are you a giver or a taker

[BlindHelperMonkey]

recently while out and about, having noticed the girl next to me sporting a pair of vivid-pink heels, i suddenly said to her 'i like your shoes'


those in the know will be unsurprised to hear she was of indian appearence () early-twenties and was wearing a sari-type traditional dress. given that most 2nd/3rd gen'ers round here rock western clothes, i was somewhat surprised when she replied with 'cor exactly miss em can ya?'


anyway, after a brief exchange we parted & i thought no more of it. that was until the other day, when out again - an arm suddenly shot out & grabbed my bicep.. i swung my head around to be greeted with a pretty asian girl smiling at me - took me a second to clock on it was the same girl (weather was shite.. clothes toned down) & a convo ensued. my point is, seemed to make an impact


how do you feel about random, unsolicited compliments? the last you gave/received? anyone who wouldnt enjoy getting one from a stranger? own anything guaranteed to get a few? is it ever altruistic?

 

[Uncle Robert]

You playa.

I wouldn't just spark up conversation out of the blue, it would only be if something happened that you could easily comment about.

If I tried to speak to a stranger on the spot I would just be expecting that "oh god, smile, nod and don't make eye contact with the nutter that's trying to talk to me" situation.

 

[amnesiaseizure]

Regularly talk to strangers. Why not, we're all as clueless as each other and you might surprise yourself.

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

is it ever altruistic?

It can be argued that NO (human) behaviour is truly altruistic. Even if the only personal gain is that 'it makes me feel good about myself', then it stops being truly altruistic. Some animals reportedly exhibit truly altruistic behaviour (no, I can't think of any examples right now), but I'm not sure about humans - we're too complicated and selfish for that.

 

[BlindHelperMonkey]

If I tried to speak to a stranger on the spot I would just be expecting that "oh god, smile, nod and don't make eye contact with the nutter that's trying to talk to me" situation.

thing is, i did have that internal debate - i never normally compliment anyone, nevermind strangers. i usually advocate total silence during transit on-one's-tod, from point a to b. totally understand the 'nutter talking to me' thing.. even witnessed it, uncomfortably - on a bus back in the day. so believe me, i did consider it.. but just found myself saying it, sun was shining first time in an age, i guess - probably strung out on vitD or sommat eh %)


and i was totally expecting the whole uncomfortable smile, thankyou, then looking straight ahead ..deal. hence my surprise

reasoned, she couldve just been a good actor.. but then the hulk hogan-esque clothesline to stop me a week later suggested otherwise

seems to me people are unprejudiced when it comes to gettin compliments

 

[Uncle Robert]

It can be argued that NO (human) behaviour is truly altruistic. Even if the only personal gain is that 'it makes me feel good about myself', then it stops being truly altruistic. Some animals reportedly exhibit truly altruistic behaviour (no, I can't think of any examples right now), but I'm not sure about humans - we're too complicated and selfish for that.

I know dolphins will often show altruistic behaviour, they will help injured animals by pushing them to the surface to breathe etc

You reminded me of this scene from Friends

 

[Cornishman]

The dolphins only do it to feel good about themselves. Arrogant bastards.

 

[BlindHelperMonkey]

It can be argued that NO (human) behaviour is truly altruistic. Even if the only personal gain is that 'it makes me feel good about myself', then it stops being truly altruistic. Some animals reportedly exhibit truly altruistic behaviour (no, I can't think of any examples right now), but I'm not sure about humans - we're too complicated and selfish for that.

well.. philosophically speaking you are correct, but from a social viewpoint i dont consider the 'warm glow greed' or 'self-satisfaction' from a kind act a true reward, or not one to discourage at least


as for animals.. its actually quite common for them to indulge in behaviour that could be ascribed by a witness to that of altruism. dogs, cats even tigers have all been recorded 'adopting' i.e mothering - totally different species to themselves. also you should research the alaskan polar bears that have struck up a friendship with huskies & playing with them. video of it is amazing. altruism? who knows, cute tho

 

[Uncle Robert]

The dolphins only do it to feel good about themselves. Arrogant bastards.

To assert dominance sometimes a male dolphin will rape other males... Is that how it works in EEAD?

 

[Cornishman]

Vigorously.

 

[Shambles]

Have wondered about this myself. I remember a year or two back when it was lovely and sunny seeing this gal around town who really stood out. Inna goooooood way. Very striking hair colouring and dress sense. Nothing like most people around here. Although I must admit to being somewhat smitten, I actually really wanted to just potter over and tell her she looked great purely cos she did look great. The hair in particular was gonna be the complimented aspect. Flame red but somehow not at all tacky. Miraculous almost. Never did it, of course. Even though I saw her several times around town. Far too English far that. Shame really.

But ya, complimenting strangers is surely a Good Thing. Just wish I wasn't so repressed that I could actually do it more often

It can be argued that NO (human) behaviour is truly altruistic. Even if the only personal gain is that 'it makes me feel good about myself', then it stops being truly altruistic. Some animals reportedly exhibit truly altruistic behaviour (no, I can't think of any examples right now), but I'm not sure about humans - we're too complicated and selfish for that.

Nah. More or less all animals - including human beans - exhibit altruistic behaviour. There are very sound evolutionary reasons for it. All that 19C "cruel and uncaring nature, red in tooth and claw" stuff is well outdated and far too simplistic. Obvious examples of altruism in humans would be things like people throwing themselves on a grenade to save their comrades in warfare, people running towards the explosion to save others when a bomb goes off, adopting or otherwise caring for children who are not your own - there's loads of examples small and large.

Broadly speaking, people can be utter shits. But not all of 'em and not all of the time.

 

[brimz]

what have you got ?

silly miss leading thread title

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

Nah. More or less all animals - including human beans - exhibit altruistic behaviour. There are very sound evolutionary reasons for it. All that 19C "cruel and uncaring nature, red in tooth and claw" stuff is well outdated and far too simplistic. Obvious examples of altruism in humans would be things like people throwing themselves on a grenade to save their comrades in warfare, people running towards the explosion to save others when a bomb goes off, adopting or otherwise caring for children who are not your own - there's loads of examples small and large.

Broadly speaking, people can be utter shits. But not all of 'em and not all of the time.

Fair enough, you cite some good examples there - though they are somewhat extreme methinks

Perhaps I have a particularly dim view of the human race, but I still think that in less extreme circumstances, truly altruistic behaviour in humans is extremely rare.

Also, I can't *recall any proven evolutionary advantage of altruism for any species, though I'm willing to be corrected on that score. Even if the reward is deferred over several generations, the fact that there may actually be a reward surely means that the behaviour is NOT truly altruistic.


* Evolutionary Psychology was one of the modules on my degree - but my memory of the details are somewhat sketchy

 

[Dioxy]

Regularly talk to strangers. Why not, we're all as clueless as each other and you might surprise yourself.

+1, the older I get the more I realise that we're all very much in this together, and nobody really knows what the hell is going on. Heh.

It can be argued that NO (human) behaviour is truly altruistic. Even if the only personal gain is that 'it makes me feel good about myself', then it stops being truly altruistic. Some animals reportedly exhibit truly altruistic behaviour (no, I can't think of any examples right now), but I'm not sure about humans - we're too complicated and selfish for that.

Fascinating topic, and I would argue that whilst at a fundamental level all apparently 'selfless' behaviour at some level encourages reciprocation and can't be said to only benefit the second party, I also think it's true that we aren't always consciously aware of the ways in which our 'selfless' actions will benefit us, so from the perspective of the person 'doing' the selfless thing, it is truly subjectively selfless.

We naturally will make a subconscious link between our actions and their practical & emotional consequences, so once we link 'doing something for another person' with 'feeling good' and 'being admired,' for example, we will repeat that process in future, but without necessarily being conscious of the link at the time; the urge to do selfless things (usually) appears as an impulse, not as a calculated rationale. That's what I recks, anyway.

*Edit*
We must also remember that there is plenty of natural behaviour that has survived because it has a tendency to preserve the survival of a species as a whole, not just the individual. Like a poison frog that kills its predator after being eaten. That poison is of no benefit to that individual frog, but it results in one less predator for the species as a whole, and can serve as a warning to other potential predators. Obviously, that isn't the frog's choice, it just happens to do that, but our behavioural traits are as much part of our survival mechanics as our physical traits.

 

[Shambles]

Fair enough, you cite some good examples there - though they are somewhat extreme methinks

Perhaps I have a particularly dim view of the human race, but I still think that in less extreme circumstances, truly altruistic behaviour in humans is extremely rare.

Also, I can't *recall any proven evolutionary advantage of altruism for any species, though I'm willing to be corrected on that score. Even if the reward is deferred over several generations, the fact that there may actually be a reward surely means that the behaviour is NOT truly altruistic.


* Evolutionary Psychology was one of the modules on my degree - but my memory of the details are somewhat sketchy

Evolutionary reasons for altruistic behaviour.

Is quite a recent area of study mostly. Obviously it does depend on circumstance - and it could still be argued that there is some degree of personal satisfaction and/or reciprocation involved in many - even most - cases - but for the most part if it looks like altruism it probably is. And ya, I do realise that two of the given examples are pretty extreme (they're just ones that are regularly used so used 'em) but adoption is more day-to-day. Looking after elderly, frail relatives is another. Or even severely disabled children for that matter. If it were as cut and dried as some folk would have us believe there is no real reason to do such things on a purely selfish level. In reality, it's far more complicated than that.

In terms of animals, I think meerkats (or similar species of burrowing, group-dwelling, cute, furry critter) is an example often used. Where the "sentries" will sacrifice themselves to a predator to save the rest of the group. Although they personally lose the genetic race they are closely enough related to other members of the group that similar genes will be passed on. Is that altruism? I'd say it was really as the purely selfish gene would save it's own hide and go shag a startled escapee whilst she was too bewildered to fight him off or whatever.

Am no expert, obviously. But have looked into it a bit cos am quite interested in evolutionary biology/psychology. There's plenty of literature and lectures online if you're interested

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

Evolutionary reasons for altruistic behaviour.

Is quite a recent area of study mostly. Obviously it does depend on circumstance - and it could still be argued that there is some degree of personal satisfaction and/or reciprocation involved in many - even most - cases - but for the most part if it looks like altruism it probably is. And ya, I do realise that two of the given examples are pretty extreme (they're just ones that are regularly used so used 'em) but adoption is more day-to-day. Looking after elderly, frail relatives is another. Or even severely disabled children for that matter. If it were as cut and dried as some folk would have us believe there is no real reason to do such things on a purely selfish level. In reality, it's far more complicated than that.

In terms of animals, I think meerkats (or similar species of burrowing, group-dwelling, cute, furry critter) is an example often used. Where the "sentries" will sacrifice themselves to a predator to save the rest of the group. Although they personally lose the genetic race they are closely enough related to other members of the group that similar genes will be passed on. Is that altruism? I'd say it was really as the purely selfish gene would save it's own hide and go shag a startled escapee whilst she was too bewildered to fight him off or whatever.

Am no expert, obviously. But have looked into it a bit cos am quite interested in evolutionary biology/psychology. There's plenty of literature and lectures online if you're interested

Thanks, I'll check out yer link when I feel a bit more up to it

My old lecturer (Dr.John Cartwright http://www.chester.ac.uk/departments/biological-sciences/staff/john-cartwright) wrote a particularly good book on the subject, but again, my memory fails me. Anyway, to cut a long argument short, I suppose it all comes down to what your particular definition of 'Altruism' is..


Edit: Arf Just checking out your link, and the title of this paper caught my eye: 'Altruism through beard chromodynamics'. Unfortunately, only the abstract is available (unless you're a subscriber) and that doesn't go into enough detail to work out what the fuck they're on about - but it sounds fascinating

 

[Dioxy]

Is that altruism? I'd say it was really as the purely selfish gene would save it's own hide and go shag a startled escapee whilst she was too bewildered to fight him off or whatever.

Not wishing to be pedantic with semantics (wahay!) we best be careful about the term 'selfish gene.' Dawkins' description of 'the selfish gene,' which in many respects has become a Dawkins trademark, describes a set of traits that includes the potential for behaviour that is functionally selfless for the individual but benefits the group as a whole. It's one of those awkward semantic battles that people often mis-understand and mis-represent, though arguably Dawkins is a little at fault for making it so mis-representable. As I'm sure you know, the Selfish Gene isn't in fact 'selfish' in its entirety. The very fact that there are so many species that survive based on a group dynamic suggests it's probably a better survival mechanism than 'every man for himself-ism.'

If we extend the definition of 'selfish' to include 'only beneficial for the self or the species,' we have a slightly different discussion at hand, but possibly one that's easier to answer.

 

[Shambles]

True, Dioxy. Although I think Mr Dawkins may object to you skirting somewhat close to group selection in some of what you've said. I believe he is very much not a fan

And am sure that's not what you were meaning anyway.

I only used "selfish gene" as a throwaway term and cos it sounds nice really. Just meant "of direct benefit to the individual in some way". Obviously sacrificing yourself to save others in no way benefits the individual cos the individual is deaded. Makes far more obvious sense to take advantage of the situation to stealthshag a female you'd normally not be able to if you're a lowly male in the pecking order.

Obviously it can be kinda tricky to pin down a behaviour as being purely and unequivocally altruistic but - as you mentioned above - in many situations where it's possible to see possible direct benefits in hindsight the individual concerned may well be completely unaware of such benefits at the time so is - at least on a conscious level - acting altruistically. There are other examples where it really is very hard to fathom any benefit to the individual - and benefit to the species as a whole doesn't really cut it either as that means shit all to the individual - and could rightly be called true altruism. Probably.

 

[BlindHelperMonkey]

indeed, no degree here. but animals also play with eachother, this is thought to help specifically with understanding the reactions of others and is an advantage in the sense of social-mobility, as it were



shambles man on a grenade is a good example of true altruism - and even if it is as part of some preconceived notion of fame post-death. id still rather he do it, were i in that particular trench

 

[Dioxy]

Fortunately that wasn't what I was getting at, but I risked skirting it indeed... This is very much the problem with this topic IMO, it's far too easy to misrepresent your own proposal, which is also what I was trying to protect you from doing, at risk of sounding like a patronising cunt :D

I've seen Dawkins have to argue himself out of a hole created by the misinterpretation of his ideas more times than I've blinked, and it isn't like he's bad at explaining them... He single handedly clarified the entire principle of natural selection in his books when I first became familiar with him. Admittedly, I probably came away from them with some *other* misunderstandings, but it's in that way that this subject is so constantly rewarding. Every time we learn more, both individually and in science, we discover gaps and inconsistencies in our understanding. Exciting!

Also, I love how far this has strayed from the OP, although in an abstract way it's very, very on-topic.