By favoring acts of battlefield selflessness, Stone Age warfare might have accelerated the development of altruism.
A computer model of cultural evolution and between-group competition primed with data taken from studies of mankind’s hyperviolent early years suggests a bloody origin for a celebrated modern behavior.
“Altruism will be strongly favored if it leads groups to win wars,” said Sam Bowles, a Santa Fe Institute economist and institutional theorist, and author of the study, published Thursday in Science. “That would counteract the way that selfish individuals usually dominate the altruistic ones in their groups.”
That the ability to put others’ well-being ahead of one’s own could have such brutal origins seems counterintuitive. Then again, so is altruism. Genes are supposed to be selfish, not self-sacrificing.”- [url]http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/altruism/
Emcee:There are two schools of thought on the subject of altruism. The first, that altruism is an ‘on-the-spot’ act of kindness or self sacrifice. The second, that altruism is the accumulation of behavior via genetics, the group awareness that prompts humans to act in a kind or self sacrificing way towards their kin. The argument can be subdivided more simply into two familiar categories; Nurture and Nature. Nurture will start.
Nurture:The idea of natural selection dictates that only the strongest will survive. The genes of stupidity or recklessness are bred out (take, for instance, the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_awards]Darwin Awards[/url], which award anyone who can successfully remove their genes from the gene pool by doing something stupid, reckless, or just plain suicidal). Altruism is not a survival trait; saving someone’s life while sacrificing your own for no good reason besides deciding you wanted to is the zenith of altruism, but removes you from the gene pool. Even spontaneously giving money to the poor is not necessarily a survival trait (although it is not discouraged) as it disadvantages you. Logically speaking; if anything would be bred in it would be selfishness. Therefore it stands to reason that only the impact of nurture, the surrounding environment, could prompt selflessness. This article does not aim to discourage altruism, the occasional altruistic act is necessary to function in society, but it would be very difficult to prove that altruism is natural in any way. Your turn; Nature.
Nature: Harry Potter.
Nurture: What?
Nature: In harry potter, harry does one selfless act and girls throw themselves at him. Altruism may not necessarily be a survival trait, but it doesn’t remove you from the gene pool. Besides, are altruistic individuals not more favored in the community? Better liked? Do they not attract other altruistic people? Who form their little clubs and get things done? In studies on monkeys, gathering, guarding and scouting are all regulated jobs, but there is no apparent obligation to go to work in the morning. The selfish can stay at home if they like, do nothing all day, but when one of the more community minded monkeys bring a great heap of food home, or find a new fresh water stream, or something particularly shiny and entertaining; who is prized? The lazy or the heroic? Altruism is a survival trait, just a very risky one. Like the man who gambles half his pay to buy himself a suit to go to a job interview, altruistic behavior can either ruin your life or push you ahead beyond the station you resided at.
Emcee: Well, you’ve both put forward some very convincing arguments; Nurture claims that altruism is instilled by the situation you are in, as it cannot be bred in. Nature claims that while altruism is a risky venture; the rewards are high and it is a survival trait.
Questions:
1. Form your own opinion on nature vs nurture based only on the content of this blog.
2. Do you think Altruism could have been achieved through breeding?
3. Do you think Altruism [i]should[/i] have been achieved through breeding?
4. Why were monkeys used in the example?
5. Why is the quote from weirdscience included at the beginning?
6. [Optional]Write a response to Nature or Nurture’s last post from your own point of view.
[img] http://jackywinter.com/static/files/assets/0409ac20/AJoyner_altruism_SMH_.jpg[/img]
For the arguments put forth from this blog it is clear that altruistic behaviour is a result of nurture. For example, the basics of life are learnt when we are young, including the respectable way to act and the behaviour which is praised by society. We would all assume that our parents would raise us in such a way so that we were all healthy and valuable members of society. Therefore, we would learn that altruistic behaviour is praised and as a result of operant conditioning (learning through positive and negative reinforcement) acts of altruism would be seen again if reinforced correctly.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, according to the social learning theory we learn how to act from observing our parents, friends and other role models behaviours. As a result of this, the role models we have as a child can determine the type of behaviour we display in the further stages of our life.
I’m sure that in some way some of our behaviour is passed on through breeding, however, the thought of such thing as altruism being passed on via breeding does not seem possible because there is a significant amount of evidence suggesting that our behaviours are learnt through observation and influence.
I do not think that altruism “should” be achieved through breeding because finding out how to act within society is all part of life and is a learning experience by itself.
Monkeys were used in the example because in many ways they are similar to human beings and it is easier to relate our behaviour to theirs compared to any other animal. Furthermore, the quote is used because it gives both the nature and nurture side of the topic.
Maddie R 10P
Genetics may have actually played a bigger impact than shown above. Studies at the Santa Fe Institute in Mexico have shown that in small hunter-gather tribes such as the Australian Aborigines and the American Indians, Altruism was common and was seen as commonplace. Altruistic behaviour such as sharing food would benefit the whole tribe and make a stronger healthier tribe more likely to survive tough conditions and pass on the genes.
ReplyDeleteThere is also another side to one of the above comments “Even spontaneously giving money to the poor is not necessarily a survival trait (although it is not discouraged) as it disadvantages you”. This is not strictly true, two neuroscientists, Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman used functional magnetic resonance imaging to study altruism and found that when volunteers gave charity to others, parts of the brain usually associated with food and sex activated. Showing that there may be some mental reward due to charity.
Atienne 10D
• Form your own opinion on nature vs nurture based only on the content of this blog.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the characteristic of altruism is in neither entirely nature nor nurture based. There are aspects of both featured in the blog which prove that nothing is entirely nature or nurture orientated. I believe that different situations can bring out the two types of altruism. Situations, such as helping when there is an accident is an example of an ‘on-the-spot’ act of kindness and therefore an example of nurture. This is because if you see others around you helping, you will want to assist them in any way you can. Helping an old lady carry something or giving up your seat on the bus is an example of accumulation of behaviour via genetics which makes it side on the nature part of the debate.
• Do you think Altruism could have been achieved through breeding?
I believe if a person has family that is always helping others, the gene of being a kind, helpful person is more likely to be passed on. It is the same principle for an unhelpful person. Sometimes a person can strive to be the opposite of their parents and choose to be either really helpful and kind in a way their parents weren’t or be an unhelpful person opposing the way that t heir parents were.
• Why were monkeys used in the example?
Because monkey’s can be studied as they have a close relationship to the human intelligence.
• Why is the quote from weirdscience included at the beginning?
To give an insight to what altruism is.
MADDY M 10N
I am on the nurture side of this debate. This is because one is not bred to be selfless but it comes from how they have been brought up and how they feel and think about certain things. There may be some nature in altruism but I believe it mainly leans towards nurture.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion altruism cannot be achieved through breeding due to the point stated earlier. Altruism comes from how a person has been brought up, by the friends they have, the people they associate and the person’s attitudes and feeling towards certain things. I also do not believe altruism should be achieved through breeding as it is something we need to learn as were are going through our critical stage of learning.
In the debate monkeys were used as an example because they are basically just like humans. They are the closest animal to us; they are almost identical to humans but are simply hairier and smaller.
The quote from weird science has been included because it helps readers to identify the subject of the topic and what altruism is. It also helps to start the debate and gives the two people something to refer back to. It also gives the nurture and nature side of the debate.
Amanda
I'm going to have to side with nurture on this one. Altruism isn't simply 'bred in', it happens depending on the situation. Nobody is altruistic all the time, it's human nature to be selfish sometimes, but the point with altruism is that people are selfless when it matters. If altruism was inbred, people would be doing it all the time, and for mundane things. If society encourages anything, it's selfishness, which is why altruism sticks out so much. It's always the right thing to do, but people don't always have the guts to just do it. The
ReplyDeleteMonkeys are the same as people, just hairier. You look at society, then you look at monkeys, it's like a jungle-d up mirror. The monkeys that self sacrifice are revered and respected, and it's the same with people. If you do something for someone else, with no personal gain at all, then people are going to love you for it, it's that simple.
Wierdscience is right. Human nature follows a course of being selfish, a 'look out for yourself' type thing. Altruism goes directly against all of that, which is why it hardly happens. That said, it's not exactly a bad thing.
Fraser 10N
From the content above I personally believe that altruistic behaviour is due to both nature and nurture, however I think that it is mainly based on the situation and the way you were brought up. These two ideas are connected in that the way you were brought up impacts the way you will act and behave in a certain situation. However I believe that if a person is put in a critical position, no matter how they were brought up they will act in a way that is expected of them. This is a form of on-the-spot acts of kindness.
ReplyDeleteI believe that altruism is achieved through observing the people around us and studying the way they act in certain situations. However I do believe that our biological make up has some part in our behaviour, but I think it is based more on nurture.
I disagree with the idea that altruism should be achieved through breeding. The way we act and behave is an important part of growing up and understanding what a society expects, if this is simply bred throughout generations it destroys that essential part of learning.
Monkeys were used in this example because it has been proven that monkeys are most like humans and therefore it can help explain our actions before doing experiments.
The quote from weird science is included because it helps the reader to understand what altruism is which makes it easier for them to understand the rest of the blog
Shannon :)
~ Form your own opinion on nature vs. nurture based only on the content of this blog.
ReplyDeleteHumans are more than pre-programmed computers. Humans can be kind. They can be mean. But not everything is so black and white that humans can only be nice for the sake of survival. To think such a thing, degrades all people in this world. Yes, no one is perfect, that is true, but that is not to say that everyone is imperfect. So yes, I am on the nurture side of the debate. I would also like to add, that I believe it is quite possible to be kind without asking for anything back. So what if people are pleased with themselves when someone says “thank-you”, and when they know in their hearts they did something kind? That doesn’t mean that they were kind for that reason. It’s often the case, that people “lose” more than they “gain” when they go out of their way for someone else.
~Do you think Altruism could have been achieved through breeding?
Achieved through breeding? Probably not. It tends to be the case that selfish children come from parents who spoil them, or let them do things that are wrong. You can’t program a child to be kind either though. Things like altruism will just happen when they happen, and people can be altruistic in some circumstances but not others.
~Emma