Slashdot Log In
The Drive For Altruism Is Hardwired
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue May 29, 2007 01:47 PM
from the good-feels-good dept.
from the good-feels-good dept.
Dekortage writes "The Washington Post is reporting on recent neuroscience research indicating that the brain is pre-wired to enjoy altruism — placing the interests of others ahead of one's own. In studies, '[G]enerosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex... Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.' Such research 'has opened up a new window on what it means to be good,' although many philosophers over recorded history have suggested similar things."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Hold up... technical foul (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Call it what you will (Score:5, Insightful)
I can say without cynicism that if I didn't get incredible joy out of caring for my infant son (who is teething, very expressive about it, and quick as a ninja monkey) I don't know that any force on earth could make me change a dirty diaper- yet somehow it's strangely enjoyable and I come back for more.
It's pretty obvious if you think about it that we get a LOT out of contributing to others. My most-satisfying jobs have all been ones where I helped people out, my least-satisfying ones have been the ones where I couldn't tell that I was making any difference for anybody. I once put together a program to teach at-risk teens how to kayak, and when I told people what I was doing and asked for their help, they thanked me for creating the opportunity to donate gear, time, money and expertise. My experience asking for help to put the program together was quite surprising- I had thought it would be hard, they wouldn't want to, but it was the opposite: people are hungry for any chance to help others.
If you look broadly, people are willing to die in order to make a difference. People join the army in time of war to serve. They strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in a crowded market, in order to serve. People will open their checkbooks and donate money, they'll give blood, they'll use their vacations to go build houses for people- there's not much people won't do for the chance to make a difference for others.
Parent
Re:Why do conservatives donate more? (Score:5, Interesting)
Another way of looking at this might be that "Religious Conservatives" spend a lot more money (primarily) improving the well-being of those they consider to be part of their own group, while "Secular Liberals" contribute a smaller amount to people outside of their own group. Both seem like perfectly natural responses.
Also remember that many religions have the concept of a semi-inforced tithe, and many European countries have gone so far as to make this a part of tax law. That sort of thing is going to skew the statics to almost meaninglessness.
Parent
Re:Why do conservatives donate more? (Score:5, Informative)
For a quick overview of this there is a nice WikiPedia entry [wikipedia.org].
Parent
altruism (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:altruism (Score:5, Funny)
Since you didn't post this as an AC I think we all know where you stand. : p
Parent
So I guess... (Score:4, Funny)
So I guess chicks that put a man's sexual interests ahead of her own...REALLY lights up her own pleasure response!!!
I gotta make a note of this one...sounds like material to submit for an investigational grant!!
Re:So I guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is simply confirming what has already been known for a very long while.
Parent
So... (Score:5, Funny)
Go ahead, try to follow my logic. I dare you.
Following your logic... (Score:5, Funny)
If I want to give money to a charity, that's selfish, but by denying my selfish desire and refusing to give to charity, I become altruistic.
Parent
Re:Following your logic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the most selfish are those who insist on working directly with the charity -- even though an extra hour of work would provide them with the money to do far better good for the masses. Slate had an article on this late last year. Simply not donating would be rather neutral, because no party would benefit, and thus both would benefit equally. Check out the blockquote:
Parent
Re:Following your logic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Theoretically, you could get an extra job, but since working the same job for someone else would get you fired at BOTH workplaces, its much easier and better to volunteer your time and effort to a deserving organization who needs it.
Couple that with the fact that working hard at the same or similar job all the time leads to declining health and an early demise, and volunteer work that makes you feel good about yourself and gives you a break from the daily grind starts to sound pretty great after all.
The best option? Give some of your money AND some of your time.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or I should say, only partially true. You're saying that altruism is a selfish endeavor, meaning, giving away something is only done because the brain will reward you with pleasure. True. However, you're missing the bigger picture of this article: altruism is not just about pleasure, it's about survival.
Take this altruistic concept back to a primitive, tribal society level. One hunter brings back a deer to the village. He can hoard it all to himself and ensure the survival of himself and/or his family, OR, he can divvy out the deer to the entire tribe even though this means he'll get less for himself. Why would he do this? According to you, it's simply because it feels good to give, but the point of this article (imho) is to show that it's actually beneficial to his survival. And his survival is 100% dependent on the survival of the tribe.
So, yes, it is selfish, but it's selfish on a tribal/societal level. Sharing ensures the survival of the tribe, therefore sharing ensures the survival of the individual (because it's really hard, if not impossible, to survive on your own in a hostile world).
That's my two cents.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure why any of this should come as a surprise to anyone.
First post (Score:5, Funny)
let me facilitate your pleasure (Score:4, Funny)
Superior Being (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure you've got the basic need as a parent to provide for the family and to others of your pack/tribe. But "altruism" in its known sense as just giving to somebody you don't even know? If it's so "basic" we'd all be in the homeless kitchens in Thanksgiving (in the US) instead of at home.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It compared it to the pleasure of food and sex. We don't eat and screw all day long every day, and if we did, it would cause problems. I don't just mean the society problems of no one working, either, but-- you know, things get sore and over-stuffed. We also have other pleasures to compete with these. We derive satisfaction from accomplishing, we receive pleasure from dominating, and sometimes even sore muscles from a hard day's work feel like a reward when your head hits the pillows.
Besides, our socie
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Does giving only count when you sacrifice everything else?
Parent
Re:Yeah I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Methinks you're nothing thinking of this broadly enough.
Family units tend to be altruistic; parents usually put the needs of their off-spring ahead of their own.
Just because it doesn't exist at a more intellectual macro level (why doesn't Bill Gates give all his money to poor people?) doesn't mean it isn't a core part of human interaction.
Parent
Lift each other up (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that it would matter. No matter how inclusive and positive a group is, at some point someone will feel slighted as not all resouces are infinite. Once one person is turned against the group it becomes more and more likely that the system will break down. I'm not entirely certain th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're getting brain activity... (Score:5, Interesting)
warning, possible flamebait follows:
If you're a Christian, is it impossible to be altruistic? If you do good deeds, don't you ingratiate yourself witht he Lord, thereby increasing your chance of being admitted to heaven? So, even if you don't really "get" anything for doing good deeds, you're still going to get a reward for it in the afterlife right? Which would mean it wasn't really altrustic.
Re:If you're getting brain activity... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope.
It is axiomatic of Christianity that we've all "earned" nothing more than death, and it's only by divine grace that we are reunited with God. The religion is not about "getting in" to an afterlife paradise for being good (though many so-called believers behave that as if it is). It's about maintaining a loving relationship with your creator, both in this life and beyond.
Parent
Re:If you're getting brain activity... (Score:4, Insightful)
By the standard you're using, can any act ever be altruistic? Someone always receives a reward in doing good for someone else either by having pride in being a person who can choose doing something for someone else over doing nothing, or that by doing something to improve humanity in general everybody is better off including the one doing the act.
Parent
Re:If you're getting brain activity... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
No such thing as a truly altruistic act? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, if altruism creates pleasure in the brain, is it still considered altruism? You ARE getting something out of it, after all.
I knew I should have paid more attention in my humanities courses, particularly Philosophy.
Guilt and altruism (Score:5, Interesting)
Guilt, on the other hand, is waiting for the blow to fall. We don't feel guilty when there's no risk of being punished, and we don't act altruistic when there's no-one watching.
So even if the moral compass is in-built, it only activates in the presence of others.
Re:Guilt and altruism (Score:5, Insightful)
Speak for yourself. Some of us find our personal code of ethics important to follow whether someone is watching or not.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So even if the moral compass is in-built, it only activates in the presence of others.
Well what would it mean to be altruistic outside the presence of others? Someone else needs to be involved somehow, or else there can be no object of the altruism. What I mean is that the object of altruism must always be "others", so without "others", there's no possibility of altruism or selfishness.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Speak for yourself. I feel vaguely uncomfortable running stoplights on my bicycle, when it's 3AM and I know there isn't a cop within km of where I am -- because I think that running stoplights is wrong. (Why do I run them? Because my bike won't trigger the traffic detector since it's mostly not metal.)
Some people make the distinction between shame cultures and guilt cultures: shame cultures are where morality is mostly external, and society
Re:Guilt and altruism (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that's a shame culture. In a guilt culture, the joiner would reply, "*I* would know."
Parent
Easily Explained (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
What's most surprising is that scientists are still surprised by this, as if they have never heard of evolution or thought about it's affect on society. Perhaps these are the same scientists who agree that emotions are in primitive parts of our brain yet insist "primitive" animals don't have emotions.
Ethics. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not behaviour that is smart for the individual. Risking your own life for others? Not something you see often in the animal kingdom. But it is something that occurs among humans, and it is a big part of what we consider "good".
Philosophically, ethics falls into two distinct branches: relativism, and objectivism.
Relativism basically states that good and evil are relative...Relative to you personally, relative to your culture, relative to your psychological state. It fits with people's differing views on what is right and wrong; I think it's right, you think it's wrong, we're both correct. Basically it's worthless. If you're a relativist, morals are meaningless, because you can only apply moral judgements to yourself, and what the hell point is there in that?
Objectivism states that good and evil are objective...That there are things that everyone should agree are right and everyone should agree are wrong. Logically, objectivism must be correct, because the alternative is relativism, and relativism is worthless. But no one agrees about right and wrong, so how can it be right?
But when you look at it in terms of humanity as a social animal, it becomes a little clearer. The "Robin Hood" story is a classic example: Stealing is bad, except when you're stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, right? Obviously the group that is being stolen from (the rich) still think it's bad, but since the vast majority of people are not rich, historically it's been considered good.
Mill came up with the theory of Utilitarianism to attempt to explain this sort of thing: in a nutshell, whatever makes the majority happy is right, and whatever makes the majority unhappy is wrong. Politicians live by this one, because they never have to actually consider the greater good, they just have to make 51% happy until the next election. So adding a tax on gasoline to reduce consumption and using the money to pay for better public transit and research into cleaner energy, while probably the "right" thing to do, would never fly because it would piss off 80% of people and the guy'd get canned in the next election by someone running on a "repeal the gas tax" platform.
So utilitarianism clearly needs some work...Reduce "good" into "happy" and you end up with nothing but bread and circuses, because that would make people happy, and happy == good. This, in a nutshell, is the problem with democracy.
So we have a hardwired inclination toward altruism. It definitely explains a few things. The problem is, humanity has a lot of hardwiring. We have tons of instincts, reflexes, automatic responses. Most people learn to override those things as part of their day to day life. Can't live purely on instinct. So what value is it to have a piece of altrustic hardwiring in a society that preaches just the opposite? Altruism is an irrational response, from the point of view of the thing that's about to put its squishy coropreal self in harm's way.
Still, it's nice to know that, if you're trying to be altrusitic, if you're trying to be selfless, you're instinctive responses are going to be in line with your conscious actions. Maybe everyone...most everyone...really does have some good in them, whether they like it or not.
More Stupid Journalists (Score:5, Insightful)
For another, just because altruism stimulates (some of) the same brain parts that sex and good food stimulate, doesn't mean that altruism is not "higher moral behavior". If higher moral behavior didn't stimulate neurons that we feel as pleasure, then higher moral behavior wouldn't feel good. Why not? Does god hate pleasure? Must all pleasure come from doing wrong? What kind of sick, immoral person thinks like that?
This is just another journalist copout: we're not really good, or even responsible for what we do, because "we're wired that way". It's stupid, immoral, and should feel awful. But journalists like Vedantam and their editors seem to like it.
It doesn't work (Score:5, Funny)
Altruism is hardwired, but mostly among groups (Score:4, Interesting)
Fascinating! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So do selfish people have defective brains? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, just to be 100% clear, I don't believe that, I just think the parent posted something that utterly misses the point and just buys into more of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" / "anyone who doesn't agree with me is stupid" mentality that is all too prevalent today.
Parent
No defense of selfishness (Score:5, Insightful)
The natural world and systems such as our economy are incredibly complex. One could find evidence of almost anything if one looked at them carefully enough. People look to nature and natural systems, and for the most part, they see what they want to see. Selfish people want evidence that the world is selfish in order to justify their feelings. So they look at the world, they see selfishness, and they discount everything else.
There is no evidence that evolution and capitalism are effective because they involve selfishness. It is equally valid to say that they are effective despite this fact, and are effective because of the inherent cooperation involved. Do cells in your body compete with each other? Do divisions of a corporation compete? No, they both cooperate, and that is why a body and a whole corporation are more effective than a cell or a corporate division: cooperation, not competition.
But you keep on telling yourself that selfishness is natural, right, and good if that lets you sleep at night.
Parent
Re:No defense of selfishness (Score:4, Insightful)
If you lived in the rein of Charles II, would you have gloated over the failure of the English revolution and declared democracy to be a failure and monarchy to be the best way? If you lived in the roman empire, would you have laughed at the barbarians and their feudal system, and declared the Imperial system to be superior? empires have risen and fallen, and so have systems of government. Many billions before you have claimed that the system they lived in was the best system, the final system. There is no reason to believe that capitalism is any different. Our civilization will fall, sooner or later. 200 years of history means nothing, let alone the 60 year old events you cite, it is just a blink of an eye.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for thoughtful criticism of Rand, but
1) Rand would have advised helping them for a price, NOT leaving them to die. In her novels, the downtrodden one always makes it
Belonging to a vigilant pack IS selfish. (Score:3, Insightful)
NO! Watching each other's back against a threat in a pack setting IS selfish. That's the whole point. It's selfish to act in your own self interest - that's the concept's MEANING. When a threat that's bigger than you requires teamwork for you to survive (large
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)