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

71–80 of 140 posts

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

#71

Post by Insanity »

gbrits wrote: post #55
negamax wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good example but in most real world cases choice will be to keep one point to themselves and give away between zero to one point to the group out of that one point. Now selfish behaviour kicks in as every individual wants to give as little as possible. But survivial of the group becomes crucial in face of an adversory. In that case everyone will contribute towards maximising group's strength. So in my understanding n…

But can it still be called altruism? Imho, helping out the group to preserve yourself disqualifies it as such; the selfish aspect is clearly there.

Good point, if it is altruism out of self-interest it is not altruistic in the pure sense.

I think that I might go as extreme as to say it is only altruistic if it makes you feel bad or puts you in a clearly bad position.

Let's say that out of an act of altruism you help a person achieve some goal of theirs. Now you do not have a material gain from this, but doing so will make you feel good, hence you did it to make yourself feel good?

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

#72

Post by Insanity »

croon wrote: post #67
gbrits wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But can it still be called altruism? Imho, helping out the group to preserve yourself disqualifies it as such; the selfish aspect is clearly there.

Sure, but just "feeling good" for helping others could be viewed as selfish as well. But at that point it's just semantics. I think we need to call altruism altruism for the actions, regardless of your return net effects. Is charity not altruism because you happen to benefit from it 50 years later in societal growth?

Wrote my post before I saw this one. This is in line with what I was thinking, an act of altruism to make yourself feel good is not pure altruism.

I also agree that it is about the actions more than what you gain by doing so.

Charity is a good example of how altruism helps yourself, I donate to charity every now and then and of course it makes me feel good about donating, thus the act has an emotional gain for me.

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

#73

Post by simonh »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #40
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…

When in history have completely random samples of complete strangers been thrown together in life-or-death situations with no ability to communicate with each other and discuss their options?

Artificial studies like this have practically no bearing on actual behavior of real populations in real situations. Try the same study with a family, or a football team or the employees of a company or a military unit and then see what result you get. That's what reality is like. Real people don't live in randomly selected study groups, they live in communities.

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

#74

Post by pmyjavec »

venomsnake wrote: post #53

One quarter of people in Asia has Chengis Khan's genes. He is probably the most genetically successfull male in the recent millenia. I am not sure he got there by altruism alone.

Except Ghengis was around Millenia ago, if we all lived like him now, then we would be in pretty bad shape.

It seems taking more than our fair share has caused some pretty bad situations with regards to the environment, we can't keep operating just for ourselves for much longer.

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

#75

Post by metafunctor »

sago wrote: post #64
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Try it. With actual evolving populations with inherited strategies, and without hard-coding group selection. Without hard-coding the groups as separate evolving units, you'll have a hard time. In general, it is easy to show the group behaviors you want if you can treat the group as atomic for the purpose of the model. But you've just moved the goalposts, your 'individuals' are not the unit of evolution any more, and…

What do you mean when you say "without hard-coding group selection"?

Are you saying the simulation is not valid unless collaboration between individuals arises as an emergent behavior?

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

#76

Post by ihaveahadron »

I don't know how much kindness counts, but while survival of the fittest still exists, what doesn't exist is the things that come to mind when you hear sirvival of the fittest. Usually you think of like a half monkey with a spear. Point being wake the fuck up people pull your head a out of your asses and, evolve, whatever "evolving" looks like in 2017. Hint, it's not trying to be a flamboyant faggot either.

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

#77

Post by pdamoc »

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…

> Show me the math.

Imagine a game you play with someone where you have 40 units and you need to divide it between the two of you. The other person has the choice of accepting the deal or refusing the deal. If they refuse, both of you get nothing. How do you divide the 40 units so that the other person accepts the deal?

Naive economics points that even if you offer the other only 1 unit, the other should take it because if they refuse the deal, they wouldn't have even that unit. In practice however, people down't work like that. If people feel they are being treated wrong, they tend to go for lose-lose. And so, in these kind of games, most people go for a fair split 20-20.

Now, imagine the same game but with a twist. You have a bunch of instances of these games and your objective is to have the highest score across all the instances. The trick is that the other player has to chose you to play with. What strategy would you adopt so that you maximize the score?

In this game, a 25-15 split is better. You lose the small game BUT more players want to play with you and so, you win the BIG game. Altruistic players are better at playing the BIG game, the long term game.

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

#78

Post by dumb-saint »

metafunctor wrote: post #75
sago wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try it. With actual evolving populations with inherited strategies, and without hard-coding group selection. Without hard-coding the groups as separate evolving units, you'll have a hard time. In general, it is easy to show the group behaviors you want if you can treat the group as atomic for the purpose of the model. But you've just moved the goalposts, your 'individuals' are not the unit of evolution any more, and…

What do you mean when you say "without hard-coding group selection"? Are you saying the simulation is not valid unless collaboration between individuals arises as an emergent behavior?

If you hard-code group selection (setting the group as the unit of evolution), then you are already assuming what you want to prove.

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

#79

Post by holyOrIonsBelt »

Insanity wrote: post #71
gbrits wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But can it still be called altruism? Imho, helping out the group to preserve yourself disqualifies it as such; the selfish aspect is clearly there.

Good point, if it is altruism out of self-interest it is not altruistic in the pure sense. I think that I might go as extreme as to say it is only altruistic if it makes you feel bad or puts you in a clearly bad position. Let's say that out of an act of altruism you help a person achieve some goal of theirs. Now you do not have a material gain from this, but doing so will make you feel good, hence you did it to make…

I think the thread has gotten way off topic. The article is about kindness, not altruism. Kindness is, in my experience, doing something that makes someone else feel good, regardless of how it makes you feel. You do something, in kind, as it reciprocates the emotive intent to be helpful. You don't do something, in kind, as it creates a lack (for either party) as a result of that act. Self sacrifice and kindness are completely unrelated. Self sacrifice should not, and must not, be a deciding factor in what determines kindness as it confuses the moral agent motivating the act.

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

#80

Post by stonewhite »

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…

While I agree with your general sentiment, here is an anectode that might be considered as evolutionary "softening".

Assyrian empire was extremely brutal to people it conquered, Persians who took its place was more "humane" to their conquered subjects as a policy. Resulting in a relatively more stable land and subjects were submitting "willingly". From that point on, it was their main selling point.

Post reply on HN