4 ms·

> If we model individuals in a shared sociocultural milieu as adapting to similar selection pressures, many stable strategies incorporate altruistic cooperation

by hliyan 3y ago

> If we model individuals in a shared sociocultural milieu as adapting to similar selection pressures, many stable strategies incorporate altruistic cooperation I have always formulated this for myself as follows: Any sufficiently strategic self-interest is indistinguishable from altruism. Empathy is just evolution's way of encoding millions of years of this observation into our emotional response system.

MatthiasWandel 3y ago
I have come to that conclusion myself over the years too. But "bad people" or aholes also have usefulness. You sometimes need people to challenge things that only an unreasonable person would challenge. And you need the occasional Steve Jobs too. But unlike altruistic people, we generally don't give the aholes as much credit. So, ironically, perhaps altruism is the better self serving strategy.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  You can't have too many altruistic people. You can however have too many assholes and the number of assholes where this effect starts to dominate is not all that high. The fact that our societies reward asshole behavior as much as they do is a huge problem.
  - naasking 3y ago
    Not sure that's true. You're assuming altruism has no failure modes or pathologies. I know plenty of people whose altruism is driven by various anxieties and neuroses, which makes them vulnerable to exploitation, at the very least. A whole society of altruists could easily be very fragile and thus vulnerable to the slightest defector or adversary (cf. Galaxy Quest). Some degree of assholes and psychopaths make for robust systems that protect against abuse, intentional or accidental.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Interesting viewpoint. I'm sure some assholes and psychopaths would love to have a figleaf to explain their behavior. But in my experience: you can have 90% nice people and 10% assholes and it will wreck your life. Even 1:30 is probably still too many. And the failure modes and pathologies you describe are external: an exploiter is by definition not part of the group of altruists and that makes them a perfect example of how few assholes it takes to ruin things.
      - naasking 3y ago
        Suggesting we benefit from and should tolerate some degree of assholes is not some kind of justification for asshole behaviour. It's a similar effect where we wouldn't care about computer security if criminals and black hats didn't exist, which would leave us incredibly vulnerable. This doesn't entail that we should proactively hire or encourage criminals and black hats to attack us. The fact that the problems I pointed out are external is because those were just the most obvious failure modes, do not take it as an exhaustive list.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  There's a caveat though, the challenger needs to be a world beater nowadays since so many things are intertwined, a mediocore ahole just adds noise.
- hliyan 3y ago
  In other words, societies that consist only of members who are highly strategic in their self-interest (i.e. altruistic) may be overly stable and lack the sort of disruptions or "mutations" that short-term thinkers introduce. Such societies are likely to stagnate. Consider, as very rough approximations, twentieth century America vs. ancient China.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    While acknowledging the social utility of disruption, I see no reason to conclude that altruism is either incompatible or inversely correlated with the ability to disrupt.
- PakG1 3y ago
  Interestingly enough, it's the a-holes that seem to be getting the most credit and rewards in recent years. Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, all the populist elected heads of state, etc. The kind people seem to be the losers in recent history. Wish it were the opposite.
  - NL807 3y ago
    Because they are more visible due to their flamboyant personalities. I think this was always the case historically.
  - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
    selection or reporting bias. You don't hear of the arseholes that fail.
    - PakG1 3y ago
      The ones that had a chance? Sure I do. The ones that didn't have a chance? I don't hear of the kinder people who failed either.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >The kind people seem to be the losers in recent history. You mean like back when it was kind people and not warlords, and rich scum, and Genghis Khan being the winers?
    - vacuity 3y ago
      Recent history, so maybe Jimmy Carter.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        My much older examples are on purpose. Meaning "this is the case only on recent history? What about those examples from thousands of years ago".
        3y ago
rhplus 3y ago
I’ve heard it stated as “there’s no unselfish good deed”, a quote attributed to the famed ethicist [checks notes]… Joey Tribbiani. https://youtu.be/jgr-CpLNCYo https://youtu.be/jgr-CpLNCYo
coldtea 3y ago
>I have always formulated this for myself as follows: Any sufficiently strategic self-interest is indistinguishable from altruism. This "sufficiently strategic self-interest" is the same kind of non-existing unicorn as the "sufficiently smart compiler". >Empathy is just evolution's way of encoding millions of years of this observation into our emotional response system. Evolution (if we abstract it as a thing with intentions) is satisfied with the survival of the species. If the individual perishes, it's fine as long as they either protected their offspring or helped the others in their species survive, there will be more of them (because this actions help the species survive more and make more copies of itself, so species with members who will sacrifices themselves for the species get an advantage). Individual ants and bees for example will sacrifice themselves for the collective. So, empathy that drives altruistic acts is not the same as "strategic self-interest". If we are to see it in a reductionary way, let's do it properly: usually it's the interest of the species (or the offspring) driving it.
- dsign 3y ago
  > So, empathy that drives altruistic acts is not the same as "strategic self-interest". If we are to see it in a reductionary way, let's do it properly: usually it's the interest of the species (or the offspring) driving it. I'm sorry for that bug in the system, sir; we were short of time while designing this whole shebang. The happiness of the individual and a bunch of other things were not really a goal but, as you have cleverly noted, a biochemical feedback to get them to play. But now you have outgrown natural evolution--our sloppy design strategy--and you can fix this bug on your own. Off the top of my head, you could add a magic mushroom that makes people immortal and infertile. But surely you can come up with something better. Now back to enjoying my retirement. God.

by hliyan 3y ago

MatthiasWandel 3y ago

I have come to that conclusion myself over the years too. But "bad people" or aholes also have usefulness. You sometimes need people to challenge things that only an unreasonable person would challenge. And you need the occasional Steve Jobs too. But unlike altruistic people, we generally don't give the aholes as much credit. So, ironically, perhaps altruism is the better self serving strategy.

jacquesm 3y ago
You can't have too many altruistic people. You can however have too many assholes and the number of assholes where this effect starts to dominate is not all that high. The fact that our societies reward asshole behavior as much as they do is a huge problem.
- naasking 3y ago
  Not sure that's true. You're assuming altruism has no failure modes or pathologies. I know plenty of people whose altruism is driven by various anxieties and neuroses, which makes them vulnerable to exploitation, at the very least. A whole society of altruists could easily be very fragile and thus vulnerable to the slightest defector or adversary (cf. Galaxy Quest). Some degree of assholes and psychopaths make for robust systems that protect against abuse, intentional or accidental.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Interesting viewpoint. I'm sure some assholes and psychopaths would love to have a figleaf to explain their behavior. But in my experience: you can have 90% nice people and 10% assholes and it will wreck your life. Even 1:30 is probably still too many. And the failure modes and pathologies you describe are external: an exploiter is by definition not part of the group of altruists and that makes them a perfect example of how few assholes it takes to ruin things.
    - naasking 3y ago
      Suggesting we benefit from and should tolerate some degree of assholes is not some kind of justification for asshole behaviour. It's a similar effect where we wouldn't care about computer security if criminals and black hats didn't exist, which would leave us incredibly vulnerable. This doesn't entail that we should proactively hire or encourage criminals and black hats to attack us. The fact that the problems I pointed out are external is because those were just the most obvious failure modes, do not take it as an exhaustive list.
MichaelZuo 3y ago
There's a caveat though, the challenger needs to be a world beater nowadays since so many things are intertwined, a mediocore ahole just adds noise.
hliyan 3y ago
In other words, societies that consist only of members who are highly strategic in their self-interest (i.e. altruistic) may be overly stable and lack the sort of disruptions or "mutations" that short-term thinkers introduce. Such societies are likely to stagnate. Consider, as very rough approximations, twentieth century America vs. ancient China.
- kibwen 3y ago
  While acknowledging the social utility of disruption, I see no reason to conclude that altruism is either incompatible or inversely correlated with the ability to disrupt.
PakG1 3y ago
Interestingly enough, it's the a-holes that seem to be getting the most credit and rewards in recent years. Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, all the populist elected heads of state, etc. The kind people seem to be the losers in recent history. Wish it were the opposite.
- NL807 3y ago
  Because they are more visible due to their flamboyant personalities. I think this was always the case historically.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  selection or reporting bias. You don't hear of the arseholes that fail.
  - PakG1 3y ago
    The ones that had a chance? Sure I do. The ones that didn't have a chance? I don't hear of the kinder people who failed either.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >The kind people seem to be the losers in recent history. You mean like back when it was kind people and not warlords, and rich scum, and Genghis Khan being the winers?
  - vacuity 3y ago
    Recent history, so maybe Jimmy Carter.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      My much older examples are on purpose. Meaning "this is the case only on recent history? What about those examples from thousands of years ago".
      - 3y ago

rhplus 3y ago

I’ve heard it stated as “there’s no unselfish good deed”, a quote attributed to the famed ethicist [checks notes]… Joey Tribbiani. https://youtu.be/jgr-CpLNCYo https://youtu.be/jgr-CpLNCYo

coldtea 3y ago

>I have always formulated this for myself as follows: Any sufficiently strategic self-interest is indistinguishable from altruism. This "sufficiently strategic self-interest" is the same kind of non-existing unicorn as the "sufficiently smart compiler". >Empathy is just evolution's way of encoding millions of years of this observation into our emotional response system. Evolution (if we abstract it as a thing with intentions) is satisfied with the survival of the species. If the individual perishes, it's fine as long as they either protected their offspring or helped the others in their species survive, there will be more of them (because this actions help the species survive more and make more copies of itself, so species with members who will sacrifices themselves for the species get an advantage). Individual ants and bees for example will sacrifice themselves for the collective. So, empathy that drives altruistic acts is not the same as "strategic self-interest". If we are to see it in a reductionary way, let's do it properly: usually it's the interest of the species (or the offspring) driving it.

dsign 3y ago
> So, empathy that drives altruistic acts is not the same as "strategic self-interest". If we are to see it in a reductionary way, let's do it properly: usually it's the interest of the species (or the offspring) driving it. I'm sorry for that bug in the system, sir; we were short of time while designing this whole shebang. The happiness of the individual and a bunch of other things were not really a goal but, as you have cleverly noted, a biochemical feedback to get them to play. But now you have outgrown natural evolution--our sloppy design strategy--and you can fix this bug on your own. Off the top of my head, you could add a magic mushroom that makes people immortal and infertile. But surely you can come up with something better. Now back to enjoying my retirement. God.