Beer Drinking Networks In Amazon Tribe Help Explain Altruism 157
KentuckyFC writes "The Tsimane tribe are hunter-gatherers living in the forested region between the foothills of the Andes and the wetland-savannas of the Llanos de Moxos in Bolivia. They drink beer made from boiled manioc (a type of sweet potato) which they chew and spit into the mix to trigger fermentation. After a week or so, the resultant brew is about 4 per cent alcohol. Now anthropologists studying this tribe say the way they host beer drinking events for each other offers important clues into their culture. At issue is the question of altruism: why people spend considerable time and effort doing favors for others that don't directly benefit them. The answer from studying these beer drinking events is that the favor is quickly returned by the guests in the form of another beer drinking event. This helps to build good relations with neighbors and family. And when the beer drinking invite is not returned, the researchers speculate that this is probably because there is some other favor involved, such as helping to gather or prepare food, suggesting mates or political co-operation."
most violence here a 2AM bar closing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:most violence here a 2AM bar closing (Score:5, Funny)
What counter example? As you point out, after 2 AM is *after* closing. Therefore beer=good, no beer=bad.
Re: (Score:1)
What counter example? As you point out, after 2 AM is *after* closing. Therefore beer=good, no beer=bad.
"No beer and no TV make Homer something something..."
Re: (Score:1)
Go crazy?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't mind if I do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What counter example? As you point out, after 2 AM is *after* closing. Therefore beer=good, no beer=bad.
Jokes aside, the OP kind of has a point.
Forcing all bars to close at exactly the same time forces all the people out onto the street at the same time. Just through sheer volume you've increased the risk of a fight starting.
It would be better for bars to stagger their closing times or at least close later to allow patrons to leave of their own accord. From a barman's perspective, it's much easier to chuck out 10 really drunk people at 4 AM than 50 slightly drunk people at 2 AM. The only places I've see
Re: (Score:2)
solution. let bars stay open all nite
We have to stop them Mruders! (Score:2)
We have to do anything in our hands to stop the Mruders, they are very dangerous!
It's not altruism if a favor is expected in return (Score:5, Informative)
Doing something for someone else with no expectation of it being returned is altruism.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
All true "ism"s
I see what you did there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's not altruism if a favor is expected in ret (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know if a favour is expected in return, but there's something in us that makes us want to help others who've helped us anyway.
It seems obvious that altruistic behaviour would be a result of the fact that a species that helps each other is more likely to survive. It might also have side effects, like wanting to help any living creature to survive.. but as long as that doesn't damage the original species' reproductive abilities, there's no reason for that behaviour to be selected out.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems obvious that altruistic behaviour would be a result of the fact that a species that helps each other is more likely to survive.
Yes... but evolution does not work like that. If it were an advantage to be selfish, rather than altruistic, the species would become more selfish, even if this decreases the viability of the species. This can be seen with stable populations of animals that select largeness to some degree - larger males are in some species are more often selected for breeding than small
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... but evolution does not work like that. If it were an advantage to be selfish, rather than altruistic, the species would become more selfish, even if this decreases the viability of the species.
That's only true if there is no social consequences for selfishness. As long as the altruism comes with other things like ostracism, shunning, etc, for the individuals found to be selfish, the group can do a pretty good job at surviving. As long as you are more likely to thrive in the society by cooperating than you are to be a cheater with risks of being caught and outed, then it makes sense to cooperate.
As the number of cheaters goes up, it becomes more adaptive to spend more time and energy policing ch
Re: (Score:2)
That's only true if there is no social consequences for selfishness. As long as the altruism comes with other things like ostracism, shunning, etc, for the individuals found to be selfish, the group can do a pretty good job at surviving. As long as you are more likely to thrive in the society by cooperating than you are to be a cheater with risks of being caught and outed, then it makes sense to cooperate.
I said "If it were an advantage to be selfish, rather than altruistic, the species would become more
Re: (Score:2)
I said "If it were an advantage to be selfish, rather than altruistic, the species would become more selfish". I didn't say it is an advantage. In essence, I agree with you here.
It is an advantage if you are really good at it.
It is also an advantage to be able to spot cheaters, if you are a team player.
The survival of the species is sort of an arbitrary metric. In the same way that some species of parasites need their host species to survive, cheaters need their victims to survive as well. That doesn;t mean they are playing on the same team. It also doesn't mean that they are on completely different teams either.
Here's where I disagree with you. Sexual selection _is_ natural selection.
Sexual selection is natural selection in the sense that it is a typ
Re: (Score:2)
Sexual selection is natural selection in the sense that it is a type of selection and it is "natural" (i.e. part of nature), but the term "sexual selection" can refer to a type of selection that is distinct from "natural selection". This is in fact how Darwin treated it. Although many people treat sexual selection as a part of natural selection, this just means that we don;t have a good name for the "non-sexual" part of natural selection.
There is no "non-sexual" part of natural selection (at least in comp
Re: (Score:2)
the species would become more selfish, even if this decreases the viability of the species
Yep and if it decreases the viability, then your line has more chance of dying off. That's the whole point.
I was reading an article a few months ago where they reckoned that Neanderthals were actually smarter than humans, but they were less social. They were less likely to share new ideas between villages for example, and so we became more advanced than them as a result of our greater sociability.
Evolution does "work like that". If the altruistic behaviour of the species helps a member survive and reproduce
Re: (Score:2)
See also pathological altruism: "behavior in which attempts to promote the welfare of another, or others, results instead in harm that an external observer would conclude was reasonably foreseeable"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Doing something for someone else with no expectation of it being returned is altruism.
I agree with that. It seems little different than the "round buying" that goes on in bars/pubs. When one buys a round, there's a reasonable expectation that everyone in the group will in turn buy a round. Unless you have a guy like Bob, who's always broke, but he's very entertaining to drink with, and a good guy. I guess we're buying him rounds for entertainment and companionship, so even that's not pure altruism.
Because the Tsimane don't have local bars, and making up a batch of brew is such a pain, it l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may notice among your friends that so
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously people are altruistic because it makes them feel good. The question is *why* does it make them feel good (i.e. is there an evolutionary drive to be altruistic?).
Why do people eat food? Why do the have sex?
Well because food is delicious and sex feels good, obviously. But there is an underlying reason why food is delicious and why sex feels good, and that reason is evolutionary in nature. Those things feel good because we are supposed to do them to improve our (i.e.our genes) chances of survival
Re: (Score:1)
It seems little different than the "round buying" that goes on in bars/pubs. When one buys a round, there's a reasonable expectation that everyone in the group will in turn buy a round.
It isn't. Many older and smaller societies have an exchange culture based on exactly this kind of structure: Invite the neighboring village over for your festival and feed them/or adorn them with gifts; expect to be invited to their festival and adorned with equivalent effort of gifts.
You can do this when the groups are small enough to keep track that everyone is contributing fairly and you can shun those who don't. Once your society gets too big, you have to resort to exchange of goods and services for
self interest is defined by perception (Score:2)
That's why this discussion and the way TFA researchers define 'altruism' is completely usesless.
I hate bashing research outright...i'm not saying this research is bad b/c it's "obvious"...I'm saying it's bad because they use contradictory and overlapping definitions for the factors they test.
do you believe in Karma?
if so, *everything* you do has an expectation of being re
Conclusion: (Score:3)
I'll take that Ph.D. now.
Re: (Score:2)
Beer is good.
I'll take that Ph.D. now.
Hey is that you Homer Simpson
Further Proof (Score:1)
Is there any thing beer can't do?
Explain how? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Explain how? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that to explain altruism, one has to -- um -- show that it isn't really altruism. Even Christianity's take on altruism isn't that it is a truly selfless act, only that you get your reward later, in heaven. The closest you can probably come in human affairs is to consider an atheist (no karma-weighted rebirth, no post-mortem reward or punishment) who sacrifices their life to save the life of a complete stranger. And even there, one can come up with a sort of "happy people make for a happy wor
Re: (Score:2)
No, the problem is that "to explain altruism" is taken to mean "altruism is the effect of something else". Yet the very definition of altruism is that it is an act without cause. Trying to explain altruism is like trying to explain random acts of violence. The truth is, a lot of acts aren't altruistic or random. And understanding those situations can help you know how to cause more or less of the desired behavi
Re: (Score:2)
No, the problem is that "to explain altruism" is taken to mean "altruism is the effect of something else". Yet the very definition of altruism is that it is an act without cause. Trying to explain altruism is like trying to explain random acts of violence. The truth is, a lot of acts aren't altruistic or random.
Ah, but you see, I'm a physicist and I don't really believe in effects without causes. So I have to assume that when you define altruism as an act without a cause, you mean an act without a known cause, just as random acts of violence aren't at all random, although it may be impossible to narrow down the cause to the day some poor child got Malibu Barbie for Christmas.
BTW, your assertion that altruism is an act without a cause does not appear to be correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism [wikipedia.org]
There is noth
Re: (Score:1)
So I take it you don't believe in the Big Bang? Or is it turtles all the way down?
Well, beyond the fact that you're not actually quoting the link you gave...the notion of self-sacrifice wi
Re: (Score:2)
So I take it you don't believe in the Big Bang? Or is it turtles all the way down?
I'm quite fond of turtles. But saying that we do not know the cause of the big bang is not the same thing as saying that it definitely had no cause. Then it comes down to what you want to believe. I find that it is a lot easier to believe that the big bang happened as part of a causal chain (in the sense of cause used in physics, not cause as in hairy thunderer) than that it "just happened". This is certainly consistent wi
Re: (Score:1)
Even jumping on a hand grenade isn't altruism if the user did it to either feel superior or prevent a feeling of guilt. To be altruistic one has to act without feeling. Otherwise self preservation is always the motivating factor.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how this explains altruism, this explains self interest. It's no different than chimps taking turns picking lice off each other. (Disclaimer: I had chimp-like ancestors. Also, I am not saying chimps and the people in TFA are equivalent). Altruism is jumping on a live hand grenade, or taking on a predator while the rest of the troop flees.
That's a pretty extreme definition of altruism. Besides, in second example your offspring might be doing the fleeing so one could argue that this is again a case of self-interest. At the end of the day, distinguishing enlightened self-interest from altruism is probably one for the philosophers.
Scratchy (Score:2)
The answer from studying these beer drinking events is that the favor is quickly returned by the guests in the form of another beer drinking event.
You mean I scratch your back, you scratch my back? That's not not altruism, that's trade.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Trade is "I'll give you a coconut for those shiny beads." (yes, trade back scratches), This is "Hey, DUDE! Let me buy you a beer!"
Oh, and what they're drinking is in no way, shape, or form "beer". You don't make beer by spitting into fruit juice.
Re: (Score:2)
Root juice.
And while we're being pedantic... yes, it's beer. Starch -> sugar + yeast -> fermentation = beer.
Beer has been made from malted barley, wheat, rice, corn, buckwheat, quinoa, sorghum, even non-starch sugar sources like honey, sugar cane, beet sugar and chestnuts, not to mention (gasp) fruits. Frankly the only sane reason wine, mead and cider are distinct from beer is tautological: they have their own names. The same is true of sake.
The use of herbal adjuncts (like hops) was developed as a me
this study could be done at the local pub (Score:1)
Interesting historical significance of Beer (Score:3)
"This show traces the important role that beer has played in human history from the probable origins of the first beer at the dawn of history to the development of a special beer for use in zero gravity space missions."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1832368/ [imdb.com]
Really? (Score:1)
Result of more stripped culture? (Score:1)
Is this strictly the result of their culture being more stripped of modern conviences, i.e. industrialization and technology, or rather that living in such a simplistic and repeatable manner is actually easier?
Having recently done a long-distance hike, several months and over a 1000 miles, where every day was the same repeatable events(wake up, eat, hike, stop, eat, sleep), I'd argue that it is a much simpler existence when exact daily repitition, to consistent weekly repitition with minimal distraction out
Nonsense (Score:1)
What a load of bollocks. An hour in the pub watching how a round of drinks works could have saved a lot of time and effort.
I can imagine the TV ads (if they had any) (Score:2)
Science leads to public policy (Score:1)
> "The answer from studying these beer drinking events is that the favor is quickly
> returned by the guests in the form of another beer drinking event"
The professor, from the US or European intelligentsia, then rubbed his chin, "Government should force people to have these voluntary reciprocity invites! But not with beer. Or soda pop. Well, not sugar soda anyway. Or diet."
Re: (Score:1)
Group dynamics (Score:2)
Could be that drinking (beer or whatever) is an example of a shared group experience that enhances interpersonal bonding. So, is it the booze or the underlying culture that explains the altruism? Can one identify cultures that emphasize other shared experiences which also enhance such effects?
I don't have anything against drinking, per se. But if I can make a conscious decision to join a group that is characterized by some shared activity, I might want to select one that has fewer negative consequences an
We know how altruism evolves (Score:5, Informative)
So we are pretty far along these directions. Research on reciprocal altruism like this beer drinking ritual by some tribals is minor compared to the extensive work done on the bats regurgitating blood to share food with bats who did not have a successful hunt.
Alternate Explanation (Score:2)
And when the beer drinking invite is not returned, the researchers speculate that this is probably because there is some other favor involved...
A simpler explanation; they served really crappy beer.
Sweet Potato? (Score:1)
epiphany (Score:1)
How traditions start (Score:2)
Hey Neighbor,
I chewed up some sweet potatoes, spit them into a pot and left it sitting for a week or so. Wanna come over and have some? ...
And somehow this is now a tradition.
Re: (Score:2)
A proverb (Score:1)
Altruism, like everything else, is imperfect (Score:2)
I think one stumbling block of evolutionary studies is the notion to consider anything to be perfected.
The reason that altruism does not always make sense (according to a pure 'selfish gene' standpoint), may well be that it doesn't.
We've developed a few genes that makes part our brain mirror what our fellow beings experience. If we see someone suffer, we feel bad too.
Most of the time, that makes sense from an egoistic standpoint. Some of the time, it doesn't.
Altruism is no more a mystery that our preference
On to pot! (Score:2)
Let's see if there is a similar effect amongst those sharing bong hits... I don't know I feel sort of unmotivated about that study....
Angry homebrewer corrects submitter (Score:1)
Chewing the manioc doesn't trigger fermentation; the saliva and maceration triggers the conversion of starches into sugars. It is the yeast (and bacteria) in the environment (especially the skin of the vegetable) which ferments the resulting sugars into alcohol.
What question? (Score:2)
the question of altruism: why people spend considerable time and effort doing favo[u]rs for others that don't directly benefit them...the favo[u]r is quickly returned...
So, the same answer we've had for the last 150 years.
Cooperation (Score:2)
The scientists discovered human being can cooperate. What a scoop!
Considering theses behaviors as odd just shows how Western societies fundamentals are rotten. People help members of their family for free. Why doing the same for neighbors would be so strange?
Manioc is nothing like a sweet potato (Score:2)
Anyone who's eaten manioc (also known as cassava) and sweet potatoes knows that they're plants with starchy tubers and that's where the similiarities end. Not knowing the difference could be deadly since much cassava is of the "bitter" variety and must be carefully prepared to remove dangerous levels of cyanide.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you know how you can tell a queer?
He drinks Pimms while we drink beer
I don't know if this is a universal rule, but I'd say in British University bars at least there is a pretty strong correlation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not certain I see the positive point of this comment; personally, it just seems like bashing to me. Perhaps you meant it as a joke? Still, at what point do we stop picking on people for being different? As IT workers, we're the brunt of a lot of "less than funny" jokes; why continue that practice on another group? I just don't understand it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Islam (Score:4, Funny)
I bet if Islam allowed alcohol they'd all be a lot less cranky.
Re: (Score:2)
There's actually a pretty long history in the monotheistic faiths that, the way to make a good world is to ban all the bad stuff. Some traditions, however, eventually twigged that this doesn't in the end, actually work quite how they intended, and so the "tantra" paths were created, basically, you can't eradicate aggression, but you can transform it into something more productive. I'm told there is a huge amount of repression of sex in the Middle Eastern cultures, and this is all driving people a little nut
Re: (Score:3)
I can't speak to other religions, but Judaism has always equated wine with happiness. (Anyone who says Jews see wine as blood is just repeating centuries-old blood libel lies.) While it might frown on abusing alcohol, there's nothing that says alcohol is bad by nature. In fact, there's one holiday, Purim, where you get dressed up in costumes, give each other presents, and are religiously commanded to get drunk. (So drunk that you can't tell the difference between "Blessed is Mordechai" and "Cursed is Ha
Re: (Score:2)
I may have to seek religion again...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's a place where religions differ somewhat: do they advocate converting others?
Re:Islam (Score:4, Funny)
I bet if Islam allowed alcohol they'd all be a lot less cranky.
Some of the crankiest people I knew were fundies living in dry counties in Texas. You may be on to something.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why do researchers feel they need to study tribal communties to learn about society?
There is no such thing as "human nature". [psmag.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Just because you've never done something nice for someone else while expecting nothing in return doesn't mean altruism doesn't exist; it means you're selfish.
To wit, the other night my wife told me a homeless guy helped her carry and load her groceries in the car; all he got out of the deal was a pleasant conversation, and still went away smiling.
Re: (Score:1)
If he left smiling, he received satisfaction. Therefore it is a selfish act. If you can show me how the person approached it without the intent of feeling satisfied with his actions, you have made an argument for altruism. Otherwise you have simply argued to my point.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because he left with a happy feeling, doesn't make it a selfish act. Although if he had hoped to get a reward, but didn't and wasn't too upset would make it so. He could just be playing the odds.
If you reduce the argument you got some kind of feeling after doing something well you are very unlikely find example, because even if it happens you can always say that person had a good, feeling.
The truth is people who are altruistic enjoy being so, the act is altruistic if the giver expects net return to the
Re: (Score:2)
Altruism does not imply joy or self-satisfaction.
During the power outage following the derecho in 2012, a creepy old guy came knocking on my door. He had a tree fall on his power line a block or two away, making a mess out of the meter base on his house and so on, and was asking for my help getting it put back together.
I resisted strongly, but eventually relented: He wasn't taking no for an answer, and saying "Ok, I'll check it out," was the only way I was going to get that old fucker off of my porch.
Two
Re: (Score:1)
Quote:"Ok, I'll check it out," was the only way I was going to get that old fucker off of my porch.
You desired he leave your porch. You committed an action to obtain a good that you desired. Not altruistic.
Self-satisfaction negates selflessness which is the definition of altruism.
Even if you do what you consider good because it makes you feel good, you are still being selfish.
I think you may be mistaking benevolence for altruism.
Benevolence exists and I attempt to be as benevolent as possible because it mak
Re: (Score:2)
I committed a helpful action to get the old fucker off my porch.
The alternatives:
1. Leaving the old fucker on my porch and slamming the door in his face.
2. Calling the cops if he kept making a pest of himself.
3. Shooting him where he stood. (Which, by the letter of law, I can do in my state...though the law is currently being interpreted by the courts.)
All of these things are selfish things.
So following your logic, it seems that I had no choice in the matter that was not rooted in selfishness. And, by
Re: (Score:2)
So, Socrates: Free will.
Does it exist, or are we all just victims of our own selfish actions at every step of every day?
Because on some minute scale: When that old fucker showed up on my porch, I didn't have free will anymore. I had to decide to do *something*. (Even deciding to ignore his knocks would have been a selfish decision. Reduced to the absurd, even preemptively deafening myself with an icepick in anticipation of his knock would have been a selfish decision.)
Is it really the case that there i
Re: (Score:2)
Altruism does not imply joy or self-satisfaction.
Just because it is there doesn't mean it is not altruism either.
Ok, I'll check it out," was the only way I was going to get that old fucker off of my porch.
What you got is him going away. In that case was it altruism?
I think you are right however you don't always need self satisfaction, you can do something that is on the whole that is emotionally unpleasant. That's what I was inferring because you believe its the right thing.
An example although I would say its not Altruism because of other reasons is punishing your child (aka gene propagation, long term reward, you hope), it is highly unpleasant,
Re: (Score:2)
Altruism does not imply joy or self-satisfaction.
Nor does it preclude them; The fact that helping others makes me feel good about myself doesn't make the acts selfish, because that good feeling isn't why I do it - I help people because they need it and I can give it.
Joy and self-satisfaction are just pleasant side effects.
Re: (Score:1)
Believing it is the right thing to do would leave you feeling guilty if you had not done it, because then you not have done the right thing.
Therefore there is a selfish motivation to do what you consider right, even if you do not consciously comprehend you are doing this to advance yourself or state of well being.
As many others have done, you have mistaken benevolence for altruism.
Re: (Score:2)
I did say that you derive self satisfaction from doing the right thing.
The point there is no situation where you can did any act not get a feeling so it is not Altruism. My point is when the expected gain to you is negative then it is altruism, not that there is no gain what so ever.
I disagree, its not Altruism even if you are not aware of the benefit to you (arguing on a subconscious level is hard since by definition you are not aware of it and you can make anything up). If you use the argument it is actu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This is a very depressing topic. I was distraught when I first figured it out. Then I read some Nietzsche and found that altruism doesn't need to exist to be content. Now that I no longer look to impossible ideals as a way to live my life, I am actually much happier. But I assume many people will feel the way I did when I first realized this and be rather lost. Hopefully though, it will eventually set you free to live as beasts were intended. Just do the best you can from your perspective and understand you
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we should shy away from the specific term "altruistic" because the pedants jump all over it as there are
Re: (Score:2)
I'd still drink that stuff before I drank american beer.
Re: (Score:2)
Any american beer? The most recent number I know is there are over 2700 breweries.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In before the first derpling herps up a comparison to American beer. Herp herp derp.
Manioc "Primitive Yam" Sweet Potato Ale
Brewed by The Original Tsimane Tribe Brewing Co.
63 overall, 99 style.
Ratings: 14 Weighted Avg: 3.43 Est Calories: 345 ABV: 4.0%
4.5 AROMA: 8/10 APPEARANCE 9/10 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 7/10 OVERALL 17/20
beersnob83 - Copenhagen, Denmark
1.3l gourd - Bolivian jungle hut. Pours thick resembling orange pancake batter. Zero carbonation. Slimy head containing flecks of grass and dust. No detectable hops. Aroma of sweet potatoes, saliva, cloves, sweat socks, motor oil, goat dung, cit
Re: (Score:2)