The Drive For Altruism Is Hardwired 582
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."
Hold up... technical foul (Score:3, Insightful)
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:So I guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is simply confirming what has already been known for a very long while.
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.
Re:Lift each other up (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 that the societal limit isn't awfully close to the monkeyspace size.
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.
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.
Re:Bit O' Trolling (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If you're getting brain activity... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Yeah I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree (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 society tells us not to engage in altruistic behavior. When you're nice to people for no reward, you're a sucker. Failing to screw everyone over in pursuit of even the smallest gain makes you "inefficient". It's insufficient to like things or like people, but you must always be ready to explain why you like them, or people will think you're soft in the head.
On top of all that, altruism isn't as rare as you might think. Sometimes you just don't noticing it going on. Also, sometimes people are ashamed (really! think about it!) of their own altruistic tendencies and cover them up by inventing selfish motives to excuse their altruism.
Re:Bit O' Trolling (Score:2, Insightful)
Neither. Evolution "cares" most of all about genes. An extremely interesting view of "altruism" from evolution's point of view can be found on Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene [wikipedia.org]
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.
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.
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.
Re:Bit O' Trolling (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 worthwhile to be helped.
2) You can screw it up just as badly in the opposite direction. When the successful can expect to be expropriated, expect a lot less innovation. There are lots of examples of stagnant societies where anyone who produces more than others can expect to either "share" most of it (an effective ~80% marginal tax rate) or be expelled.
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.
Re:Yeah I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
The makeup of modern society, especially in urban settings, has heavily favored most people being socially anonymous with the majority of the people they may encounter, and thus viewing the vast majority of a population on an individual level as out-group (less likely to say hi to someone randomly on the street), but most people within the same country (or ethnicity, or religion) as nationally or culturally in-group (e.g. more likely to contribute to national charities supporting Katrina relief, or supporting veterans etc.).
Certainly it isn't hard to see the altruistic in-group mentality displayed on an individual level within one's own family or circle of friends. I don't know a single person who wouldn't be willing to accept temporary inconveniences or sacrifices for the benefit of one of their friends or family members. It is people who don't fit that model that I would view as more of the exception. Altruistic behavior is all too common, it just doesn't always get noticed or recognized on a large scale
Re:Yeah I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Does giving only count when you sacrifice everything else?
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.
Re:Superior Being (Score:2, Insightful)
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 predators, seasonal weather, etc), then there is both cultural and biological evolutionary pressure to do the things that help keep that team (the family/clan/tribe/pack/herd) glued together and aware of the other members' status/condition. Each member of the pack can face vulnerable circumstances (pregnancy, injury, etc), so cultivating - at that small family/tribe level - some reciprocal ass-covering is entirely, productively, and rationally selfish.
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:
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.
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.
Re:Belonging to a vigilant pack IS selfish. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Belonging to a vigilant pack IS selfish. (Score:3, Insightful)
It also makes sense on a genetic level...genes cooperating to maintain a large gene pool in which to replicate. (DNA itself is a series of cooperating "altruistic" genes, many of which are even freeloaders!)
On the flipside, sometimes one needs a scarce resource to survive and propagate, and you end up with the classical form of selfishness.
Re:Yeah I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree (Score:1, Insightful)
People are inherently altruistic because sometimes it is in our best interest to be so (from a strictly evolutionary perspective). There's a great discussion of this in the book "The Moral Animal". Personally, I believe that people are wired to be a mixture of altruistic and selfish. In other words, it's (evolutionarily) optimal to be altruistic enough that you establish a good reputation, but then you use that reputation to your advantage to cheat and get away with it when you know you won't get caught. [Why do you think Bill Gates gives so much to charity? Ha ha...]
Re:Bit O' Trolling (Score:2, Insightful)
Well...atleast we don't have slums around here (yet) and it's not like people who earn more would actually do more work (and thus produce more), often quite contrary.
There can be other motivators for innovation (when you have _enough_ income to begin with) than money, like happiness [sciencedaily.com]. Shitloads of money wont buy it, but altruism might well do so. Sharing IS benefical to society as whole, no matter what your multimillionaire overlords might want you to believe.
PS. I'm not saying things are perfect here and they are surely going for worse (mainly because politicians are beginning to favor big business instead of public as whole). Just from my POV - seeing the slow but gradual change here in finland - I consider social democratic market economy better for society as whole than straight out capitalism.
Re:No defense of selfishness (Score:3, Insightful)
Regarding selfishness and policy, it can be argued that the most fundamental assumption of the welfare state is in fact that humans are selfish. If we were primarily altriustic, we'd all share with each other, and there would be no need for forced redistribution: laissez-faire would produce the best outcomes for everyone.
Like most people in my country, I'm strongly in favour of an extensive welfare state. Is it because I'm selfish and assume everyone else must be too? No, it's because we have actually seen what happens when there isn't a welfare state, or when it is less extensive. Assumptions based on my own feelings are not necessary, and such assumptions actually might actually have led me to the opposite position, since I would prefer to share, even without a welfare state to force it.
The most interesting aspect of your post, in my view, is your insistence that anyone who accepts that selfishness is a part of human behaviour is trying for some reason to lie to or comfort themselves. Believe it or not, a lot of people work in the opposite way. We don't start with 'I think X, so let me find some evidence for it', we look at the evidence and then try to think of ways to explain it. This is the approach economists take, and the reason rational self-interest is a key part of economic theory is because it explains the evidence better than other hypotheses. Of course it doesn't explain it entirely, because there are other factors, but if we haven't figured out how to model them in a general way, what can we do other than ignore them?
Re:Lift each other up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Guilt and altruism (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that's a shame culture. In a guilt culture, the joiner would reply, "*I* would know."
Re:No defense of selfishness (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, history demonstrates that you're wrong. That works too.
Also, nature and natural systems are the ones where a male lion who takes over a pride kills all the cubs to bring the lionesses back into heat, so he can impregnate them and spread his genes yet wider. You fail at economics and zoology
Group Selection (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Finally, an explanation... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Question--why do conservatives donate more? (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I'm so glad that people are busy learning pseudo-philosophy like the "conservative" "liberal" distinction. Basic logic skills are highly overrated.
Re:No defense of selfishness (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easily Explained (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Call it what you will (Score:0, Insightful)
Your examples in the last part of your post are NOT altruism because the person gains something for what they give up (for example - person A wants a cure for breast cancer because they have it or a high risk of it so they donate money to breast cancer research). Your example regarding kayaking is actually a selfish endeavor - you want people to say "hey, you're good" (or whatever wording you prefer), so you do things that you know society will say are good.
People are rarely "hungry for any chance to help others" - they're hungry for society to tell them that they're wonderful. In other words, they're merely hungry for acceptance.
Re:Following your logic... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Question--why do conservatives donate more? (Score:3, Insightful)
IANA Economist but here go my € 0,02.
It's far more efficient to have a properly managed welfare system than to have a system where people are unprotected and dependent on the generosity of the fortunate.
Compare the USA with rich European countries or Canada, which have a welfare system. The poor are much better protected in the latter than the former, despite all the private money that goes to social works. And we are only talking about rich countries.
Altruism is hardwired in the brain most likely because it provides a competitive advantage, evolution made the rest. Being physically inferior to most large animals, the humans had a need to work for each other to survive. Without altruism, we would never have evolved into intelligent beings and have a society, culture and science.
This should be considered attentively by the ones advocating reckless capitalism is the key for progress (in Continental Europe those are called neo-liberals or ultra-liberals). Opposite to the beliefs of the "fashionable" economists, a society based only upon individualism and selfishness is bound to decay into barbarism.
Clarification: The word "liberal" has a different meaning for Anglo-Saxons. In Continental Europe, a liberal is a right-wing guy that advocates free market. Left-wingers here are called "socialists", or the like.