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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I see I mis-spelled Cyphre, as well.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092563/ [imdb.com]
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You share 50% of your genes with your child (jokes aside), and therefore it is an expected benefit to your genes of valuing your child's life 50% of yours. Kids don't grow up and reproduce if you don't do the stuff you are doing, so you are hardwired for that. Same thing is true for brothers, cousins, tribal hunter gatherer members, etc. (To lesser extent as you get less and less related.)
TFA is talking abou
I agree: altruism is a farce (Score:3, Interesting)
That blows holes in the "selfless" claims to "altrusism", doesn't it?
If contributing to others really was selfless, then you would get NOTHING out of it.
In fact, if would be even more selfless if you were HARMED by contributing to others.
In fact, you can take that a step further and be even more selfless if contributing others harmed not only you, but all your loved ones, too, and also helped your enemies to harm more
Re: (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: (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 l
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.
Re:Why do conservatives donate more? (Score:5, Informative)
For a quick overview of this there is a nice WikiPedia entry [wikipedia.org].
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
So do selfish people have defective brains? (Score:2)
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.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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
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.
History (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, we're not particularly capitalist. They say that about 30% of all working Americans work either directly or indi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have been paid to write open source software for the last seven years. The first few years were spent in the employ of a company founded around OSS; the last several have been for employers making proprietary software. Why? Because when writing proprietary software, one can do it better
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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:
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ayn Rand [wikipedia.org] beat you to this by 60 years or so.
Go ahead, try to follow my logic. I dare you.
That's about how I feel about Ayn Rand too.
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.
Read The Selfish Gene (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Superior Being (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So instead man created Companies and Ultra Liberalism.
So he can fool his brain behind "The System" and still enjoy altruism when giving money to some orphan in Africa.
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
We evolved in small roving bands. In terms of being nice to those immediately around us, I'd say that's pretty universal. I'm more willing to loan my neighbor some money than a complete stranger.
Secondly, who is to say that most members of society aren't altruistic. Perhaps it's just a minority, a group of mutants, who twist society and work for their own ends.
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:2)
If "sex" is so "basic" to the brain then nobody would willingly choose not to have sex. If "hunger" is so "basic" to the brai
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?
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: (Score:3)
In day to day life, at least inside of America, it's the destructive impulses of mankind that are exc
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:2)
To make a long story short: if you look at zero-sum games, and have a large number of players playing zero-sum games repeatedly with one another, players that show altr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Being the most intelligent species on the planet, it would seem that our conscious logic centers often make this decision. Thus someone can make a decision even if they "feel bad" about it later. With time, it's quite possible
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: (Score:2)
According to Catholicism, you are saved by grace, just as with protestants. However, the Roman Church emphasizes the concept that "faith without works is dead."
Meaning that, if you're not going out of your way to help the needy and behave with compassion, etc., you're not really being faithful.
Re:If you're getting brain activity... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
And what of Logic? (Score:2)
-----------
"Honey, take a look at this paycheck. Want it?"
"Sure. I made meatloaf. Mrs. Green called and they are having a garage sale at the school, to raise money for the dance. You know about the dance, the one I told you about last week when we were picking out the wallpaper for the kitchen. Mrs. Green says they should be able to open up the whole
only part of the story (Score:2)
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.
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."
salivating dog (Score:2, Funny)
Easily Explained (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that humanity evolves into a more loving, caring society; it's just that those social groups who are more generous are preferred in getting their genes passed on to future generations...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not really. There actually is plenty of archaeological evidence that humans lived in small bands. That's really not that hard to imagine as large populations need to have agriculture to sustain themselves. So hunter-gatherers need to live in small tribes limited by the carrying capacity of the land around them (as they still do today in remote parts of the world). An
So when they pass the plate in church... (Score:2)
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.
Yawn... (Score:2)
USA Today [usatoday.com]
The BBC [bbc.co.uk]
Reuters [reuters.com]. This last one has some interesting speculation on why altruism may be related to the similarly-entrenched idea that it's not OK to kiss your sister.
I was going to put something troll-ish in here about the fact that Slashdot seems to be serving up quite a bit of this warmed-over stuff recently--days and days after it's hit the mainstream news outlets. It would probably be a mo
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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?
The point is that you shouldn't be passing moral judgements universally.
Moral relativists don't believe "morals are meaningless", they believe they're relative. So, when the society you live decided that murder is a "bad" thing, everyone that participates in your society agrees to this rule in exchange for the benefits of living in a society where you are protected from being murdered by the other members of that society. If someone breaks the rules of that society, they get excluded (go to jail). In
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)
Move along, nothing new here (Score:3, Informative)
Peter Kropotkin [wikipedia.org] pointed this out [amazon.co.uk] over 100 years ago
Group Selection (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Altruism Can Be Evolved (Score:2)
I'd suspect a lot of our higher functions, such as altruism, charity, morals, and the like are influenced a lot more by our genetic programming than people would like to believe.
Evolutionary reason for altruism is very obvious. (Score:2)
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)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Some Christians do understand this in a way, but use it to (IMO) argue themselves into a corner when they say that God can only be disproven through exhaustion. Proof by exhaustion is not a realistic demand, this is why the burden of proof is generally supposed to be on the people that try to claim the affirmative. They try to duck any request to prove the existence of any deity at all, other than maybe trying to
Re: (Score:2)
I have no desire to believe in a super-being. Ergo, half of your assertion is inaccurate and your argument is moot.
Re: (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]
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
Re: (Score:2)
MTV and the Springer Show? That's my guess.
Let's be honest, as much as most of us fly the banner of individuality the truth is that there is a ton of group think going on out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, its somewhat of a glass-half-empty sort of viewpoint. I suspect that there is more altruism in the world than people realize, but we tend to focus on the negative.
Re: (Score:2)
An even better idea regarding public office, taken from Ancient Greece: Make every position a lottery. Anyone of legal age can hold any office. We just draw SSNs randomly and that person gets to hold office.
Not only would this put more ordinary folks in power, but it would also force us to make sure everyone is intelligent enough to hold office.
Alternatively, we could simply ask the person if they want to hold an office and give them the job if they say "no." (With apologies to DNA.)
Re: (Score:2)
Now we just need to develop a reliable test for this, and make it a requirement for public office.
Actually, the worst monsters in history are the true believers on some grand crusade. Selfish politicians are just looking to make a quick buck. They are basicly gangsters. The truly aweful things like wars, genocide, police states, etc., are done by crusaders who are willing to do anything to "make the world a better place" according to their grand vision, or to "destroy evildoers", or whatever.
For example, compare Al Capone or Manuel Noriega to monsters like Mao or Lenin or Hitler.