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

121–130 of 140 posts

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

#121

Post by rarec »

wccrawford wrote: post #111
Insanity wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I actually struggle with this idea myself. I consider myself a good person, and I enjoy helping others. Sometimes with a fair bit of cost to myself. But I don't consider it "altruistic". I help them because I want to help them and enjoy having done so, and not out of some innate sense of ethics or of what needs to be done. I think people doing altruistic things do enjoy them, but they don't do them because they enjoy…

At that point, does it particularly matter if it's altruistic or not if the person is helping others for their own selfish gain, or for the benefit of others?

For example, a restaurant owner might serve food for free for homeless people for increasing their own reputation and social wellbeing, vs the owner who does it entirely out of the goodness of their hearts. The net result is the same, so why worry so much about the motivation behind it? I'd say they're both equally good people, in this example.

Being able to be generous and therefore altruistic is also a decent signal to the rest of your group you're fit and healthy.

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

#122

Post by bitwize »

hueving wrote: post #48
int_19h wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand the nature of the math correctly, altruism should be "beneficial" (from evolutionary perspective), if the number of people multiplied by closeness factor of their genes to yours ultimately translates to a larger portion of your genes propagating to later generations, than if you have expended those resources on yourself. E.g. suppose I have a loaf of lembas. I can eat it myself, and it increases my ch…

Evolutionary instinct is to create your own offspring, not your sister's/brother's. Why would there be an evolutionary reason to help your brother reproduce but not your friend.?

It's a hedge. In the ancestral environment, times may get tough and you might not get laid. A wildebeest could gore you when you are out on the hunt, or a disease or famine break out and greatly reduce the pool of reproductive-age women. By helping a sibling make it to the reproductive stage of their lives, you ensure that at least some of your genes get passed on.

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

#123

Post by rarec »

kitd wrote: post #108
hueving wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evolutionary instinct is to create your own offspring, not your sister's/brother's. Why would there be an evolutionary reason to help your brother reproduce but not your friend.?

Think of an ant colony. All of them brothers or half-brothers, who will sacrifice themselves when under attack to save the gene pool.

That's not entirely fair as an example, as most ants will not breed and only a select few do. If you had a queen ant risking herself or the drones to save the colony, that's a different story.

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

#124

Post by sctb »

ColanR wrote: post #42
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.

If you had a reference for this, I would love to read it. (not sarcastic; this is fascinating.)

I'm not sure exactly what the OP is referring to, but there was an article recently on HN that talked about what I assume is related research and includes references: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13210681.

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

#125

Post by pron »

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…

What about Hamilton's kin selection and the Price equation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation

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

#126

Post by edblarney »

JohnStrange wrote: post #102
edblarney wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think this is wrong. Behaviours that groups exhibit will definitely be passed on from individual to individual and definitely have an effect on the ability of the group to survive. And - whether something is passed on socially or through genes, it doesn't matter. 'Evolution' is not just a function of genes, obviously. Your list of 'behaviours' is easy to describe, and I'll do it in context of your 'a' and 'b' p…

And - whether something is passed on socially or through genes, it doesn't matter. 'Evolution' is not just a function of genes, obviously. That's not obvious at all and it matters a lot. The idea that there is e.g. an 'evolution of ideas' is ill-conceived and misleading for many reasons. The same can be said about similar ideas like 'evolution of social systems', 'evolution of memes', etc. In order to show that there…

"In order to show that there is an evolutionary process that goes beyond of what is transmitted by genes you first have to show empirically that the respective information is transmitted non-genetically, "

Where did you learn to speak English?

Where did you learn to read and write?

Where did you learn Math?

Where did you learn how to eat, run, catch a ball?

You learned those things from your social environment - those are bit of knowledge that are handed down from generation to generation and 100% affect your ability to survive and thrive in your environment.

You're a living example of how 'information is passed non-genetically' - there's no need to do an experiment to show how that is done, it'd be like doing an experiment to see if the sun rises tommorow.

Social information is absolutely passed down from generation to generation, and this affects how species adapt to their environment and thus which genes are passed. This is obvious, there's no way to contend that, really.

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

#127

Post by naasking »

adrianN wrote: post #114
naasking wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is the most effective strategy in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, which seems to most closely match social interactions. Better strategies were recently found, but they are highly convoluted and involve knowing your opponents strategy and manipulating it into doing what you want.

Do you have a reference for the more complicated strategies?

https://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/a-new-strategy...

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

#128

Post by naasking »

dTal wrote: post #117
naasking wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Moreover, there seem to be countless examples of behavior that we are perfectly capable of and whose effect is difficult if not impossible to explain with evolutionary arguments. Even if we acknowledge that some of those examples can't be explained by evolution, evolution permits aberrations. It's in the very core of the model.

It's also worth noting that nearly all of these examples are extremely rare. Homosexuality is the most common one, and as current research suggests a genetic component it seems likely that with further information it will ultimately make sense, if not as an adaptive trait, at least as a consequence of adaptive traits. The others are indeed examples of memes overpowering genes, and an evolutionary model (of memes) can…

> Homosexuality is the most common one, and as current research suggests a genetic component it seems likely that with further information it will ultimately make sense, if not as an adaptive trait, at least as a consequence of adaptive traits.

Given homosexuality is prevalent in the animal kingdom as well, that's pretty much assured.

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

#129

Post by shuntress »

simonh wrote: post #73
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…

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 s…

Randomly selected study groups are intended to represent the larger society made up of those smaller communities.

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

#130

Post by hx87 »

wccrawford wrote: post #111
Insanity wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I actually struggle with this idea myself. I consider myself a good person, and I enjoy helping others. Sometimes with a fair bit of cost to myself. But I don't consider it "altruistic". I help them because I want to help them and enjoy having done so, and not out of some innate sense of ethics or of what needs to be done. I think people doing altruistic things do enjoy them, but they don't do them because they enjoy…

> I think people doing altruistic things do enjoy them, but they don't do them because they enjoy them. They do them because they need to be done, and the enjoyment is a side effect.

What is the difference between the two conditions? The only one I can think of is that removing the side effect does not change the behavior, but removing the main motivator does. How is this significant though? Is it easier to lose enjoyment from altruistic activities than to lose a sense of responsibility? Is pleasure more fickle than duty?

That distinction, IMHO, also makes the definition of altruism so narrow as to be useless.

Post reply on HN