News: Altruism 'in-built' in humans

BBC News reporter Helen Briggs gushes and opines on some intriguing findings about 'altruism' (using the word as by scientific practice, instead of as by Rand) -- note that the actual article, 'Altruistic Helping in Human Infants and Young Chimpanzees' by Warneken & Tomasello in this week's Science looks like a good read, and doesn't natter on about altruism in the way that usually needles and irritates objectivists.

Briggs:

In experiments reported in the journal Science, toddlers helped strangers complete tasks such as stacking books.

Young chimps did the same, providing the first direct evidence of altruism in non-human primates.

Altruism may have evolved six million years ago in the common ancestor of chimps and humans, the study suggests.

[ . . . ]

Scientists have long debated what leads people to "act out of the goodness of their hearts" by helping non-relatives regardless of any benefits for themselves.

Human society depends on people being able to collaborate with others - donating to charity, paying taxes and so on - and many scientists have argued that altruism is a uniquely human function, hard-wired into our brains.

The latest study suggests it is a strong human trait, perhaps present more than six million years ago in the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.

Scientific American:

Studies Show Chimps to Be Collaborative and Altruistic
Science Image: chimpanzee, chimp
Image: COURTESY OF E. HERRMANN

In the wild, chimpanzees have been known to hunt together, particularly when conditions dictate that a solo hunter will not be successful. Yet this does not prove that our nearest living relatives understand cooperation the same way that we do: such group hunts may simply be the product of independent and simultaneous actions by many individuals with little comprehension of the need for coordinated action to ensure success. A new study, however, shows for the first time that chimpanzees understand when cooperation is needed and how to go about securing it effectively. And another study shows they might even be willing to cooperate without hope of reward.

Is this a weak spot in the relationship between objectivist thought and science? Or is this merely an example of press gushery -- shoddy popular science reporting as usual?

See 132 further 'science news' reports.

WSS

Post 1

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 12:20pm

It's only a week spot in those who misunderstand what Objectivists mean by Altruism. Benevolence leads to better relationships and more oportunities to trade. It's in your interest to be benevolent.

Forcing people to help others who they would otherwise choose or perhaps not choose to help is bad. The code of "Altrism" Rand was talking about involved force and sacrafice.

Post 2

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 2:02pm

If babies and children didn't do anything beneficial to the people who are raising them, then they would be much more likely to be left to starve/die. Like Ethan has pointed out, this is not a case of altruism.

Also, this "experiment" lacks a experimental and control group that is testing the relationship being tested.

How about this experiment:
A man builds a tower of blocks, and along the way drops some blocks. Baby can do all sorts of things: help the man by picking up the block, or something else.

Various groups:
1. Man building tower yells at baby when baby helps him.
2. Man building throws block away with anger when baby helps him.
3. Man building tower smiles and cheers when the baby helps him.
4. Man eats all of treat when baby helps him.
5. Man gives some of treat to baby when baby helps him.

Surely what the researchers were experiencing was the baby's learned-so-far and partially innate sense of benevolence. The baby would surely behave differently long term for each action that the man building the tower could make. Surely we would find that most babies would act in their rational self interest, given their limited mental capabilities and limited knowledge.

Babies generally work for loving treatment and the basic necessities of life, don't they? They generally constantly learn how to do it better, don't they?
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 3/04, 2:06pm)

Post 3

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 9:37pm

Oh my, scientists are discovering people love to be loved. Hmmmmmm. What are we evaiding?

Anyways, the problem between O'ism and pop culture is the definitions of altruism and selfishness. No doubt this is flogged over, and over and over...

Pop culture defines selfishness as predation. O'ism defines selfishness as *rational* self-interest. Rational means you understand people will figure it out after you cheat enough, hate you and get even. Deluded altruists notwithstanding.

Pop culture defines altruism as benevolence, and O'ism defines altruism as the sacrifice of the individual to the collective. Some "adult children" never grow up, and deceive the leaders and leading-class, the celebrities, that people don't mature, that the worse they and the culture treat others, the cheaper the victims will feel and sell themselves for.

In childhood and adolecense, When the popular children demean the less popular, it affects prestige and self-esteem respectively. The so-called "friendless" American Male has decided prestige isn't worth paying for with self-esteem any more. They figure the worse their treated, the more they're owed, not the less they're worth.

This ties in with the thread on the altruism of Japanese, and other similar cultures. When a person accepts a code, value-system based on group-identity, they often, if the culture demands, must pay for it with servility and their self-esteem.

Are there any Japanese Clint Eastwoods? Anyone see Lord of the Flies tonight? The older version is more intense, and therefore better in illustrating theme than the latter.

Scott

Post 4

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 12:50am

Scott, you speak bullshit. Altruism is exactly the others duty to serve, self sacrificing moral system that Ayn Rand named it as.

Non-rational "selfishness" is a contradiction of terms.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 3/05, 12:53am)

Post 5

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 3:55am

Dear Dean,

i think you've missed Scott's point. He was saying, correctly, that the Objectivist definition of Selfishness and Altruism are different from mainstream use. I would find it hard to believe you defined selfishness, and altruism, in the way you do now after you read Rand.
Whenever I use selfishness I mean, concerned with one's interest and the expense of another eg. someone who steals. I understand that the Objectivist ethics look at things from an intrapersonal perspective, and you will point out that he is ultimately harming himself. But Selfishness is used to describe interpersonal behaviour by most people, to point out that you deprived someone of something they need, for an egotistical reason ( non Oist egotism).
Egotism, as I'm sure your aware, is used by most people to mean a Peter Keating type of person, the kind of person who craves attention, who treats every interpersonal relationship as a battle for dominance, etc.

Post 6

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 8:30am

Dean,

Scott can -- at times -- be cryptic, but he's pretty clear here (ie. you missed Scott's point). Scott's 2 main theses:

1) enlightened self-interest is NOT "predation"
2) altruism is NOT "benevolence"

Now that we know what these 2 things aren't, the next step for civilization is to find out what they are -- and to carry that discovered evidential reasoning to its logical end, by implementing its freedoms and its strictures into an advanced constitutional republic.

Ed

Post 7

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 8:42am

I haven't yet read WSS's links, but I already smell a confounder. What about the following interpretation? ...

The "altruistic" toddlers looked at block-building as "play" (instead of understanding it as "another's goal" -- and then subsequently and consciously choosing to help forward that other's goal).

I will read the links (and respond) later.

Ed

p.s. Something (counter-evidence) that I had earlier posted elsewhere ...

==============
Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members. Nature. 2005 Oct 27;437(7063):1357-9.

Here we present experimental tests of the existence of other-regarding preferences in non-human primates, and show that chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) do not take advantage of opportunities to deliver benefits to familiar individuals at no material cost to themselves, suggesting that chimpanzee behaviour is not motivated by other-regarding preferences. Chimpanzees are among the primates most likely to demonstrate prosocial behaviours.
==============

Post 8

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 8:42am

That is why I do not use 'altruism' but its proper translated meaning - 'otherism', which shows it for what it is, a doctrine which claims others as primary over your own.

This in turn allows 'benevolence' to be seen for what it is and not be tied to altruism.

(Edited by robert malcom on 3/05, 8:44am)

Post 9

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 10:23am

I disagree about the mainstream usage with the term "altruism", I've never heard it used to mean benevolence. But I agree that with selfishness people mean "selfish yet foolish".

Post 10

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 2:35pm

I think when "mainstream" meanings are discussed, that there is a distinct difference between "the common man" and academics. The common man, or your ordinary citizen, thinks of it as benevolence because that is what makes the most sense as to a description of what is good. He never thinks much past that or he evades thinking about any further consequences of what the (academics, theologians, and elites) say. The latter mean Rand's version - and that was what Rand tried to demonstrate in her fiction.

Post 11

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 3:33pm

Robert said:

That is why I do not use 'altruism' but its proper translated meaning - 'otherism', which shows it for what it is, a doctrine which claims others as primary over your own.

I like this and to me it also carries the added benefit of not needing to replace the meaning of a concept(altruism) with another but gives a person the use of a new concept entirely(otherism) so there is no confusion as one tries to learn about Objectivism.

Post 12

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 4:20pm

I like "otherism" as well. "Altruism" requires some logical deduction to realize that its practice is to destroy your own goals. I think the main point is: Do you act to achieve the goals you have assigned to yourself, or do you act to achieve the goals that others have assigned to you? Do you have goals, but then not achieve them because you have been tricked into thinking that it is good to give up your own goals and only accomplish other's goals?

I still achieve other people's goals. Others may ask me to do something, to trade, and if I find that doing so will help me achieve my goals, then I will act to achieve their goals too. This is called "harmony of interest".

To further discuss this popular use of the word "Altruism": I still think the common people usage of the term "altruism" is what Ayn Rand said it means, to sacrifice your own resources for others to no benefit to self. I think that is what they mean. Their mistake is that they failed to identify the "altruists" goals, and have failed to identify how the action will help the person achieve their goals. Do you understand what I mean? They think an action is altruism (the meaning Ayn Rand uses), but then from our further analysis we find that it was benevolence. So this is how you are correct by saying "They claimed it was altruism, but what they were referring to was actually benevolence." And it is also why I am correct by saying "They claimed it was altruism, and they thought what they were referring to actually was altruism by Ayn Rand's definition. They were using the term as we mean it, their mistake was in their identification."

Post 13

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 7:17pm

Although there can be dissent about different things in forums, for me this is one of the benefits of them; the chance to ask questions and participate in a discussion helping clarify questions which arise while reading a book.

(Edited by Mr. L W Hall on 3/05, 7:52pm)

Post 14

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 7:19pm

William,

I've read the (weak) links and, in response to your following query ...

==================
Is this a weak spot in the relationship between objectivist thought and science? Or is this merely an example of press gushery -- shoddy popular science reporting as usual?
==================

My money is on press gushery here, as the more likely explanation of the findings. A key point in the study was a total lack of material cost to the helper (though it's difficult to gauge what kind of personal material value of which an 18-month old is consciously aware!). Example ...

Someone would be hanging clothes on a clothesline -- and then (covertly) drop a clothes-pin. After witnessing the adult (presumably still manually holding the clothes up to the line) who could not reach the damn thing, the toddlers "tended" to pick it up and hand it over. Sheesh. These toddlers had 3 choices -- if you're asking me:

1) After seeing the spectacle of the otherwise-capable adult not being able to reach a such a simple thing as a desired clothes-pin -- sit down and have a good belly laugh, all the while pointing and giggling at the frustrated adult

2) Pay absolutely no interest to an adult that was visibly and obviously in such a dire straight, and go back to Hatha yoga stretching -- or whatever it is that toddlers are doing, when they pull up one of their feet to examine -- visually or, more likely orally -- their toes

3) Get up off of those Pampers for a cotton-pickin' second, and hand that damn clothes-pin over to the desperately-reaching adult -- and who knows, maybe they will give you some candy (after all, adults seem to be in possession of candy a fairly good percentage of the time)

Ed
[ I will soon marshall some counter-evidence to myself here -- regarding altruism and brain activity. Until then ... ]

Post 15

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 7:45pm

This one's a doozy ...

===============
Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature. 2006 Jan 26;439(7075):466-9. Epub 2006 Jan 18.

We show here that empathic responses are modulated by learned preferences, a result consistent with economic models of social preferences. We engaged male and female volunteers in an economic game, in which two confederates played fairly or unfairly, and then measured brain activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging while these same volunteers observed the confederates receiving pain.

Both sexes exhibited empathy-related activation in pain-related brain areas (fronto-insular and anterior cingulate cortices) towards fair players. However, these empathy-related responses were significantly reduced in males when observing an unfair person receiving pain. This effect was accompanied by increased activation in reward-related areas, correlated with an expressed desire for revenge.

We conclude that in men (at least) empathic responses are shaped by valuation of other people's social behaviour, such that they empathize with fair opponents while favouring the physical punishment of unfair opponents, a finding that echoes recent evidence for altruistic punishment.
===============

I see 3 things going on here:

1) A "sense of fairness" predicted the behavior of males (and correlated with brain activity)

2) Males and females seem to react differently toward another's history of behavior (for males, fairness over-rides other internal cues for their responses -- while females seem to be pain/punishment averse, even toward predators)

3) "Altruistic" punishment (of predators) seems hard-wired into the male brain -- there seems to be a kind of pleasure in righting a wrong

Re: (1):
"Sense of fairness" is something noted in animals, too. It is also noted in the young of uncivilized tribes.

Re: (2):
One explanation for the females' (non-) response is that they are empathetic toward all suffering in human beings (or all beings). Another is that they are pain-averse themselves (and even averse to being reminded of the IDEA of pain). Another is that they are sympathetic to the notion of unethical egoism (so that it doesn't seem to be such a "wrong" that needs to be "righted"). Another is that aren't sympathetic to the concept of justice (there is no right or wrong -- only satisfaction of immediate desire).

Re: (3):
"Altruistic punishment" has some good data behind it. It explains how humans could be hard-wired for Capitalism. In Game Theory research: When trading with others, the "cost" of being a traitor is awful high -- often higher than the benefit of cooperating. Traitors usually end up dead or alone, when the game is played to it's logical conclusion.

Ed
[none of this really backs up "positive altruism" though -- what the Reverend insightfully calls "otherism"]

Post 16

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 7:57pm

Here's good data on "altruistic punishment" (ie. wanting and getting justice) ...

==================
The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science. 2004 Aug 27;305(5688):1254-8.

Symbolic punishment did not reduce the defector's economic payoff, whereas effective punishment did reduce the payoff. We scanned the subjects' brains while they learned about the defector's abuse of trust and determined the punishment. Effective punishment, as compared with symbolic punishment, activated the dorsal striatum, which has been implicated in the processing of rewards that accrue as a result of goal-directed actions.

Moreover, subjects with stronger activations in the dorsal striatum were willing to incur greater costs in order to punish. Our findings support the hypothesis that people derive satisfaction from punishing norm violations and that the activation in the dorsal striatum reflects the anticipated satisfaction from punishing defectors.
==================

There is a 'natural justice' -- one that appears to hard-wired in (at the very least, male) homo sapiens.

Ed

Post 17

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 8:37pm

To explain the general differences between men and women there:
In the past, the men had the job of executing justice, and of course since they executed it, they also had to determine it. Since women had lower strength, agility, and hand-eye coordination, women had the job of helping people get better.

In general, women evolutionarily had little to no advantage to determine or execute justice, so this was not as well developed for them.
In general, men evolutionarily had a great advantage if they could determine and execute justice, so this was very well developed for them.

Disclaimer: Women surely still developed some skills to determine justice-- just in general they have not been as evolutionarily built to do the task. Surely many women are much better at determining justice than men. Surely many women are much better at executing justice than men. I'm just talking general here.

Its still true, in general, that men take the job of determining what is justice, but women are very much beginning to do this task as well, now that body strength, agility, and hand-eye coordination are not as necessary in determining justice nor in executing justice.

Post 18

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 2:54am

Science and Nature I think have become too sensationalistic in the general science world. We don't take them as seriously anymore, although the popular mainstream media might. I've discussed it with other students of science, so therefore I'm less apt to consider an article in Science as strong as other similar articles. In addition, it takes a lot of articles from a wide variety of peer-reviewed journals on the same subject for me to form an informed choice on a matter-- about 5-10 articles for a basic, generalized judgement; more than that of course is better.

Second, not sure about generalizing about women/men here. This is just ONE study. In Nature and Science, both of which, as said previously are under more scrutiny. Doesn't mean it's true. Or, it might mean non-accurate prediction. In any case, I don't take this seriously as a science geek. It by no means states that women are unable to judge/conceptualize justice or that men love to deal out pain. I'm sure back in the Roman Empire, women liked to watch the Coliseum events too, as well as in today's hockey games (or other more violent revenge-prone games). As well as I'm sure that there has been several men in history that's had a hard time doling out sweet revenge, or men that are more empathetic than their female peers. It's not an across-the-board thing. As for pain averse, in my experience, more men whined to me about having a cold than I've whined about having chest surgery twice. :)

Post 19

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 9:01am