8 ms·

When 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 emer

by sago 10y ago

When 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 ago
  You'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?
  - dmichulke 10y ago
    The payout is the problem with the definition "altruism", you can always find a reason for which the person did it, even if it was just because she felt better due to helping others. If you ask this question, you either have to have one example where there is no payout at all (note this should be an example most people agree on) or you accept there is no altruism, at least not following your definition of the word.
formula1 10y ago
Dogs are a good example of symbiotic relationships in relation to altruism. If you give an animal free stuff, they may return you a favor. Humans, though arguably more complicated, have a long history of group hunting and enslaving eachother. While under an alpha, a system naturally develops. However, if that alpha dies or another human wants to rise up, being kind is a way to gain allies. Additionally, when at large scale war, often you can trust your cultural bretheran better than the enemy. As a result, its important to have as many healthy and proud people as possible inorder to go to war. A culture of kindness and giving can support that. Additionally, this is all about genetics. While there is always an argument that your genes are the best genes, cultural agreement can give faith that the best will rise and flourish. Treating your neighbor as you would yourself reinforces the hope that even in failure of the individual, the group can still succeed. Im sure theres more
continuational 10y ago
I don't know if it counts for alturism, but wasn't cooperation-by-default famously shown the best strategy by the tit-for-tat program in the early 80'ies? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
- cimi_ 10y ago
  Robert Sapolsky covers this in one of his courses on evolutionary biology. I found the content to be approachable and the man charming, I highly recommend the course. (I am not a biologist!) http://www.robertsapolskyrocks.com/behavioral-evolution.html http://www.robertsapolskyrocks.com/behavioral-evolution.html
- naasking 10y ago
  Yes, it is the most effective strategy in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, which seems to most closely match social interactions. Better strategies were recently found, but they are highly convoluted and involve knowing your opponents strategy and manipulating it into doing what you want.
  - adrianN 10y ago
    Do you have a reference for the more complicated strategies?
    - naasking 10y ago
      https://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/a-new-strategy-for-the-iterated-prisoners-dilemma-game/ https://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/a-new-strategy...
arketyp 10y ago
Do you have anything to say about Nowak's work on evolutionary dynamics? I have a book in my shelf in which I have only glanced the pictures, and as of yet my understanding of altriusm in nature is pretty much limited to readings of Axelrod and his tit-for-tat and also Dawkins' further musings around the subject.
z3t4 10y ago
Maybe you can find an answer in game theory!? If you know the other part will cooperate, outcome will most of the time be better for both. If you know the other part will defect, outcome will most of the time be bad for both.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> When 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. OK, math. There are 200 people in Group A. Each has the choice of taking 1 point for themselves or giving 2 points to the group. If everyone gives 2 points then everyone gets 2 points. If everyone keeps the 1 point then no one gets anything from the group and everyone has only the 1 point. But if you keep your 1 point and everyone else gives 2 points then you get 1 + 1.99 points = 2.99 points. You can obviously see how everyone might end up defecting here. But there are also groups B and C who are all under the same rules. After each iteration everyone in the group with the lowest average dies, is ineligible to receive points in any future iteration, and is replaced in the next iteration with a new group that behaves randomly. Each individual gets to accumulate points for 100 iterations before being replaced, unless their group dies first. Now what happens?
- negamax 10y ago
  Good example but in most real world cases choice will be to keep one point to themselves and give away between zero to one point to the group out of that one point. Now selfish behaviour kicks in as every individual wants to give as little as possible. But survivial of the group becomes crucial in face of an adversory. In that case everyone will contribute towards maximising group's strength. So in my understanding nature and wars (to a lesser degree) shaped altruism. But mostly nature. There's no way monkeys can survive without taking care of each other and group dynamics are strongest amongst them. Altruism is completely practical.
  - gbrits 10y ago
    But can it still be called altruism? Imho, helping out the group to preserve yourself disqualifies it as such; the selfish aspect is clearly there.
    - negamax 10y ago
      That's why I called it practical. It's more like a long term investment where everyone wins (not only you). That's why it can be considered selfless.
int_19h 10y ago
If I understand the nature of the math correctly, altruism should be "beneficial" (from evolutionary perspective), if the number of people multiplied by closeness factor of their genes to yours ultimately translates to a larger portion of your genes propagating to later generations, than if you have expended those resources on yourself. E.g. suppose I have a loaf of lembas. I can eat it myself, and it increases my chance of surviving and reproducing merely by 10%, because, while I'm starving, I'm healthy. But I have three siblings who share 50% of their genes with me, and who are starving and sick. If I give all my lembas to them, their chances of surviving and reproducing increase twofold, and become same as my current chance. In that case, it makes sense for me (or rather my genes) to evolve the behavior whereby I give away the lembas, because these three survivors will spread the genes that we share more efficiently than I alone. Now, obviously, the math here has to add up in real-world scenarios - is that what you mean by "it wasn't trivial to stack the dice"? It just feels like it shouldn't be hard to come up with many cases where all the coefficients line up...
- hueving 10y ago
  Evolutionary instinct is to create your own offspring, not your sister's/brother's. Why would there be an evolutionary reason to help your brother reproduce but not your friend.?
  - flomble 10y ago
    Because your brother shares around 50% of your genes. Helping your brother reproduce therefore helps to propagate some of your genes. The principle behind this is that evolution operates at the level of genes, rather than individuals. I recommend Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene for a fuller explanation.
  - grzm 10y ago
    J.B.S. Haldane, when asked if he would give his life to save a drowning brother, replied "No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins." As you share on average half your alleles with a brother and one-eighth with a cousin, Haldane was giving the number of relatives one would have to save to "break even". As quoted in Mathematical Models of Social Evolution : A Guide for the Perplexed (2007) by Richard McElreath and Robert Boyd, p. 82; https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane This is in relation to the idea of kin selection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
InclinedPlane 10y ago
Altruism is a way to bequeath a competitive advantage to another who is not your immediate offspring but is part of your gene pool. Altruism is one of the most pervasive forms of interaction in life on Earth because it is the mechanism by which multi-cellular life functions at a basic level.
patkai 10y ago
This is a bit surprising to me. Based on my gut I assumed that if a group has a sufficient probability of producing individuals with "broken selfishness" then the group has a higher fitness to survive, especially if some evolutionary pressure requires these "different" individuals. But this is probably not this simple.
stonewhite 10y ago
While I agree with your general sentiment, here is an anectode that might be considered as evolutionary "softening". Assyrian empire was extremely brutal to people it conquered, Persians who took its place was more "humane" to their conquered subjects as a policy. Resulting in a relatively more stable land and subjects were submitting "willingly". From that point on, it was their main selling point.
tiatia 10y ago
Axelrod? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation#Axelrod.27s_tournaments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation#A...
JohnStrange 10y ago
I agree that there are doubts about some of the models, e.g. evolutionary game theory is not a model of evolution. My problem with these kinds of evolutionary arguments is different, though. It seems to me that their interpreters often assume that identifying some behavior as evolutionary advantageous to an individual or group is somehow correlated with the goodness or desirability of that behavior. That's a fallacy. Whether the behavior is commendable, good, desirable, etc. is not related to its capability of increasing the long-term survival and spreading of someone's genes. (I'm not claiming everyone makes this association, but some seem to make it.) Moreover, there seem to be countless examples of behavior that we are perfectly capable of and whose effect is difficult if not impossible to explain with evolutionary arguments. Some of them are considered commendable, other not. Random examples: - spending your life in almost solitary confinement to solve some math problem - deciding not to have children - waging wars - not passing your wealth on to your useless son and instead give everything to a charity - being gay or asexual - writing a novel without getting paid for it and that also doesn't increase your mating chances The list could go on and on. Of course, evolutionary explanations may be constructed for any of them, but it's kind of doubtful that all human activities fit into this scheme. So my two points are: a.) Whether altruistic behavior is good/desirable or not has nothing to do with its contribution to evolutionary fitness. b.) Within some limits, we are perfectly capable of behaving in ways that are not evolutionary advantageous to us. Finally, evolutionary models of social behavior that are not based on the genetic transmission of behavior simply do not have anything to do with real evolution. I've often seen real evolution being deliberately mixed up with ideas about the spreading on information contained in books, web pages, speech, etc. but I fail to see how the spreading of this information could be even remotely related to the way genes spread. Once you hear about a social fitness function or the fitness of a meme, you can in my opinion safely assume that the author pulled that concept out of his ass or copied it from others who did so.
- edblarney 10y ago
  No, I think this is wrong. Behaviours that groups exhibit will definitely be passed on from individual to individual and definitely have an effect on the ability of the group to survive. And - whether something is passed on socially or through genes, it doesn't matter. 'Evolution' is not just a function of genes, obviously. Your list of 'behaviours' is easy to describe, and I'll do it in context of your 'a' and 'b' positions. From 'b' - "we are perfectly capable of behaving in ways that are not evolutionary advantageous to us" - obviously. But who cares? The species that takes up the best behaviours for it's environment will persist beyond those that do not. From 'a' - Whether altruistic behavior is good/desirable or not has nothing to do with its contribution to evolutionary fitness. Yes it does. Run a little evolutionary simulation a a computer program. Create little 'bits' that evolve over time, and interact with one another - you'll see the bugs with the best social behaviours win - the others dissapear. - " spending your life in almost solitary confinement to solve some math problem" First off - this did not happen until way, way into human social development. Once we have complex social functions, it makes evolutionary sense to allocate some members of society towards 'very long term' thinking. 'The guy in the cave' is the same thing as a PhD today: someone who'd dedicated their life to something probably trivial or irrelevant, but which may have huge impact, possibly in the future. - 'war' - war is perfectly understandable as selfish behaviour in the short run: a social group can 'get ahead' quickly by taking stuff of others. - 'not passing on stuff to kids'. From a social perspective, it doesn't matter that much if the money goes to one's kids, or the neighbors kids. Both will contribute to group survival. "I've often seen real evolution being deliberately mixed up with ideas about the spreading on information contained in books, web pages, speech, etc. but I fail to see how the spreading of this information could be even remotely related to the way genes spread" It's very simple: an organism that learns how to read and write, and to pass down it's knowledge from generation to generation will 'out survive' ones that don't - and their genes are much more likely to be passed on.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
What about Nash equilibria? People here may well have asked this already in a different way; I haven't checked all the questions to see if they actually are describing Nash equilibria.
k__ 10y ago
Strange that this is so hard to prove. When I see how much investment we take in people these days, it comes naturally to me that we have to look after each other. People are expensive to produce and maintain and experience doesn't grow on trees.
marcosdumay 10y ago
If in your simulation individuals could improve themselves as well as their group fit, I'd expect group dynamics to only have any relevance when the number of individuals is very big. Individual improvement leads to faster responses, so you'll need a big amount of diversity to let group improvement make any difference. That said, I do expect it to be hard. Nature created cooperating species more than once, but not that many times¹. And it had half a billion years of a simulation that was certainly much larger than yours. 1 - Counting placentarial mammals only once, what is very likely correct.
kartan 10y ago
> It was really really difficult. I think that this was easier explained in "The Selfish Gene". Individual altruism is an emergent characteristic of a selfish gene. I risk my live 10 times to save others until I die without off-spring. It is altruistic for me, but the gene has saved 10 people that are probably related to me. That means that the gene has a probability over 10% to be in that other individuals it is a win for the gene. From my point of view it sucks, I don't have offspring. But the gene survives and prospers. This is still more extreme in species like bumblebees where sisters share 75% of their genes. For monozygotic twins there is a similar case. From the gene perspective is irrelevant if one survives or the other, even that it is really important for the individuals.
- aj0strow 10y ago
  I can think of a few more reasons beyond rescue. - It's easier to find a significant other with whom to produce offspring if you exhibit kindness and charity to others. - Generosity is often reciprocated. - Giving implies EQ so altruistic person also likely takes care of family. That's the issue with statistical models with finite decisions and states, they don't include enough parameters and interactions to capture anything relating to real life. Like imagine a prehistoric human feeds a weak stranger, later that month the stranger warns them of danger. It's so obvious how kindness could be beneficial gene.
geggam 10y ago
Altruism generates a sense of community. The most successful among us learn to generate an appearance of altruism while keeping the majority of the resources for themselves. It's really more about deception than anything else.
pron 10y ago
What about Hamilton's kin selection and the Price equation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation

by sago 10y ago

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 ago
You'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?
- dmichulke 10y ago
  The payout is the problem with the definition "altruism", you can always find a reason for which the person did it, even if it was just because she felt better due to helping others. If you ask this question, you either have to have one example where there is no payout at all (note this should be an example most people agree on) or you accept there is no altruism, at least not following your definition of the word.

formula1 10y ago

Dogs are a good example of symbiotic relationships in relation to altruism. If you give an animal free stuff, they may return you a favor. Humans, though arguably more complicated, have a long history of group hunting and enslaving eachother. While under an alpha, a system naturally develops. However, if that alpha dies or another human wants to rise up, being kind is a way to gain allies. Additionally, when at large scale war, often you can trust your cultural bretheran better than the enemy. As a result, its important to have as many healthy and proud people as possible inorder to go to war. A culture of kindness and giving can support that. Additionally, this is all about genetics. While there is always an argument that your genes are the best genes, cultural agreement can give faith that the best will rise and flourish. Treating your neighbor as you would yourself reinforces the hope that even in failure of the individual, the group can still succeed. Im sure theres more

continuational 10y ago

I don't know if it counts for alturism, but wasn't cooperation-by-default famously shown the best strategy by the tit-for-tat program in the early 80'ies? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

cimi_ 10y ago
Robert Sapolsky covers this in one of his courses on evolutionary biology. I found the content to be approachable and the man charming, I highly recommend the course. (I am not a biologist!) http://www.robertsapolskyrocks.com/behavioral-evolution.html http://www.robertsapolskyrocks.com/behavioral-evolution.html
naasking 10y ago
Yes, it is the most effective strategy in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, which seems to most closely match social interactions. Better strategies were recently found, but they are highly convoluted and involve knowing your opponents strategy and manipulating it into doing what you want.
- adrianN 10y ago
  Do you have a reference for the more complicated strategies?
  - naasking 10y ago
    https://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/a-new-strategy-for-the-iterated-prisoners-dilemma-game/ https://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/a-new-strategy...

arketyp 10y ago

Do you have anything to say about Nowak's work on evolutionary dynamics? I have a book in my shelf in which I have only glanced the pictures, and as of yet my understanding of altriusm in nature is pretty much limited to readings of Axelrod and his tit-for-tat and also Dawkins' further musings around the subject.

z3t4 10y ago

Maybe you can find an answer in game theory!? If you know the other part will cooperate, outcome will most of the time be better for both. If you know the other part will defect, outcome will most of the time be bad for both.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> When 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. OK, math. There are 200 people in Group A. Each has the choice of taking 1 point for themselves or giving 2 points to the group. If everyone gives 2 points then everyone gets 2 points. If everyone keeps the 1 point then no one gets anything from the group and everyone has only the 1 point. But if you keep your 1 point and everyone else gives 2 points then you get 1 + 1.99 points = 2.99 points. You can obviously see how everyone might end up defecting here. But there are also groups B and C who are all under the same rules. After each iteration everyone in the group with the lowest average dies, is ineligible to receive points in any future iteration, and is replaced in the next iteration with a new group that behaves randomly. Each individual gets to accumulate points for 100 iterations before being replaced, unless their group dies first. Now what happens?

negamax 10y ago
Good example but in most real world cases choice will be to keep one point to themselves and give away between zero to one point to the group out of that one point. Now selfish behaviour kicks in as every individual wants to give as little as possible. But survivial of the group becomes crucial in face of an adversory. In that case everyone will contribute towards maximising group's strength. So in my understanding nature and wars (to a lesser degree) shaped altruism. But mostly nature. There's no way monkeys can survive without taking care of each other and group dynamics are strongest amongst them. Altruism is completely practical.
- gbrits 10y ago
  But can it still be called altruism? Imho, helping out the group to preserve yourself disqualifies it as such; the selfish aspect is clearly there.
  - negamax 10y ago
    That's why I called it practical. It's more like a long term investment where everyone wins (not only you). That's why it can be considered selfless.

int_19h 10y ago

If I understand the nature of the math correctly, altruism should be "beneficial" (from evolutionary perspective), if the number of people multiplied by closeness factor of their genes to yours ultimately translates to a larger portion of your genes propagating to later generations, than if you have expended those resources on yourself. E.g. suppose I have a loaf of lembas. I can eat it myself, and it increases my chance of surviving and reproducing merely by 10%, because, while I'm starving, I'm healthy. But I have three siblings who share 50% of their genes with me, and who are starving and sick. If I give all my lembas to them, their chances of surviving and reproducing increase twofold, and become same as my current chance. In that case, it makes sense for me (or rather my genes) to evolve the behavior whereby I give away the lembas, because these three survivors will spread the genes that we share more efficiently than I alone. Now, obviously, the math here has to add up in real-world scenarios - is that what you mean by "it wasn't trivial to stack the dice"? It just feels like it shouldn't be hard to come up with many cases where all the coefficients line up...

hueving 10y ago
Evolutionary instinct is to create your own offspring, not your sister's/brother's. Why would there be an evolutionary reason to help your brother reproduce but not your friend.?
- flomble 10y ago
  Because your brother shares around 50% of your genes. Helping your brother reproduce therefore helps to propagate some of your genes. The principle behind this is that evolution operates at the level of genes, rather than individuals. I recommend Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene for a fuller explanation.
- grzm 10y ago
  J.B.S. Haldane, when asked if he would give his life to save a drowning brother, replied "No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins." As you share on average half your alleles with a brother and one-eighth with a cousin, Haldane was giving the number of relatives one would have to save to "break even". As quoted in Mathematical Models of Social Evolution : A Guide for the Perplexed (2007) by Richard McElreath and Robert Boyd, p. 82; https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane This is in relation to the idea of kin selection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

InclinedPlane 10y ago

Altruism is a way to bequeath a competitive advantage to another who is not your immediate offspring but is part of your gene pool. Altruism is one of the most pervasive forms of interaction in life on Earth because it is the mechanism by which multi-cellular life functions at a basic level.

patkai 10y ago

This is a bit surprising to me. Based on my gut I assumed that if a group has a sufficient probability of producing individuals with "broken selfishness" then the group has a higher fitness to survive, especially if some evolutionary pressure requires these "different" individuals. But this is probably not this simple.

stonewhite 10y ago

While I agree with your general sentiment, here is an anectode that might be considered as evolutionary "softening". Assyrian empire was extremely brutal to people it conquered, Persians who took its place was more "humane" to their conquered subjects as a policy. Resulting in a relatively more stable land and subjects were submitting "willingly". From that point on, it was their main selling point.

tiatia 10y ago

Axelrod? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation#Axelrod.27s_tournaments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation#A...

JohnStrange 10y ago

I agree that there are doubts about some of the models, e.g. evolutionary game theory is not a model of evolution. My problem with these kinds of evolutionary arguments is different, though. It seems to me that their interpreters often assume that identifying some behavior as evolutionary advantageous to an individual or group is somehow correlated with the goodness or desirability of that behavior. That's a fallacy. Whether the behavior is commendable, good, desirable, etc. is not related to its capability of increasing the long-term survival and spreading of someone's genes. (I'm not claiming everyone makes this association, but some seem to make it.) Moreover, there seem to be countless examples of behavior that we are perfectly capable of and whose effect is difficult if not impossible to explain with evolutionary arguments. Some of them are considered commendable, other not. Random examples: - spending your life in almost solitary confinement to solve some math problem - deciding not to have children - waging wars - not passing your wealth on to your useless son and instead give everything to a charity - being gay or asexual - writing a novel without getting paid for it and that also doesn't increase your mating chances The list could go on and on. Of course, evolutionary explanations may be constructed for any of them, but it's kind of doubtful that all human activities fit into this scheme. So my two points are: a.) Whether altruistic behavior is good/desirable or not has nothing to do with its contribution to evolutionary fitness. b.) Within some limits, we are perfectly capable of behaving in ways that are not evolutionary advantageous to us. Finally, evolutionary models of social behavior that are not based on the genetic transmission of behavior simply do not have anything to do with real evolution. I've often seen real evolution being deliberately mixed up with ideas about the spreading on information contained in books, web pages, speech, etc. but I fail to see how the spreading of this information could be even remotely related to the way genes spread. Once you hear about a social fitness function or the fitness of a meme, you can in my opinion safely assume that the author pulled that concept out of his ass or copied it from others who did so.

edblarney 10y ago
No, I think this is wrong. Behaviours that groups exhibit will definitely be passed on from individual to individual and definitely have an effect on the ability of the group to survive. And - whether something is passed on socially or through genes, it doesn't matter. 'Evolution' is not just a function of genes, obviously. Your list of 'behaviours' is easy to describe, and I'll do it in context of your 'a' and 'b' positions. From 'b' - "we are perfectly capable of behaving in ways that are not evolutionary advantageous to us" - obviously. But who cares? The species that takes up the best behaviours for it's environment will persist beyond those that do not. From 'a' - Whether altruistic behavior is good/desirable or not has nothing to do with its contribution to evolutionary fitness. Yes it does. Run a little evolutionary simulation a a computer program. Create little 'bits' that evolve over time, and interact with one another - you'll see the bugs with the best social behaviours win - the others dissapear. - " spending your life in almost solitary confinement to solve some math problem" First off - this did not happen until way, way into human social development. Once we have complex social functions, it makes evolutionary sense to allocate some members of society towards 'very long term' thinking. 'The guy in the cave' is the same thing as a PhD today: someone who'd dedicated their life to something probably trivial or irrelevant, but which may have huge impact, possibly in the future. - 'war' - war is perfectly understandable as selfish behaviour in the short run: a social group can 'get ahead' quickly by taking stuff of others. - 'not passing on stuff to kids'. From a social perspective, it doesn't matter that much if the money goes to one's kids, or the neighbors kids. Both will contribute to group survival. "I've often seen real evolution being deliberately mixed up with ideas about the spreading on information contained in books, web pages, speech, etc. but I fail to see how the spreading of this information could be even remotely related to the way genes spread" It's very simple: an organism that learns how to read and write, and to pass down it's knowledge from generation to generation will 'out survive' ones that don't - and their genes are much more likely to be passed on.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

What about Nash equilibria? People here may well have asked this already in a different way; I haven't checked all the questions to see if they actually are describing Nash equilibria.

k__ 10y ago

Strange that this is so hard to prove. When I see how much investment we take in people these days, it comes naturally to me that we have to look after each other. People are expensive to produce and maintain and experience doesn't grow on trees.

marcosdumay 10y ago

If in your simulation individuals could improve themselves as well as their group fit, I'd expect group dynamics to only have any relevance when the number of individuals is very big. Individual improvement leads to faster responses, so you'll need a big amount of diversity to let group improvement make any difference. That said, I do expect it to be hard. Nature created cooperating species more than once, but not that many times¹. And it had half a billion years of a simulation that was certainly much larger than yours. 1 - Counting placentarial mammals only once, what is very likely correct.

kartan 10y ago

> It was really really difficult. I think that this was easier explained in "The Selfish Gene". Individual altruism is an emergent characteristic of a selfish gene. I risk my live 10 times to save others until I die without off-spring. It is altruistic for me, but the gene has saved 10 people that are probably related to me. That means that the gene has a probability over 10% to be in that other individuals it is a win for the gene. From my point of view it sucks, I don't have offspring. But the gene survives and prospers. This is still more extreme in species like bumblebees where sisters share 75% of their genes. For monozygotic twins there is a similar case. From the gene perspective is irrelevant if one survives or the other, even that it is really important for the individuals.

aj0strow 10y ago
I can think of a few more reasons beyond rescue. - It's easier to find a significant other with whom to produce offspring if you exhibit kindness and charity to others. - Generosity is often reciprocated. - Giving implies EQ so altruistic person also likely takes care of family. That's the issue with statistical models with finite decisions and states, they don't include enough parameters and interactions to capture anything relating to real life. Like imagine a prehistoric human feeds a weak stranger, later that month the stranger warns them of danger. It's so obvious how kindness could be beneficial gene.

geggam 10y ago

Altruism generates a sense of community. The most successful among us learn to generate an appearance of altruism while keeping the majority of the resources for themselves. It's really more about deception than anything else.

pron 10y ago

What about Hamilton's kin selection and the Price equation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation