The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals. Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Politeness Police
Quote:
Last edited by Carey N; May 14th, 2006 at 12:33 PM.. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Politeness Police
Thanks for clarifiying.
You and Tom have both mentioned motivations this morning that I have not placed on my scale - fear of punishment and sympathy, respectively. I think I'd place fear of punishment as the other side of the concern with what others think coin, as you do. I think sypmathy could be part of multiple motivations. It is probably instinctive as an extension of an instinct that (usually) prevents angry males from killing infants and females in a social group. It is probably part of concern with what others think as most people would generally like to be seen as a sympathetic person - although in some societies like the military or prison that could be the opposite. It could be a belief as expressed in the Beatitudes. And I guess it could be intelligent - as in by being sympathetic to the plight of others we will be more likely to deserve sympathy from them if we fall on hard times - pragmatic karma. There's a lot of interesting studies that are trying to figure out how much of altruism (behavior that can be motivated by sympathy) is inherited or acquired culturally. I think it's an area that is influenced by both areas with a lot of that dialectical feedback going on Margaret |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Politeness Police
Quote:
Strong altruism, which entails an absolute cost to the actor, is widely acknowledged to be feasible only under kin selection - i.e., if altruism is preferentially directed towards closely related family members. This kind of behavior is heavily influenced by instinct and doesn't require cognitive complexity to evolve. Weak altruism, on the other hand, is selfless behavior that eventually comes back to increase one's own direct fitness (i.e. it entails only a relative cost to the actor). If an organism behaves altruistically to increase the quality of life in a social group, the benefits come back to the actor, and an inclusive fitness interpretation isn't necessary. It's still an interesting phenomenon - because altruists are susceptible to exploitation by cheaters - but it can follow different evolutionary dynamics than strong altruism as described above. I would guess that this kind of behavior is under relatively stronger cultural influence, although it still does not require human-like cognitive ability to evolve. Then there is the question of reciprocal altruism, which probably qualifies as a sub-class of weak altruism in that it entails time-delayed exchange of favors that increase the direct fitness of both participating organisms. This behavior entails the most cognitive complexity and is restricted to a small number of vertebrates (that I know of). Humans are definitely tuned to participate in reciprocal interactions, but cultural influence obviously has enormous impact on the rules of the game. Cool stuff Last edited by Carey N; May 14th, 2006 at 12:34 PM.. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Politeness Police & Evolution
Ed Wilson and others told us about "K-Selection": conditions in very stable niches and the accrual of larger sized species that have fewer children that require longer investments in their rearing. The opposite, "r-selection" describes environments of shorter longevity and their use by smaller species who make lots and lots of children. Applied to human evolution by Phil Rushton when he discussed black/white differences. (He took a beating but survived..."
Brody has compared selfishness and selflessness to niche characteristics but as a parallel to the same conditions that we find in Bose-Einstein Condensates: limit resources and all participants lose boundaries and act in sync. Wal-Mart and the Politeness Police are possibly aspects of the same statistical outcomes...and are, therefore, probable outcomes of evolution, and therefore, I don't have to erase this thread today... JB |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Politeness Police
Quote:
But wouldn’t the larger question be what inspires sane adults to behave “morally†when things turn to shit—like what inspired Bonhoffer to behave as he did, impolitely by Nazi instincts/morality, when the Nazis were the dominant social group in Germany? Then again, since he didn’t survive/reproduce, I suppose that one could argue that he apparently wasn’t all that fit. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Seeking evolutionary origins of groupism
It seems to me that group identification is central to human psychology, and that this probably is explainable in terms of adaptations. Sober's trait-group selection hypothesis or some form of cultural group selection may explain this to some degree, but I think it may also be possible to explain it in individual selection terms as well.
All that is needed is for group membership to raise individual reproductive fitness, and there are plenty of plausible ways that can happen once we have some minimal amount of social reasoning to bootstrap the process. What I think we are really talking about in this case is a classification scheme with some sort of cost/benefit calculation that makes group identification more likely ... if identifying with a group benefits our reproductive fitness. The same sort of mechanism could apply in different ecological contexts, from small bands to nation-states. The most obvious conditions where this would have a powerful differential reproductive effect are various kinds of warfare. It wouldn't neccessarily have to be a matter of one group with one set of traits wiping out another, group membership in general could plausibly affect the reproductive fitness of everyone involved. Allen MacNeill makes an interesting case for the capity for religion and the capacity for group warfare both being related adaptations at the individual level, and group identification is one of the factors underlying the potential reproductive fitness effects of both. kind regards, Todd |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Politeness Police
Quote:
Last edited by Carey N; April 18th, 2006 at 10:30 AM.. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Politeness Police
I've got to be honest with you, JB . . . I'm not sure I know what you're talking about.
My estimated guesses: K-selection corresponds to stability of selflessness for the maintenance of favorable social environments at carrying capacity r-selection corresponds to extreme selfishness for the rapid exploitation of briefly available environments populated by K-selected individuals. In the long run, altruistic punishing and other policing mechanisms make K-selected species competitively superior to r-selected species. If this guy Rushton (haven't read him, yet) has imposed the above characterizations upon races, I can see why he got into trouble with PC-maniacs, even though it's a potentially interesting observation. But then again, I'm really reaching here. Quote:
Last edited by Carey N; April 18th, 2006 at 02:38 AM.. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Politeness Police
Quote:
A Bose-Einstein condensate is a phase of matter formed by bosons cooled to temperatures very near to absolute zero. (The first such condensate was produced by Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman in 1995 using a gas of rubidium atoms cooled to 170 nanokelvins (nK)). Under such conditions, a large fraction of the atoms collapse into the lowest quantum state, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale. Bose-Einstein condensates have properties that are currently not completely understood, such as spontaneously flowing out of their container—the effect is the consequence of quantum mechanics, which states that systems can only acquire energy in discrete steps; if a system is at such a low temperature that it is in the lowest energy state, it is no longer possible for it to reduce its energy, not even by friction, and without friction, the fluid will easily overcome gravity because of adhesion between the fluid and the container wall, and it will take up the most favorable position, i.e. all around the container. (above two paragraps borrowed/adapted from Wikipedia) As you know Carey, I really love JB, but his selfishness/selflessness comparison to niche characteristics (“limit resources and all participants lose boundaries and act in syncâ€)—the determinism that we see in the classical/ macroscopic world—and his suggested parallels to the conditions that we find in Bose-Einstein Condensates—i.e., our limited understanding and knowledge of the wave/particle duality and so-called uncertainty of the quantum world—just seems to be more of a leap than I find to be terribly helpful . . . OTOH, I’m no JB. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Politeness Police
Thanks bro
Quote:
|
|
|