Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 140 posts

Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)

#31

Post by TeMPOraL »

divbit wrote: post #23

Perhaps 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.

> Perhaps 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."

A bit cynical in a way you put it, maybe, but what you saw is true. But it's just what comes out when you consider helping someone and actually getting an effect over helping to just get warm feelings in your belly about how good you are. It so happens that in a technological civilization, spending our time as specialists to earn money and giving it to different specialists is a better way to help than trying to help directly in areas we're not specialized in. It's how professional specialization works.

Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)

#32

Post by sago »

When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed the emergence of altruistic behaviour.

It was really really difficult. Even knowing exactly the kind of behaviour we wanted to show, it wasn't trivial to stack the dice enough to roll that outcome.

I have since read a lot of arguments, a lot of post-hoc reasoning that justifies why altruism might be a positive contributor to fitness. It is no coincidence they are almost all hand-waving, narrative arguments.

I don't buy them. Show me the math.

Evolution is a perfect subject for handwaving and post hoc rationalisations. I do not think all of evolutionary psychology is bunkum, like some have claimed, but I do think a lot is unfalsifiable, motivated reasoning. My advice would be, unless it comes with good predictions of evidence from the historical biological record, or good experimental evidence from mathematical models of evolution, it was too easily come by to be considered knowledge.

Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)

#33

Post by Kronopath »

blurbleblurble wrote: post #29

This 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.

Can you elaborate on this? How do you implement "kindness" into the prisoner's dilemma? Got any links to the relevant studies?

Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)

#34

Post by formula1 »

sago wrote: post #32

When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed the emergence of altruistic behaviour. It was really really difficult. Even knowing exactly the kind of behaviour we wanted to show, it wasn't trivial to stack the dice enough to roll that outcome. I have since read a lot of arguments, a lot of post-hoc reasoning that…

Dogs are a good example of symbiotic relationships in relation to altruism. If you give an animal free stuff, they may return you a favor. Humans, though arguably more complicated, have a long history of group hunting and enslaving eachother. While under an alpha, a system naturally develops. However, if that alpha dies or another human wants to rise up, being kind is a way to gain allies.

Additionally, when at large scale war, often you can trust your cultural bretheran better than the enemy. As a result, its important to have as many healthy and proud people as possible inorder to go to war. A culture of kindness and giving can support that.

Additionally, this is all about genetics. While there is always an argument that your genes are the best genes, cultural agreement can give faith that the best will rise and flourish. Treating your neighbor as you would yourself reinforces the hope that even in failure of the individual, the group can still succeed.

Im sure theres more

Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)

#35

Post by continuational »

sago wrote: post #32

When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed the emergence of altruistic behaviour. It was really really difficult. Even knowing exactly the kind of behaviour we wanted to show, it wasn't trivial to stack the dice enough to roll that outcome. I have since read a lot of arguments, a lot of post-hoc reasoning that…

I don't know if it counts for alturism, but wasn't cooperation-by-default famously shown the best strategy by the tit-for-tat program in the early 80'ies?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)

#36

Post by arketyp »

sago wrote: post #32

When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed the emergence of altruistic behaviour. It was really really difficult. Even knowing exactly the kind of behaviour we wanted to show, it wasn't trivial to stack the dice enough to roll that outcome. I have since read a lot of arguments, a lot of post-hoc reasoning that…

Do you have anything to say about Nowak's work on evolutionary dynamics? I have a book in my shelf in which I have only glanced the pictures, and as of yet my understanding of altriusm in nature is pretty much limited to readings of Axelrod and his tit-for-tat and also Dawkins' further musings around the subject.

Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)

#38

Post by z3t4 »

sago wrote: post #32

When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed the emergence of altruistic behaviour. It was really really difficult. Even knowing exactly the kind of behaviour we wanted to show, it wasn't trivial to stack the dice enough to roll that outcome. I have since read a lot of arguments, a lot of post-hoc reasoning that…

Maybe you can find an answer in game theory!? If you know the other part will cooperate, outcome will most of the time be better for both. If you know the other part will defect, outcome will most of the time be bad for both.

Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)

#39

Post by aliceyhg »

Whenever conflict arises at work, I usually just take a pause and buy the other person a drink and get to know each other on a more personal level. Its fun doing this and usually it ends up with me understanding my coworker on a more human level and we come to an agreement and work better together. A few years ago I would have fought to have my way and as satisfying as it was to win (occasionally), the attitude is very divisive and alienating for both parties involved.

Re: Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)

#40

Post by AnthonyMouse »

sago wrote: post #32

When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed the emergence of altruistic behaviour. It was really really difficult. Even knowing exactly the kind of behaviour we wanted to show, it wasn't trivial to stack the dice enough to roll that outcome. I have since read a lot of arguments, a lot of post-hoc reasoning that…

> When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed the emergence of altruistic behaviour.

OK, math.

There are 200 people in Group A. Each has the choice of taking 1 point for themselves or giving 2 points to the group. If everyone gives 2 points then everyone gets 2 points. If everyone keeps the 1 point then no one gets anything from the group and everyone has only the 1 point. But if you keep your 1 point and everyone else gives 2 points then you get 1 + 1.99 points = 2.99 points. You can obviously see how everyone might end up defecting here.

But there are also groups B and C who are all under the same rules. After each iteration everyone in the group with the lowest average dies, is ineligible to receive points in any future iteration, and is replaced in the next iteration with a new group that behaves randomly. Each individual gets to accumulate points for 100 iterations before being replaced, unless their group dies first.

Now what happens?

Post reply on HN