From: Keith Henson (hkhenson@rogers.com)
Date: Sun May 14 2006 - 16:42:24 MDT
At 10:35 PM 5/14/2006 +0100, m.l.vere wrote:
>Quoting Keith Henson <hkhenson@rogers.com>:
>
> > At 12:31 PM 5/13/2006 +0100, you wrote:
> > >Quoting Keith Henson <hkhenson@rogers.com>:
snip
> > Can you give a reasonable account of how "emotion compassion" other than
> > that directed to relatives would have improved reproductive success enough
> > for the genes building brain structures for it to become common?
>
>Sure, firstly the emotion of compassion is a direct cause of cooperation.
>Those who had others cooperate with them would have a survival advantage. The
>compassionate would be more likely to recieve reciprocal cooperation.
I am sorry, but evolution just does not work that way. As an example, take
a hypothetical stone age human with great compassion for other humans, so
great that he gives all he has to hungry people he meets on the way back
from a hunt and his kids starve as a result. The next generation has less
of this quality.
People *do* engage in reciprocal cooperation because it is in *their*
interest (and the interests of their genes) to do so. There is a *vast*
literature on the subject. Try "Robert Axelrod" or "tit for tat" in Google
to access it by the ton. Serious studies have found that humans have
special mental circuits to detect cheaters and even mechanisms to punish them.
>Also,
>apparently selfless compassion may well have been an advantage in mating.
Mating is only a small part of "reproductive success." Perhaps you mean
finding a mate? Even having a lot of kids is not success if none of *them*
have children. In such examples of the hunter-gatherer life style (the
EEA) as have been studied, bringing back a lot of meat is the most likely
way to get more nooky. Not "selfish compassion." This is well known. I
can show you how to research it if you need help.
> > I am not sure what you mean by "emotional social conformity" much less how
> > *that* would have contributed to reproductive success.
>
>When people feel an emotional need to act/think in a similar fasion to those
>arround them. Doing so would a) speed up learning - survival advantage,
>and b)
>make cooperation easier - again survival advantage.
Half the tribe runs off a cliff and is killed by the fall on the rocks
below. Is it a survival advantage for the rest to follow?
Now I make the case in URL I cited up thread that there are times where
xenophobic memes take over the minds of a tribe's warriors and as a result
they go out on a do or die mission against the tribe in the next
valley. But they are doing it in a situation where from their gene's
viewpoint, there is little other choice.
This is a depressing area of study. Sure you want got into it?
Keith Henson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT