...



Jim

[ReligionStudent]

I'd beg to differ. Slightly.

Cooperation and empathy might have evolved to help social animals gain an advantage over non-cooperators, and indeed the punishing of cheats to enforce the cooperation.

However as an inevvitable result of this, humans (and some other social animals) seem to feel sympathy for "cute" animals/humans in trouble.

Somebody who looks after stray dogs *is* behaving altruistically, as it can't really benefit their genes. There is a good evolutionary explaination for the origin of the behaviour, but it still is altruistic.


Frans der Waal quotes an old chineese philosopher on this subect, asking why one rushes to save a neighbours child from falling down a well. The philospher dismisses arguments about acquiring status and reputation and gratitude, indeed most of the machiavellian reasons, and says the real reason is the pleasure in seeing someone happy, or because of empathy.


That is not to say that the machiavellian reasons aren't valid; indeed it is probably why this behaviour succeded in the evolutionary "race"...



Jim

Your quote fails to explain why the author would overlook the ideas of gaining status/bonds in the social groups. It certainly goes against countless studies. I would be very interested in seeing which studies the author is following.

For a very long time it has been a selfish thing for man to have dogs around. Looking after a puppy would help with gaurding the camp, scaring off animals, hunting and tracking, and in many cultures food.

At the very least, the attraction to children/cute things is missfiring selfishness, which is bread into men and women to make them better care for their own children.
Their is also the common explanation to tit for tat in looking after groups children.

None of these behaviors is altruistic.
You might as well go ahead an say potlaching is altruistic then.

[chriswl]

I did not say cooperation was unreal, but that it is a social manifestation of competition, where a person is looking out for self. As for someone being their genes, this is the phenotypic gambit, an essential part of studying human behavioral ecology (see Barrett, Dunbar, and Lycett, 2002, Human Evolutionary Psychology Princeton University Press). Even if you are only caring about your own net pay off, and not that of others, you are still competing with them in the long run, the entire genetic competition.
Like I said, I am not my genes. What's a "phenotypic gambit"?

Even someone gives their life for their child its benefiting them it the long run.
????

No its benefiting their genes. I AM NOT MY GENES. Do I need to use a bigger font before you get it?

[ReligionStudent]

Like I said, I am not my genes. What's a "phenotypic gambit"?


????

No its benefiting their genes. I AM NOT MY GENES. Do I need to use a bigger font before you get it?

The phenotyptic gambit is the well established practice of looking at people's phenotype as a relyable expression of genes. You may not be your genes, but your actions are limited by them

[jimbob]

At the very least, the attraction to children/cute things is missfiring selfishness, which is bread into men and women to make them better care for their own children.

Their is also the common explanation to tit for tat in looking after groups children.

None of these behaviors is altruistic.
You might as well go ahead an say potlaching is altruistic then.

My point was the first bit.

Yes, in evolutionary terms it is misfiring selfishness, but in effect, because it is misfiring, the behaviour is not selfish becuase it need have no benefit to the individuals except to make them feel good.

It is enough to do it because of the pleasure in helping, and not anything else.

Frans der Waal's pioint was that the tit-for-tat might be the reason that the behaviour has persisted, as co-operative traits gave a reproductive advantage, but that the way this has manifest itself is at least partly by developing understanding of others (empathy) so that one tends to behave in a manner that is sucessful in the long-term even at the cost of short-term disadvantage, because of empathy, not calculation of advantage.

Some people will rush into rivers to rescue strangers, and sometimes drown. Nobody would blame them if the didn't attempt the rescue, and many of the surviving rescuers say that they acted "without thinking". It was raw emotion and empathy "misfiring". But the act of rescue is not as a result of a calculation of the best interests of the rescuer.

I think that the "cute" angle can go both ways. If gorillia babies liook cute to us, because they and human babise share similar signals, then the converse might also be the case for gorillias. The gorillia Binti Jua (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2627264) had her own child with her when she rescued, so wouldn't have been confused as to the difference between her child and a human. However she obviously did feel protective, (of the "cute" little human?):

On 16 August, 1996, Binti Jua was in her outdoor enclosure, gently grooming Koola. Visitors to the zoo were all enjoying the sight of the gorillas, when suddenly a little three-year-old boy who had been playing along the barrier of the primate enclosure toppled over the edge and fell 18 foot to the concrete floor below.

The boy's mother screamed for help, but before anyone else could act Binti Jua stood up with Koola grasping the fur on her back and made her way to the unconscious boy. Lifting the child by his arms, Binti gently scooped him up and held him to her chest, rocking him softly as she carried him over to an access door. Another larger female gorilla approached, but growling softly Binti ensured the elder female backed away from the trio.

Zookeepers and paramedics had arrived at the entry point to the primate enclosure, and Binti carefully placed the human child on the floor in front of the door. The injured boy was rushed by ambulance to nearby Loyola University Medical Centre3, while Binti Jua calmly walked back to her regular spot under a tree and resumed grooming Koola.

There are other examples e.g. Jambo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jambo_(gorilla)).

I am guessing that this "misfiring" is more common between animals that look mutually cute, I doubt that a gorillia would rescue a poor defenceless baby aligator...

[ReligionStudent]

My point was the first bit.

Yes, in evolutionary terms it is misfiring selfishness, but in effect, because it is misfiring, the behaviour is not selfish becuase it need have no benefit to the individuals except to make them feel good. I think that we are getting towards an agreement here, I think that tit for tat is selfish, and not altruistic, such as with the vampire bat example.

It is enough to do it because of the pleasure in helping, and not anything else. I think that we find it pleasurable because of a genetic legacy, which allows us to feel selfish for something specific, and leads us to in these specific cases

Frans der Waal's pioint was that the tit-for-tat might be the reason that the behaviour has persisted, as co-operative traits gave a reproductive advantage, but that the way this has manifest itself is at least partly by developing understanding of others (empathy) so that one tends to behave in a manner that is sucessful in the long-term even at the cost of short-term disadvantage, because of empathy, not calculation of advantage. The calculation of advantage is not concious. This is a big issue with people when they first hear about kin selection a lot of the time. They think that since a bird can't think about their child sharing 50% of their genes or their other relatives having some percent, they aren't valid as part of the explanation. But evolution would select for individuals who work based on these relaitions even if it were unconsious.

Some people will rush into rivers to rescue strangers, and sometimes drown. Nobody would blame them if the didn't attempt the rescue, and many of the surviving rescuers say that they acted "without thinking". It was raw emotion and empathy "misfiring". But the act of rescue is not as a result of a calculation of the best interests of the rescuer. I think that if some gene is misfiring that is still competition. Its the gene hedging its bets and overworking for periods where it is necessary. Additionally, this overlooks ideas of humans as working in a society where personal risk shows fitness and often where every group member was important

I think that the "cute" angle can go both ways. If gorillia babies liook cute to us, because they and human babise share similar signals, then the converse might also be the case for gorillias. The gorillia Binti Jua (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2627264) had her own child with her when she rescued, so wouldn't have been confused as to the difference between her child and a human. However she obviously did feel protective, (of the "cute" little human?):



There are other examples e.g. Jambo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jambo_(gorilla)).

I am guessing that this "misfiring" is more common between animals that look mutually cute, I doubt that a gorillia would rescue a poor defenceless baby aligator...
I think in some cases we could consider the mutually cute a missfire. It does nothing for a gorilla to help a baby human in the wild, but they might.

Humans have a unique ability to conciously act against their own best interest through analysis. This appears altruistic, but even in further analysis, this is often demonstratably due to necessities do to either group membership or risk as a demonstration of fitness.

I am planning to give blood on the 3rd (everyone should always anyway) and I have organ donor marked on my ID, neither does me good, and both appear altruistic, but I think they both relate more to the necessity of human society in the longer evolutionary process. In short, we can act in ways that cooperate, but such cooperation, I think has been shown, is limited to what our genes allow and is based on a longer system of individual competition.

[jimbob]

Re: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2535392#post2535392

Yup, I think the main difference between us is either empahasis or semantics.

I do not disagree with anything in that post except below:

I think that if some gene is misfiring that is still competition. Its the gene hedging its bets and overworking for periods where it is necessary. Additionally, this overlooks ideas of humans as working in a society where personal risk shows fitness and often where every group member was important

And that is only the idea of the , "gene hedging its bets".

I prefer to think of it as random mutations selected for individuals who co-operated and were socially able. Empathy evolved because it made people better socially, and by co-operating able to get a share of a bigger reproductive (cherry) cake , compared to an entire small one, especially with kin-selection.

As an inevitable(?) by-product of this, some genuinely altruistic behaviour was made likely in certain conditions. The personal risk and fitnes argument is (usually) unconcious and might not actually play a part in all cases.

Jim

[chriswl]

The phenotyptic gambit is the well established practice of looking at people's phenotype as a relyable expression of genes. You may not be your genes, but your actions are limited by them
So, as I thought, it's irrelevant to the point I'm making.

[ReligionStudent]

So, as I thought, it's irrelevant to the point I'm making.

how is that irrelavent?

[chriswl]

how is that irrelavent?
Because I'm not denying that our behaviour is an expression of our genes. Nor am I denying that our genes limit our behaviour. But I do insist that selfish genes don't always express selfish behaviour.

[ReligionStudent]

but it is still inately selfish, even if it is a self-beneficial cooperative behavior.

[jimbob]

but it is still inately selfish, even if it is a self-beneficial cooperative behavior.


I would argue that the behavioural trait will have had a positive or neutral effect on the reproductive success of those demonstrating this trait*, but that individual examples of these behaviours need not be selfish, just a consequence of evolved traits.

How is someone helping injured animals inately selfish? Arguing that this behaviour stems from inherent behavioural traits that increase reproductive success is not the same thing.

I do not like the idea of a "selfish gene", as I think it sometimes gets confused to almost imply that the genes are planning their strategies.

I prefer to think that in any self-replicating system with transcription errors, there will be evolutionary pressures at work, and the resulting "templates" that enable the most sucessful replication will replicate most sucseefully. In reality these templates are almost exclusively at the level of the gene.

But not always:

Within a cow's brain there might be two forms of the same prion protein, one that is in a far more energetically stable form than the other, but which unfortunately causes BSE. This BSE prion acts as its own template and converts the healthy protein into the BSE form; this could be regarded as the BSE prion being a "selfish protein". I would argue this is subject to evolutionary pressures too.

ETA: THis is my understanding as a non-biochemist, please correct any fundamental errors...



Jim



*Not all behavioural traits are inherited; the Shakers behavioural traits weren't...

[chriswl]

but it is still inately selfish, even if it is a self-beneficial cooperative behavior.
I've answered this at length. I'm not going to repeat myself any more.

[CapelDodger]

I preferred this thread when it was about dissing an Oxford man.

I had an epiphany back in my early teens; I realised that we do good things because that makes us feel good about ourselves, and we don't do bad ones for vice versa. Ergo, all is selfishness. Apparent altruism is simply a measure of how much weight an individual applies to each side. ("Good" and "bad" referring to personal perceptions rather than absolutes.)

As I mellowed into adulthood I came to realise that apparent altruism is good enough for me. It's not so much about the doing of good things, it's more about the not doing of bad things, even if they're to your advantage.

[ReligionStudent]

I would argue that the behavioural trait will have had a positive or neutral effect on the reproductive success of those demonstrating this trait*, but that individual examples of these behaviours need not be selfish, just a consequence of evolved traits.

How is someone helping injured animals inately selfish? Arguing that this behaviour stems from inherent behavioural traits that increase reproductive success is not the same thing. It's inately selfish, as it is done on some level for self advancement, even if it is a misfiring genetic reason. The drive is still a selfish one

I do not like the idea of a "selfish gene", as I think it sometimes gets confused to almost imply that the genes are planning their strategies.

I prefer to think that in any self-replicating system with transcription errors, there will be evolutionary pressures at work, and the resulting "templates" that enable the most sucessful replication will replicate most sucseefully. In reality these templates are almost exclusively at the level of the gene.

But not always:

Within a cow's brain there might be two forms of the same prion protein, one that is in a far more energetically stable form than the other, but which unfortunately causes BSE. This BSE prion acts as its own template and converts the healthy protein into the BSE form; this could be regarded as the BSE prion being a "selfish protein". I would argue this is subject to evolutionary pressures too.

ETA: THis is my understanding as a non-biochemist, please correct any fundamental errors...



Jim



*Not all behavioural traits are inherited; the Shakers behavioural traits weren't...


I just have to say, not likeing it because it is confusing is not a good reason. And as has been illustrated through examples and studies in the book I sited earlier in this thread, altruism will be selected against, as the selfish genes will be more succesful.

[jimbob]

I had an epiphany back in my early teens; I realised that we do good things because that makes us feel good about ourselves, and we don't do bad ones for vice versa. Ergo, all is selfishness. Apparent altruism is simply a measure of how much weight an individual applies to each side. ("Good" and "bad" referring to personal perceptions rather than absolutes.)

As I mellowed into adulthood I came to realise that apparent altruism is good enough for me. It's not so much about the doing of good things, it's more about the not doing of bad things, even if they're to your advantage.

Ditto for me, probably about the same side. Nobody does anything *because* they don't want to... However doing something because it maes you feel good (from the pleasure of seeing someone else's happiness can be altruistic). A person of "good will". Doing it because otherwise you might end up in hell probably isn't, as the motive is different.

It's inately selfish, as it is done on some level for self advancement, even if it is a misfiring genetic reason. The drive is still a selfish one


I disagree, the gene is not selfish, it is just the result of chance. Behaviours that stop the gene replicating sucessfully, by definition, stop the gene replicating sucessfully.

There is a slight and subtle difference between what I am saying and what you are saying.


I just have to say, not likeing it because it is confusing is not a good reason. And as has been illustrated through examples and studies in the book I sited earlier in this thread, altruism will be selected against, as the selfish genes will be more succesful.

Neutral traits won't be selected against. Sometimes traits seem irrational in the short term, but obviously work in the long term, "cutting off your nose to spite your face" is an example where people tend to punish non-cooperators even at cost to themselves. This is not altruistic.

Truely altruistic traits would not be selected for. "Greater love hath no man than he who gives up his genes for a competitor"?

However, "misfiring" of a long-term self-interested behavioural trait into occasional non self-interested behaviour can still be altruistic, as the driving emotion is (almost always) empathy. The driving emotion is not selfish. The genes are not selfish; selection works at the level of the gene. The genes are just chemicals that have selection acting on them.

The reason that the trait has been selectd for is because it confers some reproductive advantage on the individual, but the expression is not selfish.


Jim

[ReligionStudent]

Ditto for me, probably about the same side. Nobody does anything *because* they don't want to... However doing something because it maes you feel good (from the pleasure of seeing someone else's happiness can be altruistic). A person of "good will". Doing it because otherwise you might end up in hell probably isn't, as the motive is different.



I disagree, the gene is not selfish, it is just the result of chance. Behaviours that stop the gene replicating sucessfully, by definition, stop the gene replicating sucessfully. But it isn't a single event, its an overall summation of one's lifetime. If you do something that hurts your chances of passing on your gene today, even if it does not stop you from passing it on tommorow, it will be selected against in the long run, because there will be others that don't have that issue and get to add to their chances twice.

There is a slight and subtle difference between what I am saying and what you are saying.



Neutral traits won't be selected against. Sometimes traits seem irrational in the short term, but obviously work in the long term, "cutting off your nose to spite your face" is an example where people tend to punish non-cooperators even at cost to themselves. This is not altruistic.

Truely altruistic traits would not be selected for. "Greater love hath no man than he who gives up his genes for a competitor"?

However, "misfiring" of a long-term self-interested behavioural trait into occasional non self-interested behaviour can still be altruistic, as the driving emotion is (almost always) empathy. The driving emotion is not selfish. The genes are not selfish; selection works at the level of the gene. The genes are just chemicals that have selection acting on them. Following a misfiring is a selfish behavior. Whatever survived to misfire, survived because it was in the individual's favor. To do it, even if it does not make sence, is hedging one's bets. See The God Delusion or Why People Believe Strange Things.
Empathy likely exists as part of a group dynamic that is completly selfish and necessary for the individual. Humans work in groups because it helps the individual, not because it helps the group

The reason that the trait has been selectd for is because it confers some reproductive advantage on the individual, but the expression is not selfish.


Jim

I am just wondering, what studies do you guys have to back up your side. I really do not believe I am going to be moved away from the "no altruism" position without some actual scientific proof, when I have read loads of studies to the contrary in books like the one I sited before.

There is lots of scientific evidence for selfishness and not altruism, but I have not seen any back when I was taking humen ev. and social ev. classes that showed the contrary.

[CapelDodger]

Ditto for me, probably about the same side. Nobody does anything *because* they don't want to... However doing something because it maes you feel good (from the pleasure of seeing someone else's happiness can be altruistic). A person of "good will". Doing it because otherwise you might end up in hell probably isn't, as the motive is different.

I can't be getting on with that "More moral than you because there's a knife at my back" BS. WTF is that all about?

Handsome is as handsome does, that's what I always say. My judgement of handsome is, as far all of us, entirely subjective and arbitrary. I can't logically argue that exploiting the weak is objectively wrong. That's just one of my axioms. (This does not apply in formalised arenas such as the poker-table, of course, but one should not lure in the innocent. Unless they have a serious inheritance, and you should still leave them with something.)

People have my respect until they lose it, and I could lose it uniquely easily. I don't aspire to sainthood, but I want to feel I'm a decent chap. Someone who'll put themselves out for somebody else, even a stranger. Someone who will try not to do harm. That, I suppose, is the basis of my altruism. Selfish? Arguably, but I prefer people who are my kind of selfish :) .

[CapelDodger]

Empathy likely exists as part of a group dynamic that is completly selfish and necessary for the individual. Humans work in groups because it helps the individual, not because it helps the group

Perhaps we should distinguish between people and humans. Humans are members of a group-species, evolved from other group-species from some way back. At least from before the divergence with the chimps and bonobos. Humans coalesce into groups because that's a fundamental nature of the beast. The lone-wolf does not prosper in such species. Leopards love 'em :) .

People form groups - teams and communities - because they gain emotional rewards from doing so. That's how our genes dictate that we're a group-species - first, form the group. People love being in teams (people even love it vicariously by aping real team members). Identification with the team can be very strong, outweighing any individual calculations of interest.

Empathy exists to facilitate group-forming, and so while evolved selfishly is not experienced selfishly. Except by selfish individuals, of course :) .

[ReligionStudent]

Perhaps we should distinguish between people and humans. Humans are members of a group-species, evolved from other group-species from some way back. At least from before the divergence with the chimps and bonobos. Humans coalesce into groups because that's a fundamental nature of the beast. The lone-wolf does not prosper in such species. Leopards love 'em :) .

People form groups - teams and communities - because they gain emotional rewards from doing so. That's how our genes dictate that we're a group-species - first, form the group. People love being in teams (people even love it vicariously by aping real team members). Identification with the team can be very strong, outweighing any individual calculations of interest.

Empathy exists to facilitate group-forming, and so while evolved selfishly is not experienced selfishly. Except by selfish individuals, of course :) .


Everything you said there is for the individual. They do join groups because it feels good to them. Not because it benefits the group, but because they enjoy it.

[CapelDodger]

Everything you said there is for the individual. They do join groups because it feels good to them. Not because it benefits the group, but because they enjoy it.

Enjoyment is a mechanism by which people - individuals - are manipulated. Humans enjoy forming groups because our species has evolved to follow a group strategy. (Tigers have evolved to enjoy being anti-social because their species follows a different strategy.) At the species level, group-forming is selfishly evolved.

At the individual level people will often join groups because they identify with the group and its aims. Their conscious motivation for joining is actually to benefit the group. That's what I mean by group-forming not being selfishly experienced. Not consciously by each individual in every case, anyway.

[ReligionStudent]

evolution does not work on a group or species level though, its all based on the individual.