There is a thoughtful book on this topic called "Love is the Killer App" that makes the argument that in a commodity based economy the most ruthless prevail (think 20th century steel industry), but in an information based community the most altruistic prevail (the internet). I didn't agree with all of it but it was a good read and a helpful counterpoint to the widely held view that being ruthless is good for business.
Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)
21–30 of 140 posts
Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)
#22Kindness is a poor word choice, except in its most literal sense. Care is much more apt. Mammals' key evolutionary advantage over reptiles is that they care for each other, forming social groups which enable greater fitness. Likewise with primates > mammals, and humans > apes. (One could argue that intelligence and brain size have more to do with evolutionary fitness, but I would speculate that intelligence is a resu…
I think 'responsibility' is a better word.
We are 'responsible' for one another, but in far more than just 'caring' ways. We take out the trash, we try to get along, we do all sorts of things every day that really fall into the category of 'acting responsibly' that in some ways could be described as 'caring' in a more general sense, but it wouldn't be apt.
'Conscientiousness' could be an even better word.
Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)
#23Perhaps I'm completely cynical at this point, but I think recently I have seen altruism used in the sense of "please contribute large amounts of free work to this project I'm heavily invested in."
That said, kindness, in the sense of, willing to make an attempt to understand, and take into account others views / opinions / needs, definitely makes for nicer people to be around.
Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)
#24This is really sloppy. Altruism is also the basis for Altruistic Punishment which can promote some of the most vicious behavior that humans are capable of. Social systems are much more complex than this simplistic reductionism.
Not to mention that altruistic behavior towards members of the in-group is often paired with extreme violence towards outsiders. Humans are literally Jekyll and Hyde.
Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)
#25Feels like there is a type mismatch error in the title. Survival of the fittest covers all fitness functions, so we can't contrast it with kindness. Something like "survival of the cruelest" or the "strongest" would be more correct though it doesn't read as well.
The title does not infer contrast between fitness and kindness, it infers that (were one to write a fitness function that was made up of a conglomerate of every human personality trait) kindness is the prime mover in what separates the fittest from the least fit. I also think you might misunderstand what the word kindness means, as you refer to cruelty and strength as some measure of adequate relation to what would b…
* President Obama is quite obviously an incredibly kind man *
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/12/reflecting-o...
Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)
#26Feels like there is a type mismatch error in the title. Survival of the fittest covers all fitness functions, so we can't contrast it with kindness. Something like "survival of the cruelest" or the "strongest" would be more correct though it doesn't read as well.
The title does not infer contrast between fitness and kindness, it infers that (were one to write a fitness function that was made up of a conglomerate of every human personality trait) kindness is the prime mover in what separates the fittest from the least fit. I also think you might misunderstand what the word kindness means, as you refer to cruelty and strength as some measure of adequate relation to what would b…
> The title does not infer contrast between fitness and kindness
The titel "Forget X, it's Y that matters" is pretty close to the definition of a contrast.
Regarding your other thoughts: it'd be great if it were that easy, and I even agree that the sort of kindness Bill Gates and Barack Obama exhibit is probably a useful trait.
But the causality isn't quite clear. My impression is that these success stories are the result of combining (a) extreme intelligence and (b) extreme happiness, and that kindness is the natural result if, for example, they have absolute confidence in themselves and no longer feel any kind of threat from competition.
But I'd say the "Big 5" model provides a more complete set of traits that have become more and more relevant over time:
- Openness to experience - Conscientiousness - Extraversion - Agreeableness - (Lack of) Neuroticism
There's also absolutely no doubt that aggression, the desire to punish wrongdoing by others and other violent traits have at some point been important for survival of the individual and the group, and probably still are, at a diminished level.
> Fitness in a world of more than a few is entirely dependent on symbiotic, cohesive, gentile...
Let's not forget the immune system. It's one of many "magic" inventions that made larger societies possible.
Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)
#27Kindness is a poor word choice, except in its most literal sense. Care is much more apt. Mammals' key evolutionary advantage over reptiles is that they care for each other, forming social groups which enable greater fitness. Likewise with primates > mammals, and humans > apes. (One could argue that intelligence and brain size have more to do with evolutionary fitness, but I would speculate that intelligence is a resu…
It's (part of) agreeableness in the Big Five: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Fi...
Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)
#28Perhaps I'm completely cynical at this point, but I think recently I have seen altruism used in the sense of "please contribute large amounts of free work to this project I'm heavily invested in." That said, kindness, in the sense of, willing to make an attempt to understand, and take into account others views / opinions / needs, definitely makes for nicer people to be around.
Walking down the street and experiencing hospitable conditions could be considered a project we're all heavily invested in, yet none of us expect a monetary reward.
"Survival of the fittest" can be interpreted in the same manner. Or, from a different perspective, a willingness to step over one's mother to achieve their goals.
Life is better when we respect eachother.
Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)
#29This is in line with recent game theory studies. In iterated prisoner's dilemma, the introduction of kindness wipes out always-defect strategies in the long run, and is competitive with tit-for-tat.
Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)
#30Feels like there is a type mismatch error in the title. Survival of the fittest covers all fitness functions, so we can't contrast it with kindness. Something like "survival of the cruelest" or the "strongest" would be more correct though it doesn't read as well.
The title does not infer contrast between fitness and kindness, it infers that (were one to write a fitness function that was made up of a conglomerate of every human personality trait) kindness is the prime mover in what separates the fittest from the least fit. I also think you might misunderstand what the word kindness means, as you refer to cruelty and strength as some measure of adequate relation to what would b…
>Fitness in a world of more than a few is entirely dependent on symbiotic, cohesive, gentile (in the French sense, though Christ is an inordinately germane example of kindness too) behavior.
There are at least 2 levels of fitness/survival - an individual inside its group/society and a group/society among other groups/societies. While the "symbiotic, cohesive, gentile" may do well inside its own society, would the society consisting of only such individuals do well when pitted against another society? Or would having some amount of the non-"symbiotic, cohesive, gentile" individuals in the mix help the survival of that society?