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

131–140 of 140 posts

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

#131

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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…

> without hard-coding group selection

Unless you're disputing the existence of group selection in real systems, what does hard coding it change vs. a given system where it is an emergent property?

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

#132

Post by sago »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #131
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…

> without hard-coding group selection Unless you're disputing the existence of group selection in real systems, what does hard coding it change vs. a given system where it is an emergent property?

You have a model with 3 demes, with the deme having the lowest proportion of A-individuals being killed. This is no different from a model with 3 individuals with the individual with the lowest number of A-alleles being killed.

You can, of course, give a narrative argument on why you feel it is justified to exclude the interplay between these levels. But if you, at some point, try to show it is justified, by removing the assumption from your model, you'll struggle, I predict.

Evolving systems are very complex, it is an unwise assumption that you can chunk their dynamics into levels of abstraction and expect those dynamics to function independently or predictably when combined.

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

#134

Post by lngnmn »

bbcbasic wrote: post #133
lngnmn wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are humans or any part of their biology exempt from the evolutionary forces?

No. Your point is?

That competition for survival and reproduction is the main factor which outweight everything else. Family and social bonds are also among the most powerful forces, but it is the selfish aspect of favoring and protecting one's relatives what matters.

Altruism and kindness are also minor factors, but the weakest ones, and, obviously, cannot be thought as replacement for the general laws of ecosystems based on survival and reproduction, which basically means lifetime ongoing competition for everything that is related to passing of the genes to another generation.

Reframing of evolutionary forces to be more humanistic is, of course, bullshit.

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

#135

Post by bbcbasic »

lngnmn wrote: post #134
bbcbasic wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Your point is?

That competition for survival and reproduction is the main factor which outweight everything else. Family and social bonds are also among the most powerful forces, but it is the selfish aspect of favoring and protecting one's relatives what matters. Altruism and kindness are also minor factors, but the weakest ones, and, obviously, cannot be thought as replacement for the general laws of ecosystems based on survival…

Ok I see that makes sense.

Austruism and kindness might be beneficial at a tribal level as you will likely meet the person again and they or their family may pay back the favour. Even if that isn't a conscious thought by the person being nice.

Nowadays this is less obviously beneficial in our big cities and jet set lifestyles.

And as you said kindness is part of a bigger set of factors and perhaps a lesser one.

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

#136

Post by int_19h »

rarec wrote: post #123
kitd wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's actually similar, it's just that the moment of choice here - whether to sacrifice yourself for the good of the genetic line - happens before birth for those ants that will not reproduce, and is made for them by other ants. Same thing for bee workers etc. But the genes that enable this type of behavior should arise in a similar manner as part of the evolutionary process.

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

#137

Post by pasbesoin »

None of this exists independent of environment.

Mismatch your behavior to the environment, and you're screwed.

People consistently compliment me for being "such a nice guy." And I've made, and valued, many alliances with contemporaries.

But the power brokers? They've screwed me right over.

If you are unmitigatedly kind while hoping for reciprocity in matters essential to your own well-being.

Well, either you are weakening yourself, or you are not really being "kind" by failing to respect the particular circumstances and the other party. Or some combination of these.

People become less and less comfortable with you, and continued kindness is actually perceived negatively.

Unmitigated kindness is another false, simplistic lesson that has been counter-productively fostered in recent decades.

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

#138

Post by holyOrIonsBelt »

matt4077 wrote: post #26
holyOrIonsBelt wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

The title is inferring that in modern society, the more successful are those who are kind instead of those who are ostensibly (like, say, a pro athlete) faster/stronger/more dexterous. In other words, if you socialize better, you're more likely to find a partner. That's essentially the gist. The contrast, if you wanna characterize it as that, is to give credence to the people who do well by helping society thrive instead of browbeating it into submission.

The Big 5 model is incredibly limiting and is only successful _because_ of its brevity, not because it is sufficiently explanatory of the kaleidoscope of human traits. Its reductionism at it's most hubristic, and let's keep it real here, no five personality traits are adequate enough to span the dynamism of human emotive.

I believe in a thing called cosmic consciousness, and that is (albeit somewhat challenging to explain) what drives my defense of why kindness is such a pivotal factor in human social interaction. There is a line in Gladiator "what we do in life echoes in infinity" and because that resonance exists, the kindness we exhibit is important enough to outweigh other traits, and actually points to a larger issue of whether or not our judgmental, rather vindictive mindset of late is ultimately counterproductive to the existential state of civilization. In other words, when we are kind to one another, we facilitate a happier, healthier world, thus insuring the survival of those who promote that non-violent, what I would call, state of Grace.

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

#139

Post by sametmax »

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…

The rules you create are completely artificial, and IRL, people will rarely perceive "If everyone gives 2 points then everyone gets 2 points", even in the case it's true. They will see what they loose. Then you will have the ones abusing the system in some clever way. Then you will have people trying to scare others, or rule others, or both. Sub group will forms. Situation will changes, some old resource will become scare, some new resource will become in demand. Power play will come in. And Ego.

We are not ants.

Now in emergency situations, my experience is that we ARE hardwire to help each others. It works almost automatically, and is quite magical.

But as son as the immediate threats wears off, all the stuff I mentioned come into play.

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

#140

Post by jondubois »

ghusbands wrote: post #70
jondubois wrote: post #69

The best evolutionary strategy for a human is to pretend to be nice but to be selfish and manipulative behind the scenes. Even if you make a mistake and damage your reputation, you can still move to a different city/country and start over with a clean slate.

As long as you don't want a family or career.

Family, maybe. But being manipulative and two-faced is great for career - So long as no one ever finds out.

There are lots of safe strategies that one can use to make sure that no one ever finds out about your double dealings.

Successful people know how to lie and cheat effectively; but they know where to draw the line.

I guarantee you that practically every financially successful person ever has used lying and manipulation to get what they wanted.

The ones who didn't cheat or lie and still managed to succeed just got extremely lucky.

Post reply on HN