From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Aug 15 2002 - 16:30:05 MDT
Peter writes
> [Lee writes]
> >Here is one theory. Men need to convince women that they're good
> >providers who'll look out for their children even when it's in
> >their better genetic interest to split and spread their seed
> >elsewhere. So women evolve mechanisms whose purpose it to detect
> >genuine altruism.
>
> I'm having trouble understanding why they would have evolved detection
> mechanisms that would recognize your notion of genuine altruism, which
> is very hard to detect, rather than evolve mechanisms that detect a
> broader class of phenomena which includes my notion of altruism.
Because (so far as I have been able to see) your notion of altruism
counts ostensible behavior only. No inferences are made as to the
motives behind the behavior. I submit that it would pay many men
to feign altruistic behavior, at least to the best of their ability.
In other words, the man would be consciously pretending to be nicer
than he really was, in order to impress his potential mate of his
devotion, loyalty, and kindness. But few can pretend to have one
set of motives while secretly harboring another without at least
giving tiny signs. So women would evolve the ability to see
through such deception, and conclude---either logically or on the
basis of intuition---that this particular man was in some ways
a phony.
So an arms race ensues: the genes' strategy for some men will
continue to evolve even better patterns of deception, and women's
detectors will also evolve correspondingly. Other genes' strategy
for men will be to implement genuine altruism---that is, the man will
have sincere regard for the women and her offspring, and for others
in general. This latter case represents woman's victory, since the
desired behavior is now genetic and genuine. The former case represents
men with insincere altruistic behavior having won a number of rounds in
previous generations.
> >> There is, of course, much less evolutionary pressure for being conscious
> >> of one's self-interest than there is for being conscious of one's niceness,
> >> so I'm rather skeptical of your reports of your introspection.
> >
> >I'm not talking about consciousness here at all. And yes, you
> >are perfectly right: one must be EXTREMELY wary of introspection.
> >We all have many mechanisms conscious and unconscious for convincing
> >ourselves that we're the good guys, or the nice ones, or whatever.
> >I came up with my VR Solipsist thought experiment precisely to
> >avoid the constant rationalizing I do of my behavior.
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't understand how a thought experiment avoids
> introspection. What can I find out about your behavior in the VR
> Solipsist example without using your reports of your introspection?
Oh, indeed any such thought experiment is introspective, and for that
reason suspect as I emphasized before. But here is why it revealed
something to me. (Of course, it doesn't reveal anything necessarily
to you---in order to learn anything about yourself from the experiment
you'd have to take some time and convincingly imagine yourself in
the position of the VR Solipsist. The point is that we learn about
ourselves, not someone else, from this experiment.)
Right now, when I say something nice to someone, my motives are
usually mixed. Partly (perhaps!) (1) I'm doing it out of a sincere
regard for their feelings. But also, probably, (2) I'm doing it so
that they'll like me. In addition, (3) I may be doing it because I
want to have the reputation of being a nice guy. There are many
more possible motives, but these three are the main ones, most
of the time (and, I think, for most people).
Now only the first of these three is genuinely altruistic, and
the question is, "does it really exist?". I am absolutely certain
in my own mind that if I found out I was the VR Solipsist, then
I'd change my behavior: Yes, for items 2 and 3 above, I'd still
want people to like me, because it's safer that way and one can
always use allies. Likewise, I'd continue to want to have a
good reputation.
But reason 1 above, namely that part of the reason that I'm nice
is out of sincere regard for others with no factor of self-interest,
well, that would definitely change! In the position of the VR
Solipsist, I wouldn't care for anyone's feelings because they
wouldn't exist. Why would I ever delay my journey home to let
someone out of a parking lot? Why would I ever leave a tip in
a foreign restaurant I never intended to visit again for many
years. I would not. And this change of behavior proves to me
(in my own introspection of course) that indeed my motive for
being nice in traffic and being nice to foreign waiters is that
after all, I do have sincere regard for their feelings.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:09 MST