Humans May Be Hardwired For Altruism

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,795
Location
USA / Europe
Studies like this are a breath of fresh air in the suffocating sphere of genetics-driven anthropology. I would like to hear Dawkins' take on it, even though he has said before that he refuses to look at studies that claim to have found altruism in human nature. To him it is a waste of time and he thinks all such studies are actually discovering selfishness disguised as altruism. There can be no altruism in genes, is the motto of Dawkins.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-03-brain-hard-wired-altruism.html#nRlv
"...It's an age-old quandary: Are we born "noble savages" whose best intentions are corrupted by civilization, as the 18th century Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau contended? Or are we fundamentally selfish brutes who need civilization to rein in our base impulses, as the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued? After exploring the areas of the brain that fuel our empathetic impulses—and temporarily disabling other regions that oppose those impulses—two UCLA neuroscientists are coming down on the optimistic side of human nature. Our altruism may be more hard-wired than previously thought," said Leonardo Christov-Moo`re, a postdoctoral fellow at UCLA's Semel Institute of Neuroscience and Human Behavior. The findings, reported in two recent studies, also point to a possible way to make people behave in less selfish and more altruistic ways, said senior author Marco Iacoboni, a UCLA psychiatry professor. "This is potentially groundbreaking," he said."
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
Of course Dawkins will say this, Monsieur hubris himself.
He still can't see the fallacy in his own religion atheism. He is the high priest of atheism.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
An unassailable position is the most worthless of all positions.

Yes that is the flaw. Dawkins isn't that bad because he just says we "just have to wait and see" (what her majesty science and her loyal postdoc minions) find out. But he still falls into that trap.
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
Faith-based atheism, perhaps?

Exactly and in general riddled with fallacies.

Atheism original meaning I think was, to not believe in the established religion of the times or belief in a man in the clouds.
They didn't proselytise it like atheists do today. It didn't mean you had to believe there was no life after death, a reasonable person will see that this can't be proved.
Many religions do not believe in a man in the sky.
 

bobbybobbob

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
203
You are ignoring group selection? In-group vs. out-group. Allied and related groups of people are altruistic with each other. What experiment after experiment shows is that group competition amplifies in-group altruism and also out-group hostility. People get even more altruistic with their in-group when there's a group struggle.

This experiment appears to completely ignore this dynamic. It's about atomized individuals not on teams, so of course the default in-group strategies come into play. People are altruistic to their in-group. We've known that forever.

Man is a social and tribal animal, like any other primate. The real experiment would be to shove a random selection of people into a prison yard for four months. When they already all know each other, then run experiments on them knowing what gangs they're already sorted into.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
You are ignoring group selection? In-group vs. out-group. Allied and related groups of people are altruistic with each other. What experiment after experiment shows is that group competition amplifies in-group altruism and also out-group hostility. People get even more altruistic with their in-group when there's a group struggle.

This experiment appears to completely ignore this dynamic. It's about atomized individuals not on teams, so of course the default in-group strategies come into play. People are altruistic to their in-group. We've known that forever.

Man is a social and tribal animal, like any other primate. The real experiment would be to shove a random selection of people into a prison yard for four months. When they already all know each other, then run experiments on them knowing what gangs they're already sorted into.

And place bids on them and televise the whole thing?
 

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
You are ignoring group selection? In-group vs. out-group. Allied and related groups of people are altruistic with each other. What experiment after experiment shows is that group competition amplifies in-group altruism and also out-group hostility. People get even more altruistic with their in-group when there's a group struggle.

This experiment appears to completely ignore this dynamic. It's about atomized individuals not on teams, so of course the default in-group strategies come into play. People are altruistic to their in-group. We've known that forever.

Man is a social and tribal animal, like any other primate. The real experiment would be to shove a random selection of people into a prison yard for four months. When they already all know each other, then run experiments on them knowing what gangs they're already sorted into.

The human frontal lobes allow us to construct very complex systems of images, or acceptors of action. Pavlov opposed the "biologizers" who wished to ignore the importance of human history and culture in the development of our capacities--people who attempt to draw political conclusions from what they claim are human instincts of aggression, territoriality, etc. Pavlov called the first levels of constructions, closely tied to the sensory analyzers, the "first signal system." Language and the complex systems of meaning that make up culture (which are possible because of the unique development of our frontal lobes), Pavlov referred to as the "second signal system." Science requires that we account for consciousness in biological terms as far as is possible, but consciousness also includes historical and cultural influences, and our biological conceptions must be adequate to account for the existence of all those things which are simply historical--so many of which are arbitrary, and therefore temporary, and to be grown out of The "biologizers" often speak of "genes" for aggression and militarism, because they strongly wish to deny the reality of social-historical processes, but Pavlov argued that moral ideas can change history, and historically determined behavior.

Mind and Tissue page 73


Referring to that experiment of people in a prison yard, a few years ago there was a prisoner who had Schizophrenia attack a prison guard. However in this jail there were trying a new method where there would be one prison guard for about 75 inmates. And this program stressed trust between the prison guards and inmates. Anyway the Schizophrenic inmate attack the only prison guard and other inmates rush to help prison guard. They ended up calling in for back up they where able to hold this guy down and the prison guard got up fine. People across the country saw the story and offer to buy the inmates food and other things.

 

bobbybobbob

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
203
I really don't see how any of this addressees my fundamental question about group selection theory.

The default state of human (and mammalian) evolutionary history has been resource scarcity. There is competition over scarce resources.

If you shove people into artificial scenarios where there's: A) no underlying scarce resource; and B) No pre-established tribes, well the results aren't going to tell you much.

The story of human history is, frankly, tribal warfare. Warfare over scarce resources. Yes, most people were "stressed" about their need to get at water and meat and so-forth. In some hypothetical Shangri-la of abundance I'm sure everyone would be super nice to everyone. But even today there are only so many Malibu beach-front mansions.
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
You are ignoring group selection? In-group vs. out-group. Allied and related groups of people are altruistic with each other. What experiment after experiment shows is that group competition amplifies in-group altruism and also out-group hostility. People get even more altruistic with their in-group when there's a group struggle.

This experiment appears to completely ignore this dynamic. It's about atomized individuals not on teams, so of course the default in-group strategies come into play. People are altruistic to their in-group. We've known that forever.

Man is a social and tribal animal, like any other primate. The real experiment would be to shove a random selection of people into a prison yard for four months. When they already all know each other, then run experiments on them knowing what gangs they're already sorted into.

Your right about man being social and tribal,this is why man should recognise this all over the world. We are part of the in-group.

Shoving people into a prison yard for four months will shrink the brain, the result is a given.
In a better environment that allows for individual expression it will create a more coherent whole. Individual expression does not have to be selfish. Higher intelligence within people will allow them to unfold reality coherently.
I think Peats recommendations can get you this state of perception, lsd,psilocybin being the potent forms. I have never done these yet so I can't be sure.

Give them all MDMA and some music and see what happens......

History might repeat itself every now and again but creativity is always there, these scarce resources have been invented by us, we buy into a 6 bedroom Malibu mansion, red Ferrari etc
We have the creativity to create better, that doesn't have to mean organic tents in the Forrest playing instruments with horse hair strings.
Look at graphene for example.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,795
Location
USA / Europe
"...In some hypothetical Shangri-la of abundance I'm sure everyone would be super nice to everyone."


It is exactly this statement that Dawkins will argue vehemently against. If you agree that man is altruistic in times of plenty then you are basically agreeing with the study's main point. Dawkins, on the other hand, will argue that people are selfish even in times/places of abundance and having such abudance will inevitably degenerate into a pack of alpha males stealing the bulk of it and forming extensive piles of food and women.
 

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
I really don't see how any of this addressees my fundamental question about group selection theory.

The default state of human (and mammalian) evolutionary history has been resource scarcity. There is competition over scarce resources.

If you shove people into artificial scenarios where there's: A) no underlying scarce resource; and B) No pre-established tribes, well the results aren't going to tell you much.

The story of human history is, frankly, tribal warfare. Warfare over scarce resources. Yes, most people were "stressed" about their need to get at water and meat and so-forth. In some hypothetical Shangri-la of abundance I'm sure everyone would be super nice to everyone. But even today there are only so many Malibu beach-front mansions.

Do you know who supported the group selection theory ? Konrad Lorenz, a nazi who was the architect of the extermination camps. Ray Peat talks about him in some of his articles.

Although Konrad Lorenz (who later received the Nobel Prize) was the architect of the Nazi's policy of "racial hygiene" (extermination of those with unwanted physical, cultural, or political traits which were supposedly determined by "genes") he took his ideas from the leading U.S. geneticists, whose works were published in the main genetics journals. Following the Nazis' defeat, some of these journals were renamed, and the materials on eugenics were often removed from libraries, so that a new historical resume could be presented by the profession.

Eclampsia in the Real Organism: A Paradigm of General Distress Applicable in Infants, Adults, Etc.


Konrad Lorenz and the ethologists explained animal behavior in terms of chains of reflexes that are "triggered" by certain sensations or perceptions. This claim that animals' behavior just consists of mechanical chains of reflexes strictly follows Descartes' doctrine, and Chomsky has consistently acknowledged that his theory is Cartesian.

Intuitive knowledge and its development


Please go else where with your pseudo-science. We don't usually to fascism or nazism.
 

bobbybobbob

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
203
I don't advocate for a Dawkinsian analysis. I've not even read any of his stuff. A selfish gene analysis is probably too simplistic.

I find it perfectly reasonable to assume that in an environment of abundance people try to build as large a tribe as possible. I come to this conclusion myself, not via Dawkins or gene game theory.

What we know is when you dial back the abundance, you get war. When living standards are rising there's peace. Declining living standards precipitate warfare. There are hundreds of years of documentation corroborating this.
 

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
Way to Godwin the thread. Better luck next time.

Am I wrong ? you were citing ideas from his material on aggression. He was the brain behind the extermination camps. And you are using his ideas as leverage for what ? To prove that your argument is right. Better luck next time.
 
Last edited:

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
I don't advocate for a Dawkinsian analysis. I've not even read any of his stuff. A selfish gene analysis is probably too simplistic.

I find it perfectly reasonable to assume that in an environment of abundance people try to build as large a tribe as possible. I come to this conclusion myself, not via Dawkins or gene game theory.

What we know is when you dial back the abundance, you get war. When living standards are rising there's peace. Declining living standards precipitate warfare. There are hundreds of years of documentation corroborating this.

Most wars you speak of were by governments/monarchs that used ideology to influence people.
We have never had leadership that has showed people the workings of nature as they are. How the individual can be , lower social classes were made to feel inferior, made slaves.

Aggression does not need to be excercised violently.
 

bobbybobbob

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
203
Au contraire, Most wars were by governments/monarchs influenced by the ideology of the people. The leadership reflects the population.

Democracy didn't really change much. Regicide and revolution were frequent, and effective checks on free exercise of power.
 
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
Back
Top Bottom