if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Big misconception about altruism. The key point is that atruism is present in the human animal because it favours propagation of the relevent genes, not necessarily the individual humans. Humans are more altruistic to people who share more genes with them because this helps the genes propagate. Altruism is not done with the purpose of aiding the person being altruitic directly, ie it hasn't evovled as a I help you so you will help me reasons."

trantor, interesting point, it is besides the point of this thread but could you explain this? it seems like both theories (altruism is for reciprocity, and your idea) both make sense and maybe they both work? any evidence that supports one over the other?

[/ QUOTE ]

there are many studies showing the degree og altruism is related to the degree of kinship. I'm not aware of any that show any altruism for only personal gain. On the other hand I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive but only the firstmakes sense to me on evolutinaty grounds.
And I believe my post was to the point in trying to show thw altruism he talked about is not altruism as generally understood.

[/ QUOTE ]
have you any links to these kinship studies, I've wittered on about a crude form of inverse square law whereby the strength of caring about others depends on their emotional/genetic 'closeness', love to see something more precise.

chez

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no, its a scientific theory not maths.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is nothing scientific about this theory. It doesn't even pass a basic nonsense test.

"We are evolved to love because that increases the survival chances of our genes."

let's make some similar statements shall we?

"10% of our population are evolved to be homosexuals because that increases the survival chances of our genes"

"We are evolved to love walks on the beach, because the increases the survival chances of our genes"

"We are evolved to have be angry and aggressive, because that increases the survival chances of our genes"
+
"We are evolved to be peaceful and friendly, because that increases the survival chances of our genes"

OK, I went a bit overboard, but my point is that not every trait we have (especially psychological ones) is present because it increases (or has increased) the survival chances of our genes. Changes in brain size and the development of a frontal lobe can create a capacity for complex thought and emotion attachment, which in turns makes things like love possible. This increase in brain size may well have happened for other reasons not related to love or its benefits, and now the underlying capacity is present.

Same as we didn't evolve a math IQ because doing equations increased the survival chances of our genes. Og Sklansky who lived 100,000 years and founded Sklanskyanity (the first religion) did nothing more than simple arithmetic. There was no selection pressure for those that could do math. But spatial analysis skills and language skills were likely important, so an underlying architecture developed that could later be used for other things.

I hope that makes some kind of sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But altruism is well established as a gene propagator which is the particular point of the thread which does seem to be connected with with feeligs
("love") for others. Just more so for close kin. From umans to insects..altruism is a pretty much universal trait, as I understand things

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
About this forum being a a bunch of ignoramuses and pedants, some posters here are, some are not. I don't think this forum is comparable to any other 2+2 forum, it's quite a bizarre place, retarded at times, non-retarded at others. There are smart people here, who sometimes get involved in stupid debates. That's about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

PM,

You remind me of Michael Corleone in “Godfather III”. He says something like, just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. You talk about the stupid topics - and yes, some are - yet you can’t seem to resist them. Kind of like the rest of us at the check-out at the grocery store. We all page through the National Enquirer.

Admit it. You page through the tabloids, too.

RJT

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Admit it. You page through the tabloids, too.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I do. Tabloids are the best form of journalism ever invented. Tabloids touch upon "The Real", as opposed to any other kind of newspaper or normal magazine.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Big misconception about altruism. The key point is that atruism is present in the human animal because it favours propagation of the relevent genes, not necessarily the individual humans. Humans are more altruistic to people who share more genes with them because this helps the genes propagate. Altruism is not done with the purpose of aiding the person being altruitic directly, ie it hasn't evovled as a I help you so you will help me reasons."

trantor, interesting point, it is besides the point of this thread but could you explain this? it seems like both theories (altruism is for reciprocity, and your idea) both make sense and maybe they both work? any evidence that supports one over the other?

[/ QUOTE ]

there are many studies showing the degree og altruism is related to the degree of kinship. I'm not aware of any that show any altruism for only personal gain. On the other hand I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive but only the firstmakes sense to me on evolutinaty grounds.
And I believe my post was to the point in trying to show thw altruism he talked about is not altruism as generally understood.

[/ QUOTE ]
have you any links to these kinship studies, I've wittered on about a crude form of inverse square law whereby the strength of caring about others depends on their emotional/genetic 'closeness', love to see something more precise.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I read some reports in nature a while back but all I suggest now is google it..eg


http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:qfgO...nship&hl=en

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ature02721.htm

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:yFWk...tives&hl=en

But google will find anyting! "does God really exist?" Yep ...see these googled pages!

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Big misconception about altruism. The key point is that atruism is present in the human animal because it favours propagation of the relevent genes, not necessarily the individual humans. Humans are more altruistic to people who share more genes with them because this helps the genes propagate. Altruism is not done with the purpose of aiding the person being altruitic directly, ie it hasn't evovled as a I help you so you will help me reasons."

trantor, interesting point, it is besides the point of this thread but could you explain this? it seems like both theories (altruism is for reciprocity, and your idea) both make sense and maybe they both work? any evidence that supports one over the other?

[/ QUOTE ]

there are many studies showing the degree og altruism is related to the degree of kinship. I'm not aware of any that show any altruism for only personal gain. On the other hand I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive but only the firstmakes sense to me on evolutinaty grounds.
And I believe my post was to the point in trying to show thw altruism he talked about is not altruism as generally understood.

[/ QUOTE ]
have you any links to these kinship studies, I've wittered on about a crude form of inverse square law whereby the strength of caring about others depends on their emotional/genetic 'closeness', love to see something more precise.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I read some reports in nature a while back but all I suggest now is google it..eg


http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:qfgO...nship&hl=en

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ature02721.htm

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:yFWk...tives&hl=en

But google will find anyting! "does God really exist?" Yep ...see these googled pages!

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]
thanks.

chez
I found god on the internet.