One serious problem I have with this guy's claims is that it assumes free will, which has no scientific bases - the question of whether, or under what circumstances we exercise altruism might is most definitely a question of biology, psychology and physics. Currently the indication is that we are mainly deterministic with possibly some probabilistic elements - which completely overrules overcoming the three named elements.
Academics muddy the waters with language and then propose to possibly, maybe, perhaps clear with adequate research funding the deliberately muddied waters -- with language.
1) money addiction (single most effective dopamine trigger!!)
[Olds J, Milner P. (1954). "Positive reinforcement produced by electrical stimulation of septal area and other regions of rat brain". J Comp Physiol Psychol 47 (6): 41927.]
2) un(der)-diagnosed, tolerated and in Western Civilizations hugely honored antisocial personality disorder (ICD-10 / 3-6% male pop.), which destroys reciprocal altruism.
Oddly enough, if you just put together the beginning and the end, your result is this: those who are selfless are crazy.... I understand that is not the point of this idea. but.. in this case, it seems to ring true.
I always say; "Not everything everyone do is for selfish reasons, it´s just everything you do." Meaning people who need to explain human kindness as selfish really just needs to justify why they won´t help others without a clear reward at the end.
I also think it´s far fetched when people analyze a kind act in third or forth paragraph. "Oh, you may not get a reward now, but you think it will help you in three years when [something unlikely] happens"
@neurocrater Have you given money to a drug addict at any time? Got that warm fuzzy feeling then? Or visited your Alzheimer grandmother who do not recognize you anymore and may even be scared of you? Ever done anything out of duty alone, and not believed that a good feeling or a reward would be given? Was that because of genes? I think my point stands. People who want to sell "the selfish gene" wants to justify a political and ideological ethic about "survival of the fittest" (like Rand).
@AndyAce83 aha, 'duty alone'! indeed, you accomplish some daunting/altruistic task so that (a) you don't feel guilty for not having done it and (b) you feel satisfied for having completed it. the alternative would be, 'oh no, i should...' or 'man, i would feel so much better for him/her/it/me if ...'. the meaning of 'selfish' is quite deep and blurs many once-clear boundaries. and that is exactly what Dawkins, Rand, Pinker and Harman here and many many others are talking about :)
it sounds to me that George fell from grace but had hope that someone like him would come along, he placed a great amount of faith in humanity and when he was down and out, no one came to his aid and that was far too crushing. But like Oren said there is a medical side to the story.
I would really appreciate for someone to answer my question:
If he says that biology is not destiny but capacity and that this is the way traits such as true altruism are appearing in the human race - does that mean that a trait such as homosexuality (which logically would also not have passed on genetically) is merely an acquired trait?
maybe not quite on topic, but it was on my mind after watching. thank you
@scholz9876 no homosexuality isn't a purely acquired trait, a number of studies have found a heritable component to it. This is one theory that I favor to explain the apparent paradox: "Brendan Zietsch of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research proposes that men exhibiting female traits become more attractive to females and are thus more likely to mate, provided the genes involved do not drive them to complete rejection of heterosexuality".
I don't care much about intentions: I care a lot more about results.
Intentions are only useful when you do something that you thought to be good and ended to be bad. Than intentions would be, in my mind, a thing to track how culpable you are.
If you do something with ulterior intentions or not, as long as it ended to be a good thing, whatever. I, for one, don't care.
It's not exactly a riddle. The ego survives better with the help of others. Imagine if every human being would have started from scratch with no help from others. We wouldn't get far without altruism. (Certainly we have an ego too...)
It's such a daunting task for some to unabashedly embrace psychological egoism. The concept of self-interest is so stigmatized that people can no longer determine the accurate function and motivation for action. We've been conditioned to feel some sort of visceral shame for selfishness. It's important to remember that culture's first step in persuading us to embrace 'altruism' was making us believe it existed in the first place.
Humans go by value. The value of the good, and the true, according to each and everyone. We all wish to be good, even if we would think it it to be bad, for then the bad would be the better alternative, and therefore good. Being selfish is following your values. Altruism is saying I value something over my own life. But another aspect that is often called altruism but is not, is the sacrifice of others, for your own goals.
Humans go by value. The value of the good, and the true, according to each and everyone. We all wish to be good, even if we would think it it to be bad, for then the bad would be the better alternative, and therefore good. Being selfish is following your values. Altruism is saying I value something over my own life. But another aspect that is often called altruism but is not, is the sacrifice of others, for your own goals.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Applying animal behavior to humans is sick, they don't think, they don't have a choice in the ways they behave. I help my family because I love them, not because of some genes.
Altruism is evil. If you inspect the world around you, you'll find altruism is the root of many problems we have. The more I hear about it the stronger my conviction grows.
Dostoevsky had his own altruistic experiment, he "sacrificed" himself and maried a poor stupid woman he didn't love. She commited suicide.
@rustyrusky love comes from the brain, and your brains makeup comes from your genes, human genetics give us the ability to love, so you help those people because of genes.
@rustyrusky If you are referring to the NWO I'm with you 100%. However, I believe altruism is inevitable for every species including and especially ours. It is obvious we can't survive as a species if we don't have some kind of altruism down the line. I'm not talking about a world government; I'm talking about an evolution of the mind (maybe telepathy, that'd be cool). Someday our brains will upgrade to an Intel Quadcore i7 processor with wireless networking!
Could you truly be altruistic if the reason you are being altruistic is to prove that mankind can be altruistic? It seems like George Price didn't consider his own motives, his goal into account for altruism.
This book is amazing! Everyone interested in evolution should read it. Oren Harman's discussion of Wittgenstein's wall in the book was a real eye opener for me.
The common fallacy is a mistake of scale: while our genes might be selfish, it doesn't mean that the individual necessarily is. In the case of altruism, it is perfectly conceivable that an altruist will have a higher standing and a better reputation than an unabashed egotist, and people will be far more willing to reciprocate. In other words, it is entirely possible to have a person who is genetically altruistic even though the gene itself has selfish motives for it.
@LuiKang043 Well if the gene lead to an increasing chance of survival due to social cohesion and thus further increase the likelihood of such gene getting passed on then, yes. However, depending on what environment and the amount of resources available, such genes might or might not have been favoured. In all respects, you have to ask who is it that you want to help and why? Why is one with less resources more favoured for resource sharing, etc? Benefit for who? In the long run? How?
@LuiKang043 Well if the gene lead to an increasing chance of survival due to social cohesion and thus further increase the likelihood of such gene getting passed on then, yes. However, depending on what environment and the amount of resources available, such genes might or might not have been favoured. In all respects, you have to ask who is it that you want to help and why? Why is one with less resources more favoured for resource sharing, etc? Benefit for who? In the long run? How?
@dopplerking91 Depends from what perspective. It is entirely possible for the individual to act in a manner that is genuinely altruistic. Genes have no more motives than does a bottle of bleach: motives imply intent. What is called genetic selfishness is what helps the propagation of a given gene. I guess what I'm saying is that human selfishness and genetic selfishness are not the same thing. What is selfish from a human standpoint could be altruistic from a genetic standpoint and vice-versa.
@WitlessSod so this compassion/altruism, whatnot...this developed as means for self-preservation? the anti-social ape-man developed caring and selflessness as a way to better survive within a social network?...you say human selfishness is different from genetic selfishness...ok how so? where do you draw the line differentiating our genes evolving and our psychology evolving stirctly from the evolutionary and survival of the fittest standpoint?
@dopplerking91 1- It's not so much the anti-social ape-man developing caring so much as those who were caring to begin with being rewarded 2- Genetic selfishness is measured in terms of survival and, most importantly, reproductive success. Human selfishness is measured by motives. 3- I'm not sure that I understand your question regarding where I draw the line.
@WitlessSod Yes. If they want to use this strict determination of altruism in terms of altruism based on biological necessity meaning selfishness. Like you, I also prefer not to call it selfishness. The mother has an inbuilt need to protect her child, biological altruism, some have more some have less of it, it has to do with the brain formation, but this need to protect the baby, called mother instinct, when it's huge, sees no boundaries between species. At least that's how I work.
couldn't it be argued that Price was not being selfless because in reality he really wanted to prove that there was selflessness so to prove it he gave everything away but doing so was also to prove his theory true so he got the satisfaction of that out of his actions
this however is somewhat a catch 22 because if he did get something out of it then his theory was not proven through his actions but if it was not proven then it could then be argued that he didn't get anything out of his actions
@Drewface14 what can clear things up is to distinguish the effects of one's actions as being intentional or accidental. If one's means are altruistic for the ends of being selfless-then one is truly selfless, despite self gain. but If one's means are altruistic for the ends of being selfish-then one is not selfless.
it all depends if the means are altruistic or self centered. if the person does not seek reciprocation, although he ACCIDENTALLY received, it does't make him selfish
@Drewface14 Think your right - but its not a catch 22 - the thing you have to remember is that actions is taken with intent only - so his intention was to prove it. From an objective point of view it might be altruism - but subjectively it was not.
I had a talk the other day about the golden rule, and this was perfect. I suggested based on game theory, there would be no alturism. Even more so when there is not a lot of accountablity. In his example, where everyone pays the "tax" as he says, the question comes up, what if you cannot account for everyone, you are such a large group, you are not sure if everyone is paying the altruism tax, would it not then be in the best interest for a person to act selfish?
One serious problem I have with this guy's claims is that it assumes free will, which has no scientific bases - the question of whether, or under what circumstances we exercise altruism might is most definitely a question of biology, psychology and physics. Currently the indication is that we are mainly deterministic with possibly some probabilistic elements - which completely overrules overcoming the three named elements.
jnevins64 2 months ago
Look at that asshole texting in the back row. He shouldn't be there if he doesn't even care enough to listen.
SnorlaxSquad 5 months ago
Academics muddy the waters with language and then propose to possibly, maybe, perhaps clear with adequate research funding the deliberately muddied waters -- with language.
Blah blah blah.
malexandrec 5 months ago
Seconds after this talk I found myself watching swimming monkey videos
ratje67 5 months ago 5
The two archenemies of altruism:
1) money addiction (single most effective dopamine trigger!!)
[Olds J, Milner P. (1954). "Positive reinforcement produced by electrical stimulation of septal area and other regions of rat brain". J Comp Physiol Psychol 47 (6): 41927.]
2) un(der)-diagnosed, tolerated and in Western Civilizations hugely honored antisocial personality disorder (ICD-10 / 3-6% male pop.), which destroys reciprocal altruism.
Tressco 5 months ago 2
Oddly enough, if you just put together the beginning and the end, your result is this: those who are selfless are crazy.... I understand that is not the point of this idea. but.. in this case, it seems to ring true.
kellyvtec 5 months ago
we should throw out all theories from the god era and start over again... I think we have enough time
vijaymd44 5 months ago
I always say; "Not everything everyone do is for selfish reasons, it´s just everything you do." Meaning people who need to explain human kindness as selfish really just needs to justify why they won´t help others without a clear reward at the end.
I also think it´s far fetched when people analyze a kind act in third or forth paragraph. "Oh, you may not get a reward now, but you think it will help you in three years when [something unlikely] happens"
AndyAce83 5 months ago
@AndyAce83 my 'reward' for being altruistic is the warm, fuzzy, happy, glowing feeling i get from it. it feels good to be good. what's your reason?
neurocrater 5 months ago
@neurocrater Have you given money to a drug addict at any time? Got that warm fuzzy feeling then? Or visited your Alzheimer grandmother who do not recognize you anymore and may even be scared of you? Ever done anything out of duty alone, and not believed that a good feeling or a reward would be given? Was that because of genes? I think my point stands. People who want to sell "the selfish gene" wants to justify a political and ideological ethic about "survival of the fittest" (like Rand).
AndyAce83 5 months ago
@AndyAce83 aha, 'duty alone'! indeed, you accomplish some daunting/altruistic task so that (a) you don't feel guilty for not having done it and (b) you feel satisfied for having completed it. the alternative would be, 'oh no, i should...' or 'man, i would feel so much better for him/her/it/me if ...'. the meaning of 'selfish' is quite deep and blurs many once-clear boundaries. and that is exactly what Dawkins, Rand, Pinker and Harman here and many many others are talking about :)
neurocrater 5 months ago
@neurocrater I "agree to disagree" because to reply to your latest post would be to repeat my first one :-)
AndyAce83 5 months ago
Comment removed
Agnotio 5 months ago
How much of altruism is really euphemism?
Human behavior submits to social standards based on basic values that seek the community's well being.
So, genetic altruism could have socially evolved, considering that individuality hides within every social interaction.
nxtrco 5 months ago
it sounds to me that George fell from grace but had hope that someone like him would come along, he placed a great amount of faith in humanity and when he was down and out, no one came to his aid and that was far too crushing. But like Oren said there is a medical side to the story.
fallenphoenixfilms 5 months ago
I would really appreciate for someone to answer my question:
If he says that biology is not destiny but capacity and that this is the way traits such as true altruism are appearing in the human race - does that mean that a trait such as homosexuality (which logically would also not have passed on genetically) is merely an acquired trait?
maybe not quite on topic, but it was on my mind after watching. thank you
scholz9876 5 months ago
Comment removed
Agnotio 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@scholz9876 no homosexuality isn't a purely acquired trait, a number of studies have found a heritable component to it. This is one theory that I favor to explain the apparent paradox: "Brendan Zietsch of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research proposes that men exhibiting female traits become more attractive to females and are thus more likely to mate, provided the genes involved do not drive them to complete rejection of heterosexuality".
Agnotio 5 months ago
well when you subscribe exclusively to a misinterpretation of darwinian evolution of course altruism will seem paradoxical...
xjustamem0ryx 5 months ago 4
I don't care much about intentions: I care a lot more about results.
Intentions are only useful when you do something that you thought to be good and ended to be bad. Than intentions would be, in my mind, a thing to track how culpable you are.
If you do something with ulterior intentions or not, as long as it ended to be a good thing, whatever. I, for one, don't care.
TemporalOnline 5 months ago
It's not exactly a riddle. The ego survives better with the help of others. Imagine if every human being would have started from scratch with no help from others. We wouldn't get far without altruism. (Certainly we have an ego too...)
Hirnlego999 5 months ago
he had a niacin deficiency
mike6459 5 months ago
I tried that scenario with the old lady...no go
JoeyPencils 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's such a daunting task for some to unabashedly embrace psychological egoism. The concept of self-interest is so stigmatized that people can no longer determine the accurate function and motivation for action. We've been conditioned to feel some sort of visceral shame for selfishness. It's important to remember that culture's first step in persuading us to embrace 'altruism' was making us believe it existed in the first place.
QualiaAquarium 5 months ago
I thought this said Autism at first, not gonna lie.
seriousbusiness47 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Humans go by value. The value of the good, and the true, according to each and everyone. We all wish to be good, even if we would think it it to be bad, for then the bad would be the better alternative, and therefore good. Being selfish is following your values. Altruism is saying I value something over my own life. But another aspect that is often called altruism but is not, is the sacrifice of others, for your own goals.
SB9101 5 months ago
Humans go by value. The value of the good, and the true, according to each and everyone. We all wish to be good, even if we would think it it to be bad, for then the bad would be the better alternative, and therefore good. Being selfish is following your values. Altruism is saying I value something over my own life. But another aspect that is often called altruism but is not, is the sacrifice of others, for your own goals.
SB9101 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Applying animal behavior to humans is sick, they don't think, they don't have a choice in the ways they behave. I help my family because I love them, not because of some genes.
Altruism is evil. If you inspect the world around you, you'll find altruism is the root of many problems we have. The more I hear about it the stronger my conviction grows.
Dostoevsky had his own altruistic experiment, he "sacrificed" himself and maried a poor stupid woman he didn't love. She commited suicide.
rustyrusky 5 months ago
@rustyrusky lol
scarecroe1701 5 months ago
@rustyrusky love comes from the brain, and your brains makeup comes from your genes, human genetics give us the ability to love, so you help those people because of genes.
tacoismykitty 5 months ago
@rustyrusky If you are referring to the NWO I'm with you 100%. However, I believe altruism is inevitable for every species including and especially ours. It is obvious we can't survive as a species if we don't have some kind of altruism down the line. I'm not talking about a world government; I'm talking about an evolution of the mind (maybe telepathy, that'd be cool). Someday our brains will upgrade to an Intel Quadcore i7 processor with wireless networking!
thejoolien 5 months ago
Could you truly be altruistic if the reason you are being altruistic is to prove that mankind can be altruistic? It seems like George Price didn't consider his own motives, his goal into account for altruism.
Gorrgrim 5 months ago
darwin never said survial of the fitest - cooperation is a very good strategy for adaptation and survival
MrIzzyDizzy 5 months ago
This book is amazing! Everyone interested in evolution should read it. Oren Harman's discussion of Wittgenstein's wall in the book was a real eye opener for me.
2bsirius 5 months ago
The common fallacy is a mistake of scale: while our genes might be selfish, it doesn't mean that the individual necessarily is. In the case of altruism, it is perfectly conceivable that an altruist will have a higher standing and a better reputation than an unabashed egotist, and people will be far more willing to reciprocate. In other words, it is entirely possible to have a person who is genetically altruistic even though the gene itself has selfish motives for it.
WitlessSod 5 months ago 32
@WitlessSod Yes, well said!
2bsirius 5 months ago
@WitlessSod Here's a paradox; could there be a selfish selflessness gene? :S
LuiKang043 5 months ago
@LuiKang043 Well if the gene lead to an increasing chance of survival due to social cohesion and thus further increase the likelihood of such gene getting passed on then, yes. However, depending on what environment and the amount of resources available, such genes might or might not have been favoured. In all respects, you have to ask who is it that you want to help and why? Why is one with less resources more favoured for resource sharing, etc? Benefit for who? In the long run? How?
ScorpiaX 5 months ago
@LuiKang043 Well if the gene lead to an increasing chance of survival due to social cohesion and thus further increase the likelihood of such gene getting passed on then, yes. However, depending on what environment and the amount of resources available, such genes might or might not have been favoured. In all respects, you have to ask who is it that you want to help and why? Why is one with less resources more favoured for resource sharing, etc? Benefit for who? In the long run? How?
ScorpiaX 5 months ago
@WitlessSod so your saying that altruism developed out of a selfish motive then? hm interesting...
dopplerking91 5 months ago
@dopplerking91 Depends from what perspective. It is entirely possible for the individual to act in a manner that is genuinely altruistic. Genes have no more motives than does a bottle of bleach: motives imply intent. What is called genetic selfishness is what helps the propagation of a given gene. I guess what I'm saying is that human selfishness and genetic selfishness are not the same thing. What is selfish from a human standpoint could be altruistic from a genetic standpoint and vice-versa.
WitlessSod 5 months ago
@WitlessSod so this compassion/altruism, whatnot...this developed as means for self-preservation? the anti-social ape-man developed caring and selflessness as a way to better survive within a social network?...you say human selfishness is different from genetic selfishness...ok how so? where do you draw the line differentiating our genes evolving and our psychology evolving stirctly from the evolutionary and survival of the fittest standpoint?
dopplerking91 5 months ago
@dopplerking91 1- It's not so much the anti-social ape-man developing caring so much as those who were caring to begin with being rewarded 2- Genetic selfishness is measured in terms of survival and, most importantly, reproductive success. Human selfishness is measured by motives. 3- I'm not sure that I understand your question regarding where I draw the line.
WitlessSod 2 months ago
@WitlessSod Yes. If they want to use this strict determination of altruism in terms of altruism based on biological necessity meaning selfishness. Like you, I also prefer not to call it selfishness. The mother has an inbuilt need to protect her child, biological altruism, some have more some have less of it, it has to do with the brain formation, but this need to protect the baby, called mother instinct, when it's huge, sees no boundaries between species. At least that's how I work.
KennyReddwooddforest 2 months ago
couldn't it be argued that Price was not being selfless because in reality he really wanted to prove that there was selflessness so to prove it he gave everything away but doing so was also to prove his theory true so he got the satisfaction of that out of his actions
this however is somewhat a catch 22 because if he did get something out of it then his theory was not proven through his actions but if it was not proven then it could then be argued that he didn't get anything out of his actions
Drewface14 5 months ago 21
@Drewface14 wow that is a very thought out and good way of thinking of it
tacoismykitty 5 months ago
@Drewface14 what can clear things up is to distinguish the effects of one's actions as being intentional or accidental. If one's means are altruistic for the ends of being selfless-then one is truly selfless, despite self gain. but If one's means are altruistic for the ends of being selfish-then one is not selfless.
it all depends if the means are altruistic or self centered. if the person does not seek reciprocation, although he ACCIDENTALLY received, it does't make him selfish
JpassTheTime 5 months ago
@Drewface14 Think your right - but its not a catch 22 - the thing you have to remember is that actions is taken with intent only - so his intention was to prove it. From an objective point of view it might be altruism - but subjectively it was not.
It is not altruism if the intent is altruism.
jnevins64 2 months ago
I had a talk the other day about the golden rule, and this was perfect. I suggested based on game theory, there would be no alturism. Even more so when there is not a lot of accountablity. In his example, where everyone pays the "tax" as he says, the question comes up, what if you cannot account for everyone, you are such a large group, you are not sure if everyone is paying the altruism tax, would it not then be in the best interest for a person to act selfish?
bluefootedpig 5 months ago
cake I
first after \/
jonasdrejerjensen 5 months ago
first
bulbulxp 5 months ago