From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Aug 05 2002 - 12:08:50 MDT
gts wrote:
> I've often pondered these questions about altruism and like others I
> am skeptical that such a beast actually exists, at least as the word
> is normally defined.
>
> I am a believer in evolutionary psychology: I believe our genes play
> an important role in determining our personalities and behaviors. And
> we humans are clearly a social species. We've lived together in tribes
> of various kinds for millions of years. There is little question that
> evolution has selected us for our tribal nature. This genetic coding
> would be expected to result in the organism feeling a sense of reward
> from social interaction.
>
> My own experience validates this theory. When I act generously toward
> a stranger I feel a rewarding sense of community. Probably that
> rewarding feeling is a genetically and culturally programmed response
> to constructive social interaction. The feeling is especially apparent
> in situations such as that used in the example of allowing someone to
> leave a crowded parking lot ahead of me. Unlike the restaurant tip
> example, the parking lot example is more likely to end in a brief
> communication with the stranger. The rewarding feeling will be
> amplified when that person smiles and waives a friendly "thank you"
> and I reciprocate with a smile and some kind of "you're welcome"
> gesture. The unspoken message in the communication from each party to
> the other is, "Hello stranger. Yes, I agree, we humans are all on this
> spaceship together, and it is good for us all that we be considerate
> of others. Have a good day."
>
> Is this altruism in a pure sense? I don't think so. I believe it is a
> way of validating ourselves as valuable members of society. The desire
> for this sort of social validation is likely built into our DNA.
>
> Gordon Swobe
>
But remember that the "common definition" was created in your mind (and
in the minds of others) before you were aware of evolutionary
psychology. It was probably created via a definition something like "An
altruist is someone who does good things for someone else without
expecting a reward." This is because this is a definition that easy to
understand. But if you were to look at the definition that you had for
number at the same age, you would find it equally oversimplified.
Simple definitions almost always preceed the more accurate definitions.
Most simple definitions are "lies to children". A necessary step, but
not a final step. Altruism only gets further defined by those who
reconsider it as an adult. But the same is also true of number. Or any
of a great number of things ("What's an electron?" "What's weight?")
The phenomenon you are noticing is correct, but you need to embed it in
a more general context.
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:54 MST