From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 22:07:50 MDT
Brett writes
> > "The Emory studies revealed a biological theory that
> > essentially says people cooperate because it makes
> > them feel good."
>
> Unless more was done than was reported this study seems prima facie flawed.
> Axelrod conducted experiment with the prisoners dilemma years ago and from
> memory a crucial factor in the decision to cooperate or defect (compete) was
> the likelihood that one would meet up with that person again and that one's
> "reputation" would then affect their treatment.
Using the principle of charity, I assumed that the researchers
were attempting to explain "non-rewarded" cooperation, that is,
for example, one-shot prisoner's dilemmas or other conditions
not explained by game theory. But thanks for pointing out this
possible difficulty, since after all the study did concern the
Prisoner's Dilemma.
> My own gut feel here is that individuals are social way before they develop
> rationality or language...
By "social" I think you mean predisposed to cooperative or
altruistic behavior. Your gut feel is evidently quite accurate.
I was startled while reading Matt Ridley's 1995 book "The Origins
of Virtue" that the more recent anthropological research has
established the genetic component of altruism. Though there are
a lot of other books that I could name (and have, on this forum),
that's really the best and hardest hitting IMO.
> In his book The Darwinian Wars, (1999), Andrew Brown, described the fall
> into depression and ultimately suicide (in 1974) of theoretical biologist
> George Price. According to Brown, (Price. something of a mathematical whiz)
> "reformulated a set of mathematical equations that shows how altruism can
> prosper in aworld where it seems that only selfishness is rewarded. The
> equations had been discovered ten before by (William) Hamilton, but Price's
> reworking was more elegant and of wider application. He had provided a
> general way in which to measure the direction and speed of any selection
> process; this makes possible, in principle, a Darwinian analysis of almost
> anything." (Price was shocked by his discovery) for although his equation
> showed that truly self-sacrificing behaviour can exist among animals, and
> even humans, it seemed to show that there is nothing noble in it.
Yes, until much later, it was conjectured by most leading biologists
that our altruism was not genuine in a certain sense, and that, yes,
nothing noble about it. However, it turns out that for most of us,
the subjective explanation that in some cases we really are being
selfless is true. That is so difficult to know. You may be interested
in a thought-experiment I wrote up in 1996 here on Extropians wherein I
claimed to have uncovered definite behaviors that would drastically
change were one to learn that other people had no feelings nor consciousness.
The recent thread, "How to tell if you are a nice person", started on June
21st, recapped that. (I append below my initial post.)
> mathematically literate biologist, great beauty and elegance, but it also
> seems to contain the proof that beauty and elegance mean nothing to the
> universe. ...the discovery of the equation for altruism plunged (Price) into
> a profound and severe digression, from which he was rescued by a religious
> experience which led him into a mania for good."
Well, no one really knows for sure what was wrong with Price.
Besides, even if this account were correct, Price's suicide
was quite premature, given the later discoveries.
> > The part that seriously bothers me is that such language
> > can be immediately turned towards use by those that claim
> > that no one ever does anything except for a selfish reason.
>
> Why exactly does that bother you?
There are two reasons. The first is merely corruption of
language. Someone used a very elegant phrase for that either
here or on SL4---something like "good mental hygiene" but I've
been unable to find the original quote. It's just stupid, IMO,
to attempt to lump together sincere acts of anonymous charity,
for example, with self-serving behavior. Our language---indeed
I would speculate ever language on Earth---evolved a very clean
distinction between self-serving behavior, and acts of noble
intent. Both are real, I say, even though of course complexities
and mixed motives can and do arise.
The other reason is much more conjectural; it could very
well happen IMO that by repeatedly announcing to oneself
that every act one does is for a selfish reason, less
cooperative behavior in one could develop. I actually
think that this has happened to a few libertarians.
Lee
_______________________________________________________________
P.S. Here is my post from June 21, subject "How to tell if
you are a nice person":
If you are quite rational, and you are curious about whether
or not you are sincerely altruistic towards others, here is
a thought experiment that may help you determine the truth.
First, about "rational". By that I mean that you can calmly,
objectively, and judiciously weigh evidence both in favor and
against some conjecture.
Next, by "sincerely altruistic", remember that we often have ulterior
motives for helping others that we're not even aware of. Sometimes
your generous gesture has a bit of calculation behind it; you yearn
for gratitude, or perhaps for others to be obligated to you. Some
libertarians (and others) embrace the egotist theory of altruism, and
try to explain every act as selfish. I think that this is nonsense,
but if you believe it, then you'll not profit from anything further
I have to say. (The reason that I believe in genuine altruism is that
there is now a good evolutionary explanation for its existence.)
The VR Solipsist
What if it were somehow revealed to you by an unimpeachable
source that not only were you living in a simulation, but that
you were the only human creature in it? For concreteness,
a vast, cool, and unsympathetic Intelligence as far above
you as you are above a bacterium is apparently conducting
an experiment for reasons impossible to guess at. This vast
being has no human level emotions at all, and can no more be
truly affected by anything you do or think than you can be
affected by the opinion a bacterium.
(You could come to believe this by several means if you need to
know how this could conceivably happen to you. The Being might
contact you in dreams, and slowly build your confidence that what
it told you about your waking life is correct, etc.)
So now you are in a position where you truly believe that all
the people you know or ever have known are only portrayals, not
emulations of people. That is, each of them is no more than
a puppet driven by the fingers of this vast cool mind, a mind
that you are completely incapable of offending or of causing any
emotion in. No one exists but you. No one is real but you.
SO the question is, How is your behavior changed? Is it changed
in any way?
(First, remember that you would still be nice to your boss, because
the simulation you're living in is *faithful*: do things that appear to
piss him off, and you'll get fired. You can still starve to death in
this faithful simulation, remember, and you can also die in traffic
accidents, or get beaten up by thugs. So you'll still be very
polite to policemen, because they might still give you a ticket.
You'll still be polite to your mother, because she does have your
phone number, and can still nag you. But remember: she's not
really there any longer, and her feelings don't really exist.)
Again, would your behavior be changed by this revelation at all,
and if so, how?
Lee Corbin
[I intend to finally supply my own answers to that shortly,
though I really liked some of the responses.]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:43 MST