12 ms·
Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009)
- m0llusk 10y agoThis is really sloppy. Altruism is also the basis for Altruistic Punishment which can promote some of the most vicious behavior that humans are capable of. Social systems are much more complex than this simplistic reductionism.
- andrewclunn 10y agoBut if you can convince people that there's just one simple way to be (instead of reacting to the situation at hand) then you can sell more self help books / appeal to a simplistic view of emotions where some are 'positive' and others 'negative.'
- JauntyHatAngle 10y ago"Social systems are much more complex than this simplistic reductionism." Bit of a misnomer that, surely, as reductionism is all about simplifying things into digestable components. Also this is an interview piece, its not going to go in depth.
- smallnamespace 10y agoNot to mention that altruistic behavior towards members of the in-group is often paired with extreme violence towards outsiders. Humans are literally Jekyll and Hyde.
- mjfl 10y agoTell that to the Mongols.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- amasad 10y agoIn 'The God Delusion' Richard Dawkins mentions a few ways altruism and compassion etc could've evolved in humans (by way of selfish genes). I remember one fascinating example about Arabian babblers which use altruism to assert dominance. They seek out increasingly dangerous positions to alert the herd of potential predetors. And by feeding others as a way to say 'look at me I am so superior to you I can afford to feed you'. Of course, they are rewarded by getting all the mates.
- farnsworth 10y agoThe Arabian Babbler is a bird, for anyone else who was imagining a babbling Arabian human. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_babbler#Behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_babbler#Behaviour - interesting
- nyolfen 10y agothere's an excellent blog post i read recently that builds on the model of arabian babblers to describe how altruistic 'prestige economies' can evolve from self-interested motives in really compelling way: http://www.meltingasphalt.com/social-status-down-the-rabbit-hole/ http://www.meltingasphalt.com/social-status-down-the-rabbit-... (a bit long, but very worth it)
- foobarian 10y agoFeels like there is a type mismatch error in the title. Survival of the fittest covers all fitness functions, so we can't contrast it with kindness. Something like "survival of the cruelest" or the "strongest" would be more correct though it doesn't read as well.
- holyOrIonsBelt 10y agoThe title does not infer contrast between fitness and kindness, it infers that (were one to write a fitness function that was made up of a conglomerate of every human personality trait) kindness is the prime mover in what separates the fittest from the least fit. I also think you might misunderstand what the word kindness means, as you refer to cruelty and strength as some measure of adequate relation to what would be deemed fit in some similar function. I think it's a fairly cogent statement, as great and influential persons are, by and large, incredibly kind. Of course, if one thinks that power equates with influence, or that fitness is best represented by wealth, I would posit that there is a huge correlation between wealth, kindness, and authority. For instance, President Obama is quite obviously an incredibly kind man. William Gates, Jr., a philanthropist (read: about as far away from unkind as you can get), Her Majesty the Queen of England, the titular head of an Empire, leads a family that donates a huge amount of their wealth to the citizenry of the United Kingdom, and is as sunny as anyone in her position could possibly be (have you ever once seen her upset in public, because I haven't), these instances alone give clear indication that kindness is, indeed, perhaps an indisputable barometer of what is meant by being fit for survival. By contrast, who do you know who is sought by society for capital punishment? The unkind, that's who. Those who are cruel are brought up before magistrates, tribunals, and high courts and told in no uncertain terms that their survival is undesirable by the masses. Fitness in a world of more than a few is entirely dependent on symbiotic, cohesive, gentile (in the French sense, though Christ is an inordinately germane example of kindness too) behavior.
- geggam 10y ago* President Obama is quite obviously an incredibly kind man * http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/12/reflecting-on-obamas-presidency/obamas-embrace-of-drone-strikes-will-be-a-lasting-legacy http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/12/reflecting-o...
- ChrisNorstrom 10y ago-
- taneq 10y agoYou're getting a lot of downvotes but no-one is helping you understand why. > "kindness" in the human world is similar to kindness in the animal world. It translates to weakness, which is why evolution naturally weeds it out of most animals. Kindness among kin groups translates to stronger groups, so There's a reason that humans are naturally altruistic and punish crimes against their in-group so vigorously: A solitary human outside of civilisation will struggle and probably die. A bunch of humans working together rules the planet.
- icomefromreddit 10y ago> A psychologist probes... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
- jonmc12 10y agoTitle should indicate this is from 2009.
- acqq 10y agoYes, from the first question "a book that was just released called Born to Be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life" is from 2009: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/review/born-to-be-good-the-science-of-a-meaningful-life http://www.barnesandnoble.com/review/born-to-be-good-the-sci...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pcmaffey 10y agoKindness is a poor word choice, except in its most literal sense. Care is much more apt. Mammals' key evolutionary advantage over reptiles is that they care for each other, forming social groups which enable greater fitness. Likewise with primates > mammals, and humans > apes. (One could argue that intelligence and brain size have more to do with evolutionary fitness, but I would speculate that intelligence is a result of increased care, not the other way around. Give a thing more time, space, and resources to grow, and it will.) As a species, the more we collectively care for each other--through actions, not feelings--, the greater chance we have for survival and growth.
- partycoder 10y agoWell, I would rather call it organization rather than just care. While the highest level of animal organization is called eusociality, humans are not hardwired to be eusocial but can display very advanced division of labor. Now, I would not really say advantage or disadvantage. Each species have a specific role in the ecosystem and sometimes they're related in very unexpected ways. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
- edblarney 10y agoI think 'responsibility' is a better word. We are 'responsible' for one another, but in far more than just 'caring' ways. We take out the trash, we try to get along, we do all sorts of things every day that really fall into the category of 'acting responsibly' that in some ways could be described as 'caring' in a more general sense, but it wouldn't be apt. 'Conscientiousness' could be an even better word.
- matt4077 10y agoIt's (part of) agreeableness in the Big Five: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Five_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Fi...
- djyaz1200 10y agoThere is a thoughtful book on this topic called "Love is the Killer App" that makes the argument that in a commodity based economy the most ruthless prevail (think 20th century steel industry), but in an information based community the most altruistic prevail (the internet). I didn't agree with all of it but it was a good read and a helpful counterpoint to the widely held view that being ruthless is good for business.
- divbit 10y agoPerhaps I'm completely cynical at this point, but I think recently I have seen altruism used in the sense of "please contribute large amounts of free work to this project I'm heavily invested in." That said, kindness, in the sense of, willing to make an attempt to understand, and take into account others views / opinions / needs, definitely makes for nicer people to be around.
- tcdent 10y agoWalking down the street and experiencing hospitable conditions could be considered a project we're all heavily invested in, yet none of us expect a monetary reward. "Survival of the fittest" can be interpreted in the same manner. Or, from a different perspective, a willingness to step over one's mother to achieve their goals. Life is better when we respect eachother.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago> Perhaps I'm completely cynical at this point, but I think recently I have seen altruism used in the sense of "please contribute large amounts of free work to this project I'm heavily invested in." A bit cynical in a way you put it, maybe, but what you saw is true. But it's just what comes out when you consider helping someone and actually getting an effect over helping to just get warm feelings in your belly about how good you are. It so happens that in a technological civilization, spending our time as specialists to earn money and giving it to different specialists is a better way to help than trying to help directly in areas we're not specialized in. It's how professional specialization works.
- macawfish 10y agoThis is in line with recent game theory studies. In iterated prisoner's dilemma, the introduction of kindness wipes out always-defect strategies in the long run, and is competitive with tit-for-tat.
- Kronopath 10y agoCan you elaborate on this? How do you implement "kindness" into the prisoner's dilemma? Got any links to the relevant studies?
- Applejinx 10y agoOne way I might do that is, occasionally throw in a 'cooperate' independent of whatever other strategy I've got. Doing that will tend to convert tit-for-tatters and might flip other strategies into cooperating. If you grade by the total number of cooperate moves in the group, the group wins by 'kindness' flipping a variety of strategies into cooperate mode. It'll tend to expand pockets of cooperation. No immediate personal benefit, but tends to make the environment better which may seem like a benefit. I don't think 'survival of the fittest' has to mean 'kneecap all your opponents and rent-seek', but that's the popular interpretation in Western capitalism :)
- ColanR 10y agoIf you had a reference for this, I would love to read it. (not sarcastic; this is fascinating.)
- sctb 10y agoI'm not sure exactly what the OP is referring to, but there was an article recently on HN that talked about what I assume is related research and includes references: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13210681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13210681.
- sago 10y agoWhen I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed the emergence of altruistic behaviour. It was really really difficult. Even knowing exactly the kind of behaviour we wanted to show, it wasn't trivial to stack the dice enough to roll that outcome. I have since read a lot of arguments, a lot of post-hoc reasoning that justifies why altruism might be a positive contributor to fitness. It is no coincidence they are almost all hand-waving, narrative arguments. I don't buy them. Show me the math. Evolution is a perfect subject for handwaving and post hoc rationalisations. I do not think all of evolutionary psychology is bunkum, like some have claimed, but I do think a lot is unfalsifiable, motivated reasoning. My advice would be, unless it comes with good predictions of evidence from the historical biological record, or good experimental evidence from mathematical models of evolution, it was too easily come by to be considered knowledge.
- pdamoc 10y ago> Show me the math. Imagine a game you play with someone where you have 40 units and you need to divide it between the two of you. The other person has the choice of accepting the deal or refusing the deal. If they refuse, both of you get nothing. How do you divide the 40 units so that the other person accepts the deal? Naive economics points that even if you offer the other only 1 unit, the other should take it because if they refuse the deal, they wouldn't have even that unit. In practice however, people down't work like that. If people feel they are being treated wrong, they tend to go for lose-lose. And so, in these kind of games, most people go for a fair split 20-20. Now, imagine the same game but with a twist. You have a bunch of instances of these games and your objective is to have the highest score across all the instances. The trick is that the other player has to chose you to play with. What strategy would you adopt so that you maximize the score? In this game, a 25-15 split is better. You lose the small game BUT more players want to play with you and so, you win the BIG game. Altruistic players are better at playing the BIG game, the long term game.
- icebraining 10y agoYou're essentially saying that "bread and circuses" counts as an altruistic action. If you're expecting a payout, isn't that by definition not altruism?
- lngnmn 10y agoKindness? Among bacteria, fungi, cells and viruses? How does kindness fits into population genetics?
- bbcbasic 10y agoThe article is about humans
- jolux 10y agothey might need some cold water for that burn
- lngnmn 10y agoAre humans or any part of their biology exempt from the evolutionary forces?
- bbcbasic 10y agoNo. Your point is?
- lngnmn 10y agoThat competition for survival and reproduction is the main factor which outweight everything else. Family and social bonds are also among the most powerful forces, but it is the selfish aspect of favoring and protecting one's relatives what matters. Altruism and kindness are also minor factors, but the weakest ones, and, obviously, cannot be thought as replacement for the general laws of ecosystems based on survival and reproduction, which basically means lifetime ongoing competition for everything that is related to passing of the genes to another generation. Reframing of evolutionary forces to be more humanistic is, of course, bullshit.
- bbcbasic 10y agoOk I see that makes sense. Austruism and kindness might be beneficial at a tribal level as you will likely meet the person again and they or their family may pay back the favour. Even if that isn't a conscious thought by the person being nice. Nowadays this is less obviously beneficial in our big cities and jet set lifestyles. And as you said kindness is part of a bigger set of factors and perhaps a lesser one.
- aliceyhg 10y agoWhenever conflict arises at work, I usually just take a pause and buy the other person a drink and get to know each other on a more personal level. Its fun doing this and usually it ends up with me understanding my coworker on a more human level and we come to an agreement and work better together. A few years ago I would have fought to have my way and as satisfying as it was to win (occasionally), the attitude is very divisive and alienating for both parties involved.
- Vinnl 10y agoWork is an especially odd situation as "your way" is not necessarily to benefit you. Oftentimes, you both have the same goal ("what's best for the company"), but you disagree on how to reach that ("A is best" vs "B is best"). Once you realise and agree on that, conflicts become easier to resolve.
- k__ 10y agoI'm doing Polyamory for the better part of my adult life and I learned much about conflict resolution. Because when you have multiple partners and they also have multiple partners you just end up with problems more often. If you take too long to fix these, the whole thing isn't viable anymore. This also helped me in my career. I stopped thinking about "relationships" from a monogamous romantical point of view, but in a more generalized way. I have feelings for every person I meet in life, some I love, some I like, some I find sexually attractive, some I find intellectual inspiring etc. I want to be on good terms with all of those who I consider to be in my life for longer time, so I can't work with secrecy, fighting or passive aggressive behaviour.
- venomsnake 10y agoOne quarter of people in Asia has Chengis Khan's genes. He is probably the most genetically successfull male in the recent millenia. I am not sure he got there by altruism alone.
- pmyjavec 10y agoExcept Ghengis was around Millenia ago, if we all lived like him now, then we would be in pretty bad shape. It seems taking more than our fair share has caused some pretty bad situations with regards to the environment, we can't keep operating just for ourselves for much longer.
- ygmelnikova 10y agoThis whole discussion sounds so academic and methodical, as though there's some formula or algorithm that, if we can just figure it out, will give us some kind of 'ah, there it is' moment. Man is clearly dynamic, and has a spiritual side that can't be measured. One minute I'm altruistic, and the next I want the last seat on the bus. One day I'm giving away my old TV, the next I'm duking it out with some old lady at Walmart on Boxing day to get a new one. Go figure.
- jondubois 10y agoThe best evolutionary strategy for a human is to pretend to be nice but to be selfish and manipulative behind the scenes. Even if you make a mistake and damage your reputation, you can still move to a different city/country and start over with a clean slate.
- ghusbands 10y agoAs long as you don't want a family or career.
- jondubois 10y agoFamily, maybe. But being manipulative and two-faced is great for career - So long as no one ever finds out. There are lots of safe strategies that one can use to make sure that no one ever finds out about your double dealings. Successful people know how to lie and cheat effectively; but they know where to draw the line. I guarantee you that practically every financially successful person ever has used lying and manipulation to get what they wanted. The ones who didn't cheat or lie and still managed to succeed just got extremely lucky.
- ihaveahadron 10y agoI don't know how much kindness counts, but while survival of the fittest still exists, what doesn't exist is the things that come to mind when you hear sirvival of the fittest. Usually you think of like a half monkey with a spear. Point being wake the fuck up people pull your head a out of your asses and, evolve, whatever "evolving" looks like in 2017. Hint, it's not trying to be a flamboyant faggot either.
- mark_l_watson 10y agoIn modern society, this is so obvious that it seems not worth writing about. Most successful people I know are kind and considerate while people I have known who are not so successful in life tend to not consider other people. OK, I am making a generalization, but one that is usually true.
- k__ 10y agoThe more problems you have, the less time you have for others?
- tomhoward 10y agoOr, the less you give to others, the more problems you'll have. In my experience (and I'm speaking very much from personal experience of having suffered from - or been punished by - this phenomenon), the causality is not exclusively in either direction. Rather, it's a self-perpetuating cycle.
- sixstringtheory 10y agoPost hoc ergo propter hoc. "Rich people tend to be happier, more carefree and donate more money. Therefore they are rich because of those characteristics." Consider that people are mostly not in charge of how "successful" they become (I'm assuming this is more financial success than self actualized success), and are trying their best to react to whatever hand life dealt them. You said it: you are generalizing based solely on your own experience.
- Pica_soO 10y agoIt was never survival of the fittest- it is survival of the most adapted to a situation. If the situation rewards kindness- survival of the kindest- if the situation rewards being a heartless, survival of the heartless. If the situation is constantly fluctuating, survival of the system swinging between the both, by adapting to environmental clues. Can we please let go of 1930 evolution papers wording and thinking and move on?
- rfrey 10y ago"It was never survival of the fittest- it is survival of the most adapted to a situation" Isn't that exactly what "fittest" means? First definition from Oxford: "of a suitable quality, standard, or type to meet the required purpose."
- prof_hobart 10y agoIt's one of the meanings, and presumably the one that was in mind when the term was coined. But an awful lot of people seem to take it to mean the other sense - "in good health, especially because of regular physical exercise", and extrapolate that out to mean that it's always the strongest/fastest etc that survive.
- visarga 10y agoIt was never survival of the fittest individual - it is survival of the fittest group, family, village and nation. So it implies caring or altruism.
- stefanix 10y agoWe certainly have this kind of adaptation for tribal structures. The question is how this plays out on a larger scale. BTW Jordan Peterson's latest podcast goes deep on this issue. His podcast is here: http://jordanbpeterson.com/2016/12/podcast/ http://jordanbpeterson.com/2016/12/podcast/
- jyriand 10y agoReminds me of Peter Kroptotkin's idea of Mutual Aid [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolut... Full book: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4341 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4341
- aaronhoffman 10y agoHow trade creates wealth: "Trade is made of win" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0gGyeA-8C4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0gGyeA-8C4
- rustynails 10y agoIn summary, I dismiss the article as flawed (false and overly simplistic). No matter how noble (kind) your society, if the next society practices savagery and you are not prepared, your society will fail. The level at which you pitch the concept of kindness is essential, as is the environment. To illustrate, many comments in this thread fail to hold for an example like the Mongols, or may argue that the Mongols wiping out civilisations was altruistic or kind. In a simplistic way, the Mongols survived through cooperation (as their society had some cruel rules that were definitely not kind), cruelty to outsiders and through theft. However, you could also contrast Chinggis Khan with Darius I of Persia who demonstrated far more kindness throughout his reign than Chinggis did. Both leaders in their own way were quite successful. If you consider individuals, the dynamics can be quite different from those of nations, depending on the environment. If you limit the view to modern, first world societies, cooperation with ones peers is still essential and almost certainly more important than kindness. To illustrate, if I give everyone around me all of my money, that could be considered kind (think of a lottery winner). However, ultimately, such kindness (no matter how misguided) will usually lead to little or no benefit for the individual. Even if you compare two similarly cooperative people, the most competent cooperator will usually out perform a kinder cooperator. It will depend on the society as to whether an individual's empathy for those in need will add to the success of the individual and/or the community. For example, where a society has social welfare, an individual can point to the welfare system rather than directly contributing to the welfare of those in need. Family dynamics are yet another level of complexity. Does a priority of kindness go to the family or the local community? What constitutes success of the family? Families that cooperate are more likely to succeed beyond those that are purely kind to each other. However, family cohesion is almost certainly dependent on both kindness and cooperation. There are also work place environments, community group environments, local community environments, state and territory and country environments. In order to be successful, these environments require competency and cooperation. Kindness may or may not be required. Regarding kindness. In my observations of modern society (collectively), I observe that there are some examples that complicate concepts such as kindness. For example feminism* insists that domestic violence is something that only happens to females (through ignorance of statistics or for less savoury reasons). Ultimately, what this demonstrates is that kindness can be selectively applied and still be recognised as acceptable. In summary, I don't see kindness as essential (at least not in all circumstances). Kindness can be selective (eg. Feminism's human rights failures with respect to domestic violence by representing only one gender) and, yet, such kindness can be seen as socially acceptable. Kindness can also be handed off to community and government groups in some circumstances. However, unlike kindness, cooperation is essential for individuals and groups. * to be clear, feminism can not and should not be interchangeably used with female. Not all feminists are female and not all females are feminist. I think of feminism more like the KKK. Not all white people support the KKK and a criticism of the KKK is not a criticism of white people collectively.
- pasbesoin 10y agoNone of this exists independent of environment. Mismatch your behavior to the environment, and you're screwed. People consistently compliment me for being "such a nice guy." And I've made, and valued, many alliances with contemporaries. But the power brokers? They've screwed me right over. If you are unmitigatedly kind while hoping for reciprocity in matters essential to your own well-being. Well, either you are weakening yourself, or you are not really being "kind" by failing to respect the particular circumstances and the other party. Or some combination of these. People become less and less comfortable with you, and continued kindness is actually perceived negatively. Unmitigated kindness is another false, simplistic lesson that has been counter-productively fostered in recent decades.