The Drive For Altruism Is Hardwired

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."

So...

[Normal Dan (1053064)]

what they are saying is people are only generous because it feels good. That is, if it did not give them that feel good feeling, they would not be generous. Thus, everyone is generous for their own selfish purposes. Ergo, everyone is 100% selfish.

Go ahead, try to follow my logic. I dare you.

Following your logic...

[Nymz (905908)]

what they are saying is people are only generous because it feels good. That is, if it did not give them that feel good feeling, they would not be generous. Thus, everyone is generous for their own selfish purposes. Ergo, everyone is 100% selfish.
Go ahead, try to follow my logic. I dare you.

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.

Re:Following your logic...

[Jasin Natael (14968)]

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:

This isn't some silly tautology. If these do-gooders really were motivated by the desire to do good, they would be doing something different. It would almost always be more effective to volunteer less, work overtime, and give more. A Dutch banker can pay for a lot of soup-kitchen chefs and servers with a couple of hours' worth of his salary, but that wouldn't provide the same feel-good buzz as ladling out stew himself, would it?

From this article at Slate [slate.com]

Re:So...

[writerjosh (862522)]

Not true:

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.

First post

[Teddy Beartuzzi (727169)]

Well, I wasn't, but that's because it gave me more pleasure for someone else to get it.

Yeah I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree

[the_skywise (189793)]

If it's so "basic" to the brain then why is it the exception in human society and not the rule?

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:Yeah I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree

[servognome (738846)]

If it's so "basic" to the brain then why is it the exception in human society and not the rule?

Why do you think giving is the exception? Almost everybody I know contributes money to charitable causes, and most also donate some of their time.
Does giving only count when you sacrifice everything else?

Re:Yeah I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree

[Not_Wiggins (686627)]

If it's so "basic" to the brain then why is it the exception in human society and not the rule?

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.

Lift each other up

[e2d2 (115622)]

I know it may be slightly warm and fuzzy, but imagine a world where we lifted each other up, instead of constantly tearing each other down. Not to say that due criticism would be curtailed, but instead that our efforts be focused on others, instead of ourselves. The world would be much easier if we weren't constantly bombarded with what could be summed up as "drama" from others and instead worked together. It's just really hard when everyone around you is a stranger, the idea of family has been all but lost, and the world is going at a pace that you can hardly keep up with.

If you're getting brain activity...

[Overzeetop (214511)]

...that's similar to that when you get food and/or sex from doing "good things", doesn't that possibly mean that doing good things is historically/genetically programmed into us as one common way to get more more food and sex? And if you are doing good deeds in anticipation of that "dinner and a movie," it isn't really altruistic, is it?

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...

[Golias (176380)]

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?

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.

Re:If you're getting brain activity...

[moderatorrater (1095745)]

No...No, you don't...Wrong...Wrong again...

Wow, I never thought of it that way. Thank you, you changed my life with that amazing revelation!

Guilt and altruism

[pieterh (196118)]

Altruism is also observed in vampire bats, curiously, who remember who shared blood with them previously, and who did not. Altruism is a simple kind of savings scheme. When you are lucky, you share. When you are unlucky, you borrow. It depends on a good memory and a set of rules that have to be instinctive, so everyone agrees with them. (No point if everyone randomly invents "good" and "bad" behaviour.)

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

[Hatta (162192)]

We don't feel guilty when there's no risk of being punished

Speak for yourself. Some of us find our personal code of ethics important to follow whether someone is watching or not.

Re:Guilt and altruism

[amper (33785)]

The Shaker said, "God would know." That's a guilt culture right there.

No, that's a shame culture. In a guilt culture, the joiner would reply, "*I* would know."

Easily Explained

[CompCons (650700)]

I see alot of people discussing what this means... It's all very simple. Way back in time when we all lived in small tribes we were surrounded mostly by people who we shared DNA with. Most of the people around us were immediate or extended family. We can also assume that a group of people who are sometimes generous with each other will survive better than people who are strictly selfish. If we put those two facts together and stir it with some evolution... what do you get? People who help each other are more likely to survive as a group. So if we have two tribes, one family that has only selfish tendencies and one that has generous tendencies; the generous family is more likely to survive as a whole. There's no secret here. Nothing ground breaking has happened, simply more evidence for evolution.

More Stupid Journalists

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

For one, the research doesn't show that altruism is "hardwired", despite what Shankar Vedantam writes in the Washington Post. The brain has very little "hardwired" responses, especially for such complex and abstract behavior as "altruism". There are organs, nerve bundles, and the like, and surely some consequential neural connects at all scales of influence are determined by human genetics in a very consistent behavior (eg, the 12 cranial nerves). But even those "hardwired" connections aren't well understood, nor are the possibilities that environment after conception can make them very different.

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

[PPH (736903)]

I've tried that bit about generosity being as pleasurable as sex, but the hookers still insist on cash in advance.

Re:So I guess...

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

It also works the other way around. And no, I'm not kidding. A good marriage is based on both sides giving.

Science is simply confirming what has already been known for a very long while.

Re:So do selfish people have defective brains?

[Moridineas (213502)]

What does this say about people who complain about the BSD license? (BSD isn't as free as GPL. etc) Do GPL supporters have defective brains?

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.

No defense of selfishness

[spun (1352)]

I was wondering when the defense of selfishness would begin. As capitalism and the free market are based on the Selfish Actor theory, which has been proven to be inadequate even before this finding, perhaps we need to rethink our economic system. Spin it all you like, people don't act in their own rational self interest, this has been shown over and over again in hundreds of different kinds of experiments. Our system is based on the premise that they will. Therefore, our entire economic system is based on a false premise. By focusing on the selfish aspects of our behavior, it actually encourages them. People would rather be selfless, but in a selfish system, being selfless means you get taken advantage of. So people choose to be selfish because our system requires it.

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.

Re:altruism

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

The principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others. For those that didnt know.

Since you didn't post this as an AC I think we all know where you stand. : p

Call it what you will

[h2_plus_O (976551)]

If we didn't get something out of giving, we wouldn't do it.
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.

Re:Why do conservatives donate more?

[larkost (79011)]

I have heard this statistic many times and tend to believe it, within reason. The import thing to remember about it is that this also includes contributions to some organizations that you are a member of, most importantly your church. My bet is that if you look at donations to your own church as something other than "charity", then this statistic may swing the other way.

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.

Re:Why do conservatives donate more?

[larkost (79011)]

Germany and Austria are both examples of countries that have near-manitory taxes based on what religion you are a member of. The taxes are collected based on a percentage of your income, and go to the religious organization that you are registered as a member. You can register yourself as being non-religious and then pay nothing, but you will be officially excommunicated from your church.

For a quick overview of this there is a nice WikiPedia entry [wikipedia.org].