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

41–50 of 140 posts

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

#41

Post by negamax »

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…

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 nature and wars (to a lesser degree) shaped altruism. But mostly nature. There's no way monkeys can survive without taking care of each other and group dynamics are strongest amongst them.

Altruism is completely practical.

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

#42

Post by ColanR »

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.)

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

#43

Post by int_19h »

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…

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 chance of surviving and reproducing merely by 10%, because, while I'm starving, I'm healthy. But I have three siblings who share 50% of their genes with me, and who are starving and sick. If I give all my lembas to them, their chances of surviving and reproducing increase twofold, and become same as my current chance. In that case, it makes sense for me (or rather my genes) to evolve the behavior whereby I give away the lembas, because these three survivors will spread the genes that we share more efficiently than I alone.

Now, obviously, the math here has to add up in real-world scenarios - is that what you mean by "it wasn't trivial to stack the dice"? It just feels like it shouldn't be hard to come up with many cases where all the coefficients line up...

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

#44

Post by abreu »

flukus wrote: post #18
farnsworth wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Arabian Babbler is a bird, for anyone else who was imagining a babbling Arabian human. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_babbler#Behaviour - interesting

I was thinking it might be a sub group of Arabians I'd never heard of, like berbers.

Berbers aren't a "sub group of Arabians"...

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

#45

Post by int_19h »

smallnamespace wrote: post #15
m0llusk wrote: post #2

This 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_punishment#Parochi...

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

#48

Post by hueving »

int_19h wrote: post #43
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…

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.?

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

#49

Post by InclinedPlane »

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…

Altruism is a way to bequeath a competitive advantage to another who is not your immediate offspring but is part of your gene pool.

Altruism is one of the most pervasive forms of interaction in life on Earth because it is the mechanism by which multi-cellular life functions at a basic level.

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

#50

Post by flomble »

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.?

Because your brother shares around 50% of your genes. Helping your brother reproduce therefore helps to propagate some of your genes.

The principle behind this is that evolution operates at the level of genes, rather than individuals. I recommend Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene for a fuller explanation.

Post reply on HN