When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed the emergence of altruistic behaviour.
It was really really difficult. Even knowing exactly the kind of behaviour we wanted to show, it wasn't trivial to stack the dice enough to roll that outcome.
I have since read a lot of arguments, a lot of post-hoc reasoning that justifies why altruism might be a positive contributor to fitness. It is no coincidence they are almost all hand-waving, narrative arguments.
I don't buy them. Show me the math.
Evolution is a perfect subject for handwaving and post hoc rationalisations. I do not think all of evolutionary psychology is bunkum, like some have claimed, but I do think a lot is unfalsifiable, motivated reasoning. My advice would be, unless it comes with good predictions of evidence from the historical biological record, or good experimental evidence from mathematical models of evolution, it was too easily come by to be considered knowledge.
> When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed the emergence of altruistic behaviour.
OK, math.
There are 200 people in Group A. Each has the choice of taking 1 point for themselves or giving 2 points to the group. If everyone gives 2 points then everyone gets 2 points. If everyone keeps the 1 point then no one gets anything from the group and everyone has only the 1 point. But if you keep your 1 point and everyone else gives 2 points then you get 1 + 1.99 points = 2.99 points. You can obviously see how everyone might end up defecting here.
But there are also groups B and C who are all under the same rules. After each iteration everyone in the group with the lowest average dies, is ineligible to receive points in any future iteration, and is replaced in the next iteration with a new group that behaves randomly. Each individual gets to accumulate points for 100 iterations before being replaced, unless their group dies first.
I don't know if it counts for alturism, but wasn't cooperation-by-default famously shown the best strategy by the tit-for-tat program in the early 80'ies?
I think that this was easier explained in "The Selfish Gene". Individual altruism is an emergent characteristic of a selfish gene.
I risk my live 10 times to save others until I die without off-spring. It is altruistic for me, but the gene has saved 10 people that are probably related to me. That means that the gene has a probability over 10% to be in that other individuals it is a win for the gene.
From my point of view it sucks, I don't have offspring. But the gene survives and prospers. This is still more extreme in species like bumblebees where sisters share 75% of their genes.
For monozygotic twins there is a similar case. From the gene perspective is irrelevant if one survives or the other, even that it is really important for the individuals.
If I understand the nature of the math correctly, altruism should be "beneficial" (from evolutionary perspective), if the number of people multiplied by closeness factor of their genes to yours ultimately translates to a larger portion of your genes propagating to later generations, than if you have expended those resources on yourself.
E.g. suppose I have a loaf of lembas. I can eat it myself, and it increases my chance of surviving and reproducing merely by 10%, because, while I'm starving, I'm healthy. But I have three siblings who share 50% of their genes with me, and who are starving and sick. If I give all my lembas to them, their chances of surviving and reproducing increase twofold, and become same as my current chance. In that case, it makes sense for me (or rather my genes) to evolve the behavior whereby I give away the lembas, because these three survivors will spread the genes that we share more efficiently than I alone.
Now, obviously, the math here has to add up in real-world scenarios - is that what you mean by "it wasn't trivial to stack the dice"? It just feels like it shouldn't be hard to come up with many cases where all the coefficients line up...
Dogs are a good example of symbiotic relationships in relation to altruism. If you give an animal free stuff, they may return you a favor. Humans, though arguably more complicated, have a long history of group hunting and enslaving eachother. While under an alpha, a system naturally develops. However, if that alpha dies or another human wants to rise up, being kind is a way to gain allies.
Additionally, when at large scale war, often you can trust your cultural bretheran better than the enemy. As a result, its important to have as many healthy and proud people as possible inorder to go to war. A culture of kindness and giving can support that.
Additionally, this is all about genetics. While there is always an argument that your genes are the best genes, cultural agreement can give faith that the best will rise and flourish. Treating your neighbor as you would yourself reinforces the hope that even in failure of the individual, the group can still succeed.
Do you have anything to say about Nowak's work on evolutionary dynamics? I have a book in my shelf in which I have only glanced the pictures, and as of yet my understanding of altriusm in nature is pretty much limited to readings of Axelrod and his tit-for-tat and also Dawkins' further musings around the subject.
Imagine a game you play with someone where you have 40 units and you need to divide it between the two of you. The other person has the choice of accepting the deal or refusing the deal. If they refuse, both of you get nothing. How do you divide the 40 units so that the other person accepts the deal?
Naive economics points that even if you offer the other only 1 unit, the other should take it because if they refuse the deal, they wouldn't have even that unit. In practice however, people down't work like that. If people feel they are being treated wrong, they tend to go for lose-lose. And so, in these kind of games, most people go for a fair split 20-20.
Now, imagine the same game but with a twist. You have a bunch of instances of these games and your objective is to have the highest score across all the instances. The trick is that the other player has to chose you to play with. What strategy would you adopt so that you maximize the score?
In this game, a 25-15 split is better. You lose the small game BUT more players want to play with you and so, you win the BIG game. Altruistic players are better at playing the BIG game, the long term game.
I agree that there are doubts about some of the models, e.g. evolutionary game theory is not a model of evolution. My problem with these kinds of evolutionary arguments is different, though.
It seems to me that their interpreters often assume that identifying some behavior as evolutionary advantageous to an individual or group is somehow correlated with the goodness or desirability of that behavior. That's a fallacy. Whether the behavior is commendable, good, desirable, etc. is not related to its capability of increasing the long-term survival and spreading of someone's genes. (I'm not claiming everyone makes this association, but some seem to make it.)
Moreover, there seem to be countless examples of behavior that we are perfectly capable of and whose effect is difficult if not impossible to explain with evolutionary arguments. Some of them are considered commendable, other not. Random examples:
- spending your life in almost solitary confinement to solve some math problem
- deciding not to have children
- waging wars
- not passing your wealth on to your useless son and instead give everything to a charity
- being gay or asexual
- writing a novel without getting paid for it and that also doesn't increase your mating chances
The list could go on and on. Of course, evolutionary explanations may be constructed for any of them, but it's kind of doubtful that all human activities fit into this scheme. So my two points are:
a.) Whether altruistic behavior is good/desirable or not has nothing to do with its contribution to evolutionary fitness.
b.) Within some limits, we are perfectly capable of behaving in ways that are not evolutionary advantageous to us.
Finally, evolutionary models of social behavior that are not based on the genetic transmission of behavior simply do not have anything to do with real evolution. I've often seen real evolution being deliberately mixed up with ideas about the spreading on information contained in books, web pages, speech, etc. but I fail to see how the spreading of this information could be even remotely related to the way genes spread. Once you hear about a social fitness function or the fitness of a meme, you can in my opinion safely assume that the author pulled that concept out of his ass or copied it from others who did so.
Altruism is a way to bequeath a competitive advantage to another who is not your immediate offspring but is part of your gene pool.
Altruism is one of the most pervasive forms of interaction in life on Earth because it is the mechanism by which multi-cellular life functions at a basic level.
Altruism generates a sense of community. The most successful among us learn to generate an appearance of altruism while keeping the majority of the resources for themselves.
It's really more about deception than anything else.
If in your simulation individuals could improve themselves as well as their group fit, I'd expect group dynamics to only have any relevance when the number of individuals is very big. Individual improvement leads to faster responses, so you'll need a big amount of diversity to let group improvement make any difference.
That said, I do expect it to be hard. Nature created cooperating species more than once, but not that many times¹. And it had half a billion years of a simulation that was certainly much larger than yours.
1 - Counting placentarial mammals only once, what is very likely correct.
While I agree with your general sentiment, here is an anectode that might be considered as evolutionary "softening".
Assyrian empire was extremely brutal to people it conquered, Persians who took its place was more "humane" to their conquered subjects as a policy. Resulting in a relatively more stable land and subjects were submitting "willingly". From that point on, it was their main selling point.
This is a bit surprising to me. Based on my gut I assumed that if a group has a sufficient probability of producing individuals with "broken selfishness" then the group has a higher fitness to survive, especially if some evolutionary pressure requires these "different" individuals. But this is probably not this simple.
What about Nash equilibria? People here may well have asked this already in a different way; I haven't checked all the questions to see if they actually are describing Nash equilibria.
Maybe you can find an answer in game theory!? If you know the other part will cooperate, outcome will most of the time be better for both. If you know the other part will defect, outcome will most of the time be bad for both.
This is really sloppy. Altruism is also the basis for Altruistic Punishment which can promote some of the most vicious behavior that humans are capable of. Social systems are much more complex than this simplistic reductionism.
Kindness is a poor word choice, except in its most literal sense. Care is much more apt. Mammals' key evolutionary advantage over reptiles is that they care for each other, forming social groups which enable greater fitness. Likewise with primates > mammals, and humans > apes.
(One could argue that intelligence and brain size have more to do with evolutionary fitness, but I would speculate that intelligence is a result of increased care, not the other way around. Give a thing more time, space, and resources to grow, and it will.)
As a species, the more we collectively care for each other--through actions, not feelings--, the greater chance we have for survival and growth.
We are 'responsible' for one another, but in far more than just 'caring' ways. We take out the trash, we try to get along, we do all sorts of things every day that really fall into the category of 'acting responsibly' that in some ways could be described as 'caring' in a more general sense, but it wouldn't be apt.
Well, I would rather call it organization rather than just care. While the highest level of animal organization is called eusociality, humans are not hardwired to be eusocial but can display very advanced division of labor.
Now, I would not really say advantage or disadvantage. Each species have a specific role in the ecosystem and sometimes they're related in very unexpected ways. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
In 'The God Delusion' Richard Dawkins mentions a few ways altruism and compassion etc could've evolved in humans (by way of selfish genes).
I remember one fascinating example about Arabian babblers which use altruism to assert dominance. They seek out increasingly dangerous positions to alert the herd of potential predetors. And by feeding others as a way to say 'look at me I am so superior to you I can afford to feed you'. Of course, they are rewarded by getting all the mates.
Whenever conflict arises at work, I usually just take a pause and buy the other person a drink and get to know each other on a more personal level. Its fun doing this and usually it ends up with me understanding my coworker on a more human level and we come to an agreement and work better together. A few years ago I would have fought to have my way and as satisfying as it was to win (occasionally), the attitude is very divisive and alienating for both parties involved.
This is in line with recent game theory studies. In iterated prisoner's dilemma, the introduction of kindness wipes out always-defect strategies in the long run, and is competitive with tit-for-tat.
There is a thoughtful book on this topic called "Love is the Killer App" that makes the argument that in a commodity based economy the most ruthless prevail (think 20th century steel industry), but in an information based community the most altruistic prevail (the internet). I didn't agree with all of it but it was a good read and a helpful counterpoint to the widely held view that being ruthless is good for business.
Perhaps I'm completely cynical at this point, but I think recently I have seen altruism used in the sense of "please contribute large amounts of free work to this project I'm heavily invested in."
That said, kindness, in the sense of, willing to make an attempt to understand, and take into account others views / opinions / needs, definitely makes for nicer people to be around.
> Perhaps I'm completely cynical at this point, but I think recently I have seen altruism used in the sense of "please contribute large amounts of free work to this project I'm heavily invested in."
A bit cynical in a way you put it, maybe, but what you saw is true. But it's just what comes out when you consider helping someone and actually getting an effect over helping to just get warm feelings in your belly about how good you are. It so happens that in a technological civilization, spending our time as specialists to earn money and giving it to different specialists is a better way to help than trying to help directly in areas we're not specialized in. It's how professional specialization works.
Walking down the street and experiencing hospitable conditions could be considered a project we're all heavily invested in, yet none of us expect a monetary reward.
"Survival of the fittest" can be interpreted in the same manner. Or, from a different perspective, a willingness to step over one's mother to achieve their goals.
Mismatch your behavior to the environment, and you're screwed.
People consistently compliment me for being "such a nice guy." And I've made, and valued, many alliances with contemporaries.
But the power brokers? They've screwed me right over.
If you are unmitigatedly kind while hoping for reciprocity in matters essential to your own well-being.
Well, either you are weakening yourself, or you are not really being "kind" by failing to respect the particular circumstances and the other party. Or some combination of these.
People become less and less comfortable with you, and continued kindness is actually perceived negatively.
Unmitigated kindness is another false, simplistic lesson that has been counter-productively fostered in recent decades.
It was never survival of the fittest- it is survival of the most adapted to a situation. If the situation rewards kindness- survival of the kindest- if the situation rewards being a heartless, survival of the heartless. If the situation is constantly fluctuating, survival of the system swinging between the both, by adapting to environmental clues.
Can we please let go of 1930 evolution papers wording and thinking and move on?
In modern society, this is so obvious that it seems not worth writing about. Most successful people I know are kind and considerate while people I have known who are not so successful in life tend to not consider other people. OK, I am making a generalization, but one that is usually true.
One quarter of people in Asia has Chengis Khan's genes. He is probably the most genetically successfull male in the recent millenia. I am not sure he got there by altruism alone.
Feels like there is a type mismatch error in the title. Survival of the fittest covers all fitness functions, so we can't contrast it with kindness. Something like "survival of the cruelest" or the "strongest" would be more correct though it doesn't read as well.
I believe the article is indeed trying to educate that the phrase re."fittest" is a poor framing, and further that
survival of the best fitted to their environment does not automatically degenerate into survival of the strongest and/or most ruthless.
The title does not infer contrast between fitness and kindness, it infers that (were one to write a fitness function that was made up of a conglomerate of every human personality trait) kindness is the prime mover in what separates the fittest from the least fit.
I also think you might misunderstand what the word kindness means, as you refer to cruelty and strength as some measure of adequate relation to what would be deemed fit in some similar function.
I think it's a fairly cogent statement, as great and influential persons are, by and large, incredibly kind. Of course, if one thinks that power equates with influence, or that fitness is best represented by wealth, I would posit that there is a huge correlation between wealth, kindness, and authority. For instance, President Obama is quite obviously an incredibly kind man. William Gates, Jr., a philanthropist (read: about as far away from unkind as you can get), Her Majesty the Queen of England, the titular head of an Empire, leads a family that donates a huge amount of their wealth to the citizenry of the United Kingdom, and is as sunny as anyone in her position could possibly be (have you ever once seen her upset in public, because I haven't), these instances alone give clear indication that kindness is, indeed, perhaps an indisputable barometer of what is meant by being fit for survival.
By contrast, who do you know who is sought by society for capital punishment? The unkind, that's who. Those who are cruel are brought up before magistrates, tribunals, and high courts and told in no uncertain terms that their survival is undesirable by the masses.
Fitness in a world of more than a few is entirely dependent on symbiotic, cohesive, gentile (in the French sense, though Christ is an inordinately germane example of kindness too) behavior.
In summary, I dismiss the article as flawed (false and overly simplistic). No matter how noble (kind) your society, if the next society practices savagery and you are not prepared, your society will fail.
The level at which you pitch the concept of kindness is essential, as is the environment. To illustrate, many comments in this thread fail to hold for an example like the Mongols, or may argue that the Mongols wiping out civilisations was altruistic or kind. In a simplistic way, the Mongols survived through cooperation (as their society had some cruel rules that were definitely not kind), cruelty to outsiders and through theft. However, you could also contrast Chinggis Khan with Darius I of Persia who demonstrated far more kindness throughout his reign than Chinggis did. Both leaders in their own way were quite successful.
If you consider individuals, the dynamics can be quite different from those of nations, depending on the environment. If you limit the view to modern, first world societies, cooperation with ones peers is still essential and almost certainly more important than kindness. To illustrate, if I give everyone around me all of my money, that could be considered kind (think of a lottery winner). However, ultimately, such kindness (no matter how misguided) will usually lead to little or no benefit for the individual. Even if you compare two similarly cooperative people, the most competent cooperator will usually out perform a kinder cooperator. It will depend on the society as to whether an individual's empathy for those in need will add to the success of the individual and/or the community. For example, where a society has social welfare, an individual can point to the welfare system rather than directly contributing to the welfare of those in need.
Family dynamics are yet another level of complexity. Does a priority of kindness go to the family or the local community? What constitutes success of the family? Families that cooperate are more likely to succeed beyond those that are purely kind to each other. However, family cohesion is almost certainly dependent on both kindness and cooperation.
There are also work place environments, community group environments, local community environments, state and territory and country environments. In order to be successful, these environments require competency and cooperation. Kindness may or may not be required.
Regarding kindness.
In my observations of modern society (collectively), I observe that there are some examples that complicate concepts such as kindness. For example feminism* insists that domestic violence is something that only happens to females (through ignorance of statistics or for less savoury reasons). Ultimately, what this demonstrates is that kindness can be selectively applied and still be recognised as acceptable.
In summary, I don't see kindness as essential (at least not in all circumstances). Kindness can be selective (eg. Feminism's human rights failures with respect to domestic violence by representing only one gender) and, yet, such kindness can be seen as socially acceptable. Kindness can also be handed off to community and government groups in some circumstances. However, unlike kindness, cooperation is essential for individuals and groups.
* to be clear, feminism can not and should not be interchangeably used with female. Not all feminists are female and not all females are feminist. I think of feminism more like the KKK. Not all white people support the KKK and a criticism of the KKK is not a criticism of white people collectively.
[+] [-] sago|9 years ago|reply
It was really really difficult. Even knowing exactly the kind of behaviour we wanted to show, it wasn't trivial to stack the dice enough to roll that outcome.
I have since read a lot of arguments, a lot of post-hoc reasoning that justifies why altruism might be a positive contributor to fitness. It is no coincidence they are almost all hand-waving, narrative arguments.
I don't buy them. Show me the math.
Evolution is a perfect subject for handwaving and post hoc rationalisations. I do not think all of evolutionary psychology is bunkum, like some have claimed, but I do think a lot is unfalsifiable, motivated reasoning. My advice would be, unless it comes with good predictions of evidence from the historical biological record, or good experimental evidence from mathematical models of evolution, it was too easily come by to be considered knowledge.
[+] [-] AnthonyMouse|9 years ago|reply
OK, math.
There are 200 people in Group A. Each has the choice of taking 1 point for themselves or giving 2 points to the group. If everyone gives 2 points then everyone gets 2 points. If everyone keeps the 1 point then no one gets anything from the group and everyone has only the 1 point. But if you keep your 1 point and everyone else gives 2 points then you get 1 + 1.99 points = 2.99 points. You can obviously see how everyone might end up defecting here.
But there are also groups B and C who are all under the same rules. After each iteration everyone in the group with the lowest average dies, is ineligible to receive points in any future iteration, and is replaced in the next iteration with a new group that behaves randomly. Each individual gets to accumulate points for 100 iterations before being replaced, unless their group dies first.
Now what happens?
[+] [-] continuational|9 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
[+] [-] kartan|9 years ago|reply
I think that this was easier explained in "The Selfish Gene". Individual altruism is an emergent characteristic of a selfish gene.
I risk my live 10 times to save others until I die without off-spring. It is altruistic for me, but the gene has saved 10 people that are probably related to me. That means that the gene has a probability over 10% to be in that other individuals it is a win for the gene.
From my point of view it sucks, I don't have offspring. But the gene survives and prospers. This is still more extreme in species like bumblebees where sisters share 75% of their genes.
For monozygotic twins there is a similar case. From the gene perspective is irrelevant if one survives or the other, even that it is really important for the individuals.
[+] [-] int_19h|9 years ago|reply
E.g. suppose I have a loaf of lembas. I can eat it myself, and it increases my chance of surviving and reproducing merely by 10%, because, while I'm starving, I'm healthy. But I have three siblings who share 50% of their genes with me, and who are starving and sick. If I give all my lembas to them, their chances of surviving and reproducing increase twofold, and become same as my current chance. In that case, it makes sense for me (or rather my genes) to evolve the behavior whereby I give away the lembas, because these three survivors will spread the genes that we share more efficiently than I alone.
Now, obviously, the math here has to add up in real-world scenarios - is that what you mean by "it wasn't trivial to stack the dice"? It just feels like it shouldn't be hard to come up with many cases where all the coefficients line up...
[+] [-] formula1|9 years ago|reply
Additionally, when at large scale war, often you can trust your cultural bretheran better than the enemy. As a result, its important to have as many healthy and proud people as possible inorder to go to war. A culture of kindness and giving can support that.
Additionally, this is all about genetics. While there is always an argument that your genes are the best genes, cultural agreement can give faith that the best will rise and flourish. Treating your neighbor as you would yourself reinforces the hope that even in failure of the individual, the group can still succeed.
Im sure theres more
[+] [-] arketyp|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pdamoc|9 years ago|reply
Imagine a game you play with someone where you have 40 units and you need to divide it between the two of you. The other person has the choice of accepting the deal or refusing the deal. If they refuse, both of you get nothing. How do you divide the 40 units so that the other person accepts the deal?
Naive economics points that even if you offer the other only 1 unit, the other should take it because if they refuse the deal, they wouldn't have even that unit. In practice however, people down't work like that. If people feel they are being treated wrong, they tend to go for lose-lose. And so, in these kind of games, most people go for a fair split 20-20.
Now, imagine the same game but with a twist. You have a bunch of instances of these games and your objective is to have the highest score across all the instances. The trick is that the other player has to chose you to play with. What strategy would you adopt so that you maximize the score?
In this game, a 25-15 split is better. You lose the small game BUT more players want to play with you and so, you win the BIG game. Altruistic players are better at playing the BIG game, the long term game.
[+] [-] JohnStrange|9 years ago|reply
It seems to me that their interpreters often assume that identifying some behavior as evolutionary advantageous to an individual or group is somehow correlated with the goodness or desirability of that behavior. That's a fallacy. Whether the behavior is commendable, good, desirable, etc. is not related to its capability of increasing the long-term survival and spreading of someone's genes. (I'm not claiming everyone makes this association, but some seem to make it.)
Moreover, there seem to be countless examples of behavior that we are perfectly capable of and whose effect is difficult if not impossible to explain with evolutionary arguments. Some of them are considered commendable, other not. Random examples:
- spending your life in almost solitary confinement to solve some math problem
- deciding not to have children
- waging wars
- not passing your wealth on to your useless son and instead give everything to a charity
- being gay or asexual
- writing a novel without getting paid for it and that also doesn't increase your mating chances
The list could go on and on. Of course, evolutionary explanations may be constructed for any of them, but it's kind of doubtful that all human activities fit into this scheme. So my two points are:
a.) Whether altruistic behavior is good/desirable or not has nothing to do with its contribution to evolutionary fitness.
b.) Within some limits, we are perfectly capable of behaving in ways that are not evolutionary advantageous to us.
Finally, evolutionary models of social behavior that are not based on the genetic transmission of behavior simply do not have anything to do with real evolution. I've often seen real evolution being deliberately mixed up with ideas about the spreading on information contained in books, web pages, speech, etc. but I fail to see how the spreading of this information could be even remotely related to the way genes spread. Once you hear about a social fitness function or the fitness of a meme, you can in my opinion safely assume that the author pulled that concept out of his ass or copied it from others who did so.
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|9 years ago|reply
Altruism is one of the most pervasive forms of interaction in life on Earth because it is the mechanism by which multi-cellular life functions at a basic level.
[+] [-] geggam|9 years ago|reply
It's really more about deception than anything else.
[+] [-] marcosdumay|9 years ago|reply
That said, I do expect it to be hard. Nature created cooperating species more than once, but not that many times¹. And it had half a billion years of a simulation that was certainly much larger than yours.
1 - Counting placentarial mammals only once, what is very likely correct.
[+] [-] k__|9 years ago|reply
When I see how much investment we take in people these days, it comes naturally to me that we have to look after each other.
People are expensive to produce and maintain and experience doesn't grow on trees.
[+] [-] stonewhite|9 years ago|reply
Assyrian empire was extremely brutal to people it conquered, Persians who took its place was more "humane" to their conquered subjects as a policy. Resulting in a relatively more stable land and subjects were submitting "willingly". From that point on, it was their main selling point.
[+] [-] patkai|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pron|9 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation
[+] [-] ArkyBeagle|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] z3t4|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tiatia|9 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation#A...
[+] [-] m0llusk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcmaffey|9 years ago|reply
(One could argue that intelligence and brain size have more to do with evolutionary fitness, but I would speculate that intelligence is a result of increased care, not the other way around. Give a thing more time, space, and resources to grow, and it will.)
As a species, the more we collectively care for each other--through actions, not feelings--, the greater chance we have for survival and growth.
[+] [-] matt4077|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edblarney|9 years ago|reply
We are 'responsible' for one another, but in far more than just 'caring' ways. We take out the trash, we try to get along, we do all sorts of things every day that really fall into the category of 'acting responsibly' that in some ways could be described as 'caring' in a more general sense, but it wouldn't be apt.
'Conscientiousness' could be an even better word.
[+] [-] partycoder|9 years ago|reply
Now, I would not really say advantage or disadvantage. Each species have a specific role in the ecosystem and sometimes they're related in very unexpected ways. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
[+] [-] amasad|9 years ago|reply
I remember one fascinating example about Arabian babblers which use altruism to assert dominance. They seek out increasingly dangerous positions to alert the herd of potential predetors. And by feeding others as a way to say 'look at me I am so superior to you I can afford to feed you'. Of course, they are rewarded by getting all the mates.
[+] [-] aliceyhg|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blurbleblurble|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kronopath|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ColanR|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djyaz1200|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] divbit|9 years ago|reply
That said, kindness, in the sense of, willing to make an attempt to understand, and take into account others views / opinions / needs, definitely makes for nicer people to be around.
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|9 years ago|reply
A bit cynical in a way you put it, maybe, but what you saw is true. But it's just what comes out when you consider helping someone and actually getting an effect over helping to just get warm feelings in your belly about how good you are. It so happens that in a technological civilization, spending our time as specialists to earn money and giving it to different specialists is a better way to help than trying to help directly in areas we're not specialized in. It's how professional specialization works.
[+] [-] tcdent|9 years ago|reply
"Survival of the fittest" can be interpreted in the same manner. Or, from a different perspective, a willingness to step over one's mother to achieve their goals.
Life is better when we respect eachother.
[+] [-] pasbesoin|9 years ago|reply
Mismatch your behavior to the environment, and you're screwed.
People consistently compliment me for being "such a nice guy." And I've made, and valued, many alliances with contemporaries.
But the power brokers? They've screwed me right over.
If you are unmitigatedly kind while hoping for reciprocity in matters essential to your own well-being.
Well, either you are weakening yourself, or you are not really being "kind" by failing to respect the particular circumstances and the other party. Or some combination of these.
People become less and less comfortable with you, and continued kindness is actually perceived negatively.
Unmitigated kindness is another false, simplistic lesson that has been counter-productively fostered in recent decades.
[+] [-] Pica_soO|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] visarga|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rfrey|9 years ago|reply
Isn't that exactly what "fittest" means? First definition from Oxford: "of a suitable quality, standard, or type to meet the required purpose."
[+] [-] jyriand|9 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolut...
Full book: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4341
[+] [-] mark_l_watson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] venomsnake|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foobarian|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inopinatus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] holyOrIonsBelt|9 years ago|reply
I also think you might misunderstand what the word kindness means, as you refer to cruelty and strength as some measure of adequate relation to what would be deemed fit in some similar function.
I think it's a fairly cogent statement, as great and influential persons are, by and large, incredibly kind. Of course, if one thinks that power equates with influence, or that fitness is best represented by wealth, I would posit that there is a huge correlation between wealth, kindness, and authority. For instance, President Obama is quite obviously an incredibly kind man. William Gates, Jr., a philanthropist (read: about as far away from unkind as you can get), Her Majesty the Queen of England, the titular head of an Empire, leads a family that donates a huge amount of their wealth to the citizenry of the United Kingdom, and is as sunny as anyone in her position could possibly be (have you ever once seen her upset in public, because I haven't), these instances alone give clear indication that kindness is, indeed, perhaps an indisputable barometer of what is meant by being fit for survival.
By contrast, who do you know who is sought by society for capital punishment? The unkind, that's who. Those who are cruel are brought up before magistrates, tribunals, and high courts and told in no uncertain terms that their survival is undesirable by the masses.
Fitness in a world of more than a few is entirely dependent on symbiotic, cohesive, gentile (in the French sense, though Christ is an inordinately germane example of kindness too) behavior.
[+] [-] stefanix|9 years ago|reply
BTW Jordan Peterson's latest podcast goes deep on this issue. His podcast is here: http://jordanbpeterson.com/2016/12/podcast/
[+] [-] aaronhoffman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rustynails|9 years ago|reply
The level at which you pitch the concept of kindness is essential, as is the environment. To illustrate, many comments in this thread fail to hold for an example like the Mongols, or may argue that the Mongols wiping out civilisations was altruistic or kind. In a simplistic way, the Mongols survived through cooperation (as their society had some cruel rules that were definitely not kind), cruelty to outsiders and through theft. However, you could also contrast Chinggis Khan with Darius I of Persia who demonstrated far more kindness throughout his reign than Chinggis did. Both leaders in their own way were quite successful.
If you consider individuals, the dynamics can be quite different from those of nations, depending on the environment. If you limit the view to modern, first world societies, cooperation with ones peers is still essential and almost certainly more important than kindness. To illustrate, if I give everyone around me all of my money, that could be considered kind (think of a lottery winner). However, ultimately, such kindness (no matter how misguided) will usually lead to little or no benefit for the individual. Even if you compare two similarly cooperative people, the most competent cooperator will usually out perform a kinder cooperator. It will depend on the society as to whether an individual's empathy for those in need will add to the success of the individual and/or the community. For example, where a society has social welfare, an individual can point to the welfare system rather than directly contributing to the welfare of those in need.
Family dynamics are yet another level of complexity. Does a priority of kindness go to the family or the local community? What constitutes success of the family? Families that cooperate are more likely to succeed beyond those that are purely kind to each other. However, family cohesion is almost certainly dependent on both kindness and cooperation.
There are also work place environments, community group environments, local community environments, state and territory and country environments. In order to be successful, these environments require competency and cooperation. Kindness may or may not be required.
Regarding kindness. In my observations of modern society (collectively), I observe that there are some examples that complicate concepts such as kindness. For example feminism* insists that domestic violence is something that only happens to females (through ignorance of statistics or for less savoury reasons). Ultimately, what this demonstrates is that kindness can be selectively applied and still be recognised as acceptable.
In summary, I don't see kindness as essential (at least not in all circumstances). Kindness can be selective (eg. Feminism's human rights failures with respect to domestic violence by representing only one gender) and, yet, such kindness can be seen as socially acceptable. Kindness can also be handed off to community and government groups in some circumstances. However, unlike kindness, cooperation is essential for individuals and groups.
* to be clear, feminism can not and should not be interchangeably used with female. Not all feminists are female and not all females are feminist. I think of feminism more like the KKK. Not all white people support the KKK and a criticism of the KKK is not a criticism of white people collectively.
[+] [-] mjfl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] int_19h|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]