<smack down!!> Oh…that’s gotta hurt, hey SYnner…gettin’ beat down by little ole’ uneducated me, demonstrating better reading skills than a highly educated PhD…lol

gavrilop--- the OP was not about this paper...is was a link to an article. I am commenting on the OP, not your link. Try again.

Skimming the article, I see no actual data on real evolution.

As I said...mental masturbation.

It's a nice theory <rolls eyes...> with no practical application...unless you want to apply it to...oh, I don't know...maybe social engineering, with the theory that "See, non-competitiveness works best in evolution, therefore..."

blah blah blah...

Can not be proven that this is true for evolution. Period. end of discussion. (Especially since evolution itself cannot be proven, but is only but a theory…)

No, you're commenting on both. Here you are commenting on the study itself:

"If the purpose of this study is not to make the leap to some social/political realm, what is the purpose of it?"

(BTW, do you really believe SYnapse has a PhD in evolutionary biology? I don't.)

> evolution itself cannot be proven, but is only but a theory…

Like I said, Dunning-Kruger.

It must be nice to be so stupid that you can't realize how stupid you are.

"Evolution cannot be proven" sounds stupid. And yet we must guard against the unwarranted extinction of the theory into economics, psychology etc. it should not become "evolutionism"

"evolution is not selfish"

Well they've been arguing about that for a long time. Most evolutionary theorists have maintained that evolution is completely 100% selfish, meaning that "altruistic" behavior is inherently unfit and cannot be selected for through natural means. The only exception are with organisms like ants or bees where the "worker" organisms don't pass on their own genes and mutations. This is the conventional thinking.

Really the only shift that has happened in recent years, this study included, is that now it's okay to talk about evolution being less than 100% selfish. Does natural selection select for altruism? If it does, not very much, but it might only where altruism is likely to promote your own genes, i.e. helping individuals who are biologically closely related who share a lot of the same genes.

That's my understanding of it anyway.

Popular press (and maybe some researchers who use the political portion of their brains to do science) exaggerate and way over interpret this kind of study.

Krellin pretty much nailed it here gentlemen.

@dirge as far as evolution is concerned I think that you have it - that is it cannot explain pure altruism or, if you prefer, sympathy/empathy for our species on a global basis. One might put this as a "common humanity". Now if one believes like our friend krellin, that this is sentimental rubbish, then all well and good. If, however, one holds to such a concept then the explanation lies elsewhere away from the theory of Natural Selection.

I think evolution is selfish, because that's really all it can be right? If you don't want to get better as a species, why evolution? This seems to be more about behaviour of animals (including humans) though. I'd say everything you do is in the end because you feel like you have to or because it makes you feel better. Now through selfish evolution a species could get a consciousness that rewards you for doing things for your species (in a broad sense), because then everybody has more chance at a better life.

Other than that I believe in reincarnation, meaning the soul, genes or whatever you want to call it, whatever lives on, is in a way selfish

... by helping, because it increases his chance at a better next life as well. Which would explain all the behaviour of all those animals if you ask me.

Accidently pressed the wrong button on mobile.

@steephie the whole history of life on Earth is not principally about the preservation of any particular species, but rather the development of new species from existing ones. That development being via genetic differentiation on protospecies (aka racial) lines. Is there something different about us do you think? And if you do are you being anthropocentric?

sigh

we really need better education in this country

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/126524-Evolution-Will-Kill-Off-Selfish-People
Evolutuion will kill off selfish people. REALLLLY? Sooooo....after millions of years of evolution exactly WHEN will the selfish people be killed off??? haaaa ha ha ha ha. And all the good liberals will now huff and bluster and puff themselves up (because they are quite selfishly guarding the idea the THEIR latest THEOR is proven truth, mind you...)...and then they will sputter and drool a little bit while they try to come up with how the selfish people will die off.

Pray tell, one of your intellectual giants, what the, EXACTLY, is a selfish person? And what, pray tell, EXACTLY, is a "cooperative" person.

Again...this whooooollllle fucking "study" is simple mental masturbation.

Since:
1. We will never see evolution in our lifetimes...therefore nothing in this study can be proven
2. We can't really impact evolution...
3. If we *try* to impact evolution, then...er....isn't that a selfish act, suggesting that we know better than a natural process?
4. So since we can't impact evolution, can't witness evolution, it is therefore meaningless study with no real purpose...UNLESS you are going to try to apply these principles "learned" to something else....

....and what...hmmm...thinking thinking thinking....WHAT might we apply these evolutionary learnings to? Ohhhh...WAIT....I have an idea...

Our social contructs...by which we mean...how our government will next try to control the people to do their will, as guided by their new found understanding....

And the crowd goes wild!!! (Rahhhhh!! Rahhh!!!!) Can you hear them roar?

@dirge, which country? There are people from different countries posting on this thread.

I don't think your point is altogether fair, gavrilop. Sure, the paper is sophisticated. But the article certainly wouldn't have made it seem so -- in fact, the article drew wildly over-strong conclusions from the paper, and krellin's examples were actually not off-point in refuting those.

I'm a ethnocentric american who assumes anyone else who matters is also an american

Genes are essentially selfish. Not literally, they are part of a molecule that has the unusual property of replicating itself. DNA inhabits an individual organism. If that organism dies without reproducing, it's DNA is lost to the universe. End of story.

The footnote is if you die saving your offspring or close relative some portion of your dna will continue in the gene pool.

Evolution does not promote altruism. Not very much anyway. Obviously fitness does promote those strong feelings that lead to reproducing and parenting.

It really isn't that complicated.

Most human social behavior is not altruistic. It's reciprocal.

"Most human social behavior is not altruistic. It's reciprocal."

Some is altruistic, though.

Please provide an example of pure, altruistic behavior.

I do not believe it exists.

Some will *say* they are behaving in an altruistic manner...but if you xamine the motives, there is *always* a reward for the "altruistic" behavior...perhaps not physical, but certainly emotional. Even a man that throws himself on a grenade does it for honor, out of belief in a cause, etc.

Altruism is a lie.

The firefighters that died on 9/11.

^ And the ones that lived.

Yeah, I would say there is some altruistic behavior, but much less than what ppl believe.

"Please provide an example of pure, altruistic behavior.

I do not believe it exists."

Depends how you define altruistic, krellin. If you mean behavior that harms the liklihood of your genes surviving through your reproduction, while helping those of another (which is the biologically relevant definition), then, as others said, firefighters or really any kind of sacrificial heroism.

As for the less relevant, non-biological definitions: I think we're all familiar with the standard arguments as to whether one is *really* being selfless with altruism, blah, blah blah. I can't get worked up over them, as it's just a question of semantics. Choose your definition of altruism, and then I'll tell you whether it exists.

"Yeah, I would say there is some altruistic behavior, but much less than what ppl believe."

*shrug* Who knows? That's a vague claim (which is fine, this is the webdip discussion board), and so hard to evaluate.

Evolutionary psychology is by and large a silly field, in any case.

Dirge ... yes, they were doing their job, but none of them went up there prepared to die. Not for a minute did they know those towers would fall. Nor did anyone else.

True altruism would be an act where no perceived good comes to the actor (not to be confused with someone who acts in stage or screen) or the actor acts without concern for or thought towards that reward.

Firefighters often get hero worship and if they do a truly brave act, they get special medals. That said, if when they rush in and save someone they aren't thinking about the medal and are just thinking about that person being in need, then theirs is an altruistic act. But determining that is nigh on impossible because even *they* don't know what is going on inside their subconscious. Did they take that little extra risk to save the family dog (outside the normal realm of what is expected) because deep down they wanted some hero worship? Or was it because they couldn't bear to see an animal suffer in a fire or a little girl or boy cry at the loss of their beloved pet.

Now I know there are people going to say that "it made him feel good to save the dog either way" but they don't risk their lives so they won't feel bad. That would just be messed up. That is why, if the motivation is truly right, I do see some acts as altruistic.

One thing though, giving money is *never* altruistic if you have it to spare. It causes you no harm. Does not pose risk of harm to you even. And makes you feel good even if given completely anonymously.

"Now I know there are people going to say that "it made him feel good to save the dog either way" but they don't risk their lives so they won't feel bad. That would just be messed up. That is why, if the motivation is truly right, I do see some acts as altruistic."

I agree with this analysis. Again though, it depends on the definition. A committed anti-altruist will say, "Yes, but he cares for the dog (or the family), which means that its living benefits him by helping those he cares about, so he's really acting for himself." I would say that the altruism inheres in the very fact that he cares for the dog's welfare enough for that to be a motivator of that behavior.

"One thing though, giving money is *never* altruistic if you have it to spare. It causes you no harm. "

It's certainly not true that it causes you no harm; it causes you *very little* harm, but you're less rich than you were before, which would typically qualify as harmed (even if not much).

So I actually would say this can be altruistic. Suppose that John Moneybags makes $50 million a year, keeps a hundred thousand to have a nice lifestyle for himself, and gives all the rest away anonymously because it makes him so happy to think of the people living better lives with his money.

That fact -- that it makes him happy to think of poor people living better lives with his money, makes him feel better, in fact than anything else he could do with the money, IS what altruism means, I think. Or it's what I would say.

Like I say, though, I'm not going to get into endless arguments about it. If people have another definition they prefer, I'll just point out it's a matter of definition, that results vary with different definitions as always, and leave it at that.