What are the evolved reasons for our motivations and impulses?

[Michaelangelica]

This article has a different and interesting perspective on how we evolved.

Especially how fear evolved.

It is lighthearted but has fascinating implications for the way we think and organise our society. (especially on our politics)

 

I will post half of it here but it really is worth a read of the entire article if you are at all interested in 'the evolved reasons for our motivations and impulses?'

(The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) is Australia's premier broadsheet)

find the rest of the article here:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/hard-lessons-from-ig-and-og/2006/04/11/1144521332510.html

 

Welcome to The Sydney Morning Herald.

http://www.smh.com.au

Home » Opinion » Article

Hard lessons from Ig and Og

 

 

April 12, 2006

Page 1 of 2 | Single page

 

You'd better believe it - we are hunter-gatherers still, and fear rules our lives, says Ross Gittins.

 

I'M INDEBTED to John Lanchester of The New Yorker for the story of Ig and Og, two cavemen. Ig and Og are out in the wild when they come upon a bush with berries they haven't seen before. Ig immediately eats a handful, but Og just puts a few in his dillybag.

 

Ig and Og come upon a cave. Ig bowls straight in, but Og doesn't fancy the dark cave, so waits outside. Ig finds a few old bones but nothing more interesting.

 

As they walk home, they hear a rustling in the bush nearby. Ig ploughs on, but Og stands frozen until the rustling stops. Clearly, Ig is brave and Og's a wimp.

 

But here's the point: all of us are descended from Og and none of us from Ig. Why? Because Ig died an early death before he could father any children. He ate poison berries, was killed by a bear he disturbed in its cave or was bitten by a snake.

Natural selection has caused us to be people with strong negative emotions such as fear and anxiety because these alerted us to danger, thereby helping us to survive and propagate.

 

Jonathan Haidt, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, says an important principle of design by evolution is that bad is stronger than good. "Responses to threats and unpleasantness are faster, stronger and harder to inhibit than responses to opportunities and pleasures."

 

Our brains have been hard wired to emphasise the negative. But here's the trick: we are people living in the space age with Stone Age minds. We've spent 99 per cent of our history as hunter-gatherers.

 

It was a mere 10,000 years ago that humans first began farming and only 5000 years ago that half the world's population stopped being hunter-gatherers. But 10,000 years - 500 generations - is far too short a time for our brains to have evolved in response to our changed environment.

 

The point of civilisation - all the economic and social development, the unbelievable advances in technology - is to remove from our environment the threats that plagued us as hunter-gatherers.

 

These days, a supermarket that sold poison berries would be strung up by the health department. We've managed to corral the wild animals so they're a long way from where we live.

 

Local councils have building standards intended to minimise the risk of our homes collapsing around us and killing us. Insurance policies protect us from loss should our homes burn down.

 

Governments and charities swing into action when an area is destroyed by a cyclone. Multiple efforts are made - from car-design rules to seatbelts to random breath testing to speed limits - to reduce the risk of us killing or maiming ourselves on the roads. Occupational health and safety laws are designed to minimise the risk of us killing or injuring ourselves while we earn our living.

 

The whole welfare system is designed to ensure we don't go hungry even though we're too young, old, sick or burdened with children to work - or just because we can't find a job. Medicare ensures we don't die in the gutter because we can't afford to go to hospital.

 

In short, modern society is designed to remove the need for us to worry about our survival. So much so that some of the risks of modern life actually arise from the lack of adversity. We become obese and contract diabetes because it's so easy to avoid exercise and because the fattening foods to which our bodies are attracted are abundant.

 

But despite the greatly reduced threat to life and limb, we still have hunter-gatherer minds that continually search our environment for things to be fearful of.

 

See where this is leading? Our overactive fear mechanism explains some important features of modern life.

 

For instance, it explains how the media select news. News is anything the public finds interesting. But the stories the media judge to be "newsworthy" are preponderantly negative - bad news about natural disasters, accidents, crime, problems in the economy, stuff-ups by governments, arguments with other countries and all the rest.

 

Why so relentlessly negative? Because that's the kind of news the media have discovered most excite the interest of their customers. Why are we more interested in bad news than good? Because of the way our minds have evolved.

 

Most of us find change disturbing, so the media focus heavily on changes of all kinds - particularly changes for the worse, but also good changes, such as a tax cut.

 

Some people imagine the media's role is to bring us a balanced summary of what's happening in the world around us. Wrong. Their summary is deliberately unbalanced. They highlight and give an exaggerated impression of the extent of bad news because people find this interesting, while ignoring the non-bad news because it's boring - unless it happens to be good news that's particularly outstanding or unusual.

 

But the negative bias isn't restricted to the non-fiction news media. The fiction entertainment media are also more negative than positive. Why do teenagers flock to horror movies? Why are cop and detective shows so popular on telly? Why do the mildest little old ladies read whodunits with another murder in every other chapter?

 

Because it satisfies some unconscious need to exercise their fear muscles. But TV programs portray more violence and chaotic relationships than exist in real life, and studies by psychologists find that people who spend a lot of time watching television tend to overestimate crime rates and show more anxiety and less trust in others.

 

It's not just the media that exploit our weakness for worry, however, it's also politicians. The British psychiatrist Professor Raj Persaud says politicians use fear in election campaigns. "They make you frightened of the asylum seekers, or Iraq or the Russians or the communists and that's how they get you to vote."

 

So now you know why so many state elections are fought on law and order issues, why John Howard has elevated "security" to equal status with economic management, and why federal and state governments (not to mention the media, the police and the defence forces) are busily fanning and exploiting the public's quite exaggerated impression of the threat from terrorism.

 

* Page 1 2

* Next page

 

 

Subscribe today for as little as $3 a week for weekend home delivery - SAVE 21%

[Cedars]

This article has a different and interesting perspective on how we evolved.

Especially how fear evolved.

It is lighthearted but has fascinating implications for the way we think and organise our society. (especially on our politics)

 

Hard lessons from Ig and Og

 

 

You'd better believe it - we are hunter-gatherers still, and fear rules our lives, says Ross Gittins.

 

I'M INDEBTED to John Lanchester of The New Yorker for the story of Ig and Og, two cavemen. Ig and Og are out in the wild when they come upon a bush with berries they haven't seen before. Ig immediately eats a handful, but Og just puts a few in his dillybag.

 

Ig and Og come upon a cave. Ig bowls straight in, but Og doesn't fancy the dark cave, so waits outside. Ig finds a few old bones but nothing more interesting.

 

As they walk home, they hear a rustling in the bush nearby. Ig ploughs on, but Og stands frozen until the rustling stops. Clearly, Ig is brave and Og's a wimp.

 

But here's the point: all of us are descended from Og and none of us from Ig. Why? Because Ig died an early death before he could father any children. He ate poison berries, was killed by a bear he disturbed in its cave or was bitten by a snake.

Natural selection has caused us to be people with strong negative emotions such as fear and anxiety because these alerted us to danger, thereby helping us to survive and propagate.

 

A fun read for sure and I sure cannot argue with the premise but...

 

It is the Igs who advance our knowledge, so some of the Igs survived to pass on their genes. Risk takers such as Ig are a driving force behind change and invention for the most part. It is the Igs who make contact with the tribe on the other side of the mountain and potentially increase trade and the associated good things around that feature.

 

I suppose one could look at it like the predator/prey balance. 10% of the mammal population is predatory (fluctuates some but a good base number). If one of ten Igs survive eating the new berries, the tribe survival rate increases by the introduction of the new food source (flashing back to medieval myth on tomatoes being poisonous). If it only takes 1 in 100 Igs to actually cause/discover an advance, it still is pretty remarkable.

[ronthepon]

I just wanted to briefly voice my opinion here.

 

Before we started to control our world unnaturally, even we were as much needing to evolve as the other species.

 

So we developed various inbuilt tools:) that would help us proceed. Our motivation and impulses, not to forget emotions are our inbuilt 'need dictators' and advisors.

 

They were the basic instincts which helped early man save and help his community.

 

I'll use examples.

 

Anger::mad: :rant:

When do you feel anger?

1. Your loved ones have been hurt. Very easy to understand the final result of this.

 

2. You have been cheated or fooled. This time, our internal advisor tells us to get rid of the scum of our society.

 

etc...

 

Guilt:;)

Our internal advisor tells us that we are destroying our community

 

Sadness::(

Persuades us to get out of the situation

 

Depression::(

Believe it or not, this helps us to get through the worst phases of life, sometimes when we are faced with conditions that make our life useless.

 

Happiness::)

Internal advisor telling us that this condition is good for us and we should try to sustain it.

 

I have been touching emotions, but other internal messages also have similar functions and powers.

 

Take other things such as basic urges and repulses.

 

You see some very good looking sweets.:)

Internal advisor telling you that this is gotta be good for the body

 

You see a pile of ****:esick:

Internal advisor telling you UNHEALTHY!!!

 

But nowdays, due to severe changes in our evolutionary patterns (due to drastic reduction in mortality rate and hence elimination of natural selection), our internal advisor does not have a chance to determine exact right from wrong anymore.

So we feel good when we smell, or taste, or percieve some foul things nowdays. Take toulene, nicotine, sweets in the diabetic age and all that...

 

 

And I do feel that our basic motivations can change over generations. For instance, I, myself enjoy the taste sour more than anyone I have ever seen.

 

PS:Sorry I did'nt lurk around in this topic first, so my opinion has the chance of being out of context.

[InfiniteNow]

That was an interesting article. Reminded me of college actually (this was common literary fair for our group). The basic idea is that those who didn't do stupid stuff (i.e. were afraid) stayed around to survive. The article over states it a bit, as certainly some of those who ventured into bear caves came out alive and by doing so impressed the ladies...

 

But it reinforces the original point here that the traits we have, our motivations and whatnot, resulted because whatever it was which made our ancestors survive, they still had the desire to reproduce, thus passing on those traits and contributing to their strength.

[Michaelangelica]

Before we started to control our world unnaturally, even we were as much needing to evolve as the other species.

I'll use examples.

 

Anger::mad: :wink:

When do you feel anger?

1. Your loved ones have been hurt. Very easy to understand the final result of this.

Many psychologists believe that depression is anger turned inwards.

14,000 yers ago it probably helped us protect our selves and hunt "I'll get that bloody mastadon if it kills me""

 

 

Guilt::hihi:

Our internal advisor tells us that we are destroying our community

 

Sadness::(

Persuades us to get out of the situation

 

Depression::(

Believe it or not, this helps us to get through the worst phases of life, sometimes when we are faced with conditions that make our life useless.

 

Probably all of the above are just different expresions of the basic impulse "Anger"

 

Happiness::)

Internal advisor telling us that this condition is good for us and we should try to sustain it.

Psychologists, like Skinner, would say that pleasure is positive reinforcement. Those behaviours that make us happy, or please us, are more likely to happen again

 

You see a pile of ****:esick:

Internal advisor telling you UNHEALTHY!!!

You see a pile of **** and your body says "Eat it". That's a least what baby Elephants and Kolas do! (We may have too? it is amazing what babies will eat ****, dirt, nappies, father)

Animals do this so they can collect the bacteria and enzynes needed to digest their food.

 

nicotine, sweets

nicotine smells sweet to an addict believe me (a reformed smoker)

"

And I do feel that our basic motivations can change over generations.

Are you voting for Darwin's idea of the Inheritance of Acquired Characterestics?

I thought that had been debunked?

[ronthepon]

Are you voting for Darwin's idea of the Inheritance of Acquired Characterestics?

I thought that had been debunked?

 

Um, two things I gotta say in reply:

 

First: No, not at all. I mean that basic tastes randomly, but slightly keep swaying from generation to generation, and profitabe new tastes are what survive well.

 

Second: It was'nt Darwin's theory. It was Lamarck who gave the theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characterestics

[Michaelangelica]

Maybe not all are profitable?

 

This was posted in Quality Jokes and Humor - 05-26-2005, 04:39 AM,

but seems approprite here. It is certainly my exprience of large work groups

 

Start with a cage containing five monkeys.

Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it.

Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb

towards the banana. AS soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of

the other monkeys with cold water.

After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the

same result all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.

Pretty soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other

monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from

the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the

banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror,

all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and

attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be

assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and

replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is

attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with

enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new

one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey

takes to the stairs, he is attacked.

Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea

why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are

participating in beating the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the

remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water.

Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for

the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way

it's always been done around here.

 

And that, my friends, is how a company policy begins.

[ronthepon]

Maybe not all are profitable?

This was posted in Quality Jokes and Humor - 05-26-2005, 04:39 AM,

but seems approprite here. It is certainly my exprience of large work groups

Start with a cage containing five monkeys.

Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it.

Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb

towards the banana. AS soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of

the other monkeys with cold water.

After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the

same result all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.

Pretty soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other

monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from

the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the

banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror,

all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and

attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be

assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and

replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is

attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with

enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new

one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey

takes to the stairs, he is attacked.

Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea

why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are

participating in beating the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the

remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water.

Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for

the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way

it's always been done around here.

And that, my friends, is how a company policy begins.

 

(Clap! clap! clap!)

That is certainly excellent in the context!

[Michaelangelica]

It is amazing what is going on when we are not even subliminally aware of it

 

See these articles:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9135&feedId=online-news_rss20

 

Women may be able to tell whether a man is child-friendly simply by looking at his face – and this could influence how attractive they find him as a potential long-term partner. But for a spring fling or a summer love, women seek men with high levels of testosterone who don’t care much for children.

 

James Roney at the University of California, Santa Barbara, US, and his colleagues asked 39 undergraduate men to look at pairs of pictures each consisting of a photo of an adult and a photo of an infant. The men were asked which photo they preferred. Researchers also took saliva samples from the male volunteers to determine their testosterone levels.

 

Each man was then asked to maintain a neutral expression while researchers photographed his face. Then, 29 female undergraduates rated the photographed male faces according to how much they believed the men liked children.

 

Researchers found that women could often correctly guess which men preferred the infant photos.

 

The women were also asked which men they would choose for a short fling and which for a long-term relationship. Those men perceived as child-friendly were more likely to be selected for a long-term relationship.

Women may be able to tell whether a man is child-friendly simply by looking at his face – and this could influence how attractive they find him as a potential long-term partner. But for a spring fling or a summer love, women seek men with high levels of testosterone who don’t care much for children.

 

James Roney at the University of California, Santa Barbara, US, and his colleagues asked 39 undergraduate men to look at pairs of pictures each consisting of a photo of an adult and a photo of an infant. The men were asked which photo they preferred. Researchers also took saliva samples from the male volunteers to determine their testosterone levels.

 

Each man was then asked to maintain a neutral expression while researchers photographed his face. Then, 29 female undergraduates rated the photographed male faces according to how much they believed the men liked children.

 

Researchers found that women could often correctly guess which men preferred the infant photos.

 

The women were also asked which men they would choose for a short fling and which for a long-term relationship. Those men perceived as child-friendly were more likely to be selected for a long-term relationship.

 

and

http://abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_1634999.htm

n a nutshell, this theory says that women are, frankly, ambivalent. They might fancy men who are hunky and macho but they also like the kind, caring types.

 

These preferences may seem contradictory, but there is a solid genetic cause for it.

 

A strong, beefy, square-jawed man represents the best potential for producing a healthy baby, whereas a caring, friendly, sensitive man represents the best potential for protecting and nurturing the offspring.

 

Indeed, studies into female hormones and sex drive say a woman will find a 'masculine' face more attractive when she ovulates but switch to a more 'feminine' preference during the other phases of her menstrual cycle.

 

A team led by Assistant Professor James Roney of the University of California at Santa Barbara, has now put the theory to the test in an experiment combining psychology and hormones.

[InfiniteNow]

They might fancy men who are hunky and macho but they also like the kind, caring types.

 

These preferences may seem contradictory, but there is a solid genetic cause for it.

 

A strong, beefy, square-jawed man represents the best potential for producing a healthy baby, whereas a caring, friendly, sensitive man represents the best potential for protecting and nurturing the offspring.

 

Indeed, studies into female hormones and sex drive say a woman will find a 'masculine' face more attractive when she ovulates but switch to a more 'feminine' preference during the other phases of her menstrual cycle.

 

The studies are interesting indeed, but we need to be careful not to read too much into them. Some basic points:

 

The studies regarding desire for children and square jaws and testosterone levels, desire type based on cycle phase, etc. seem to imply more that women want to conceive with the strong healthy dominant male, but have a sweet gentle male to care for those children. Females also engage in infidelity more frequently when they are around the time where conception is maximized, and tend to do so with those more neanderthalian males.

 

The idea goes that females want the best of both worlds for their offspring. They want the genes of the strong, healthy, dominant male who will have a greater chance of reproductive success, and they want the sweet, infant inclined male to be around as a father with their positive traints for resources and raising of the child.

 

Also, as many have noticed, the desires of females have shifted significantly in the past half century with the change in their role in our society. It may not be entirely nature, as nurture (society changes) have certainly played a demonstrable role in their choices, actions, and desires.

 

 

Cheers. :confused:

[Kayra]

(Please remember that I speak only in generalities, and not in specifics)

(Terms Nature and Evolution are interchangeable)

Nature will have her way.

 

Nature understands that all life is selfish. It will attempt to do absolutely everything for itself that it can for itself and itself only. Always.

 

Nature harnesses this selfishness to accomplish its goals.. Long term survival. This goal simply does not apply to a selfish life form. Having children, supporting a mate, hunting for food for an entire family, these things are hard. The selfish life form would never do these things beyond doing them for itself.

 

Nature had to find a way to make a selfish life form do apparently selfish things that would accomplish natures goals.

 

The lengths that nature has gone to is astounding. There is a type of fungus that, in order to reproduce, has most of the colony give up their lives and form a stalk. A few lucky fungi get to be the bud and pass on there genetic material. What stops the fungi from cheating? We are pretty certain that life tried cheating over and over and ever again. Long term survival though found a way. Nature eventually tied the ability to bud directly to the ability to form the stalk. If you did not have one, you could not perform the other. While the cheaters got to live longer then their brethren, only the self sacrificing brethren got to pass on their genetic materials. These colonies were more successful at passing on their genetic material then colonies that did not have such cheating control. Nature finds a way.

 

As higher life evolved, with brain, and adaptability built in (not needing to evolve for each change of environment), new requirements became evident to nature. New methods for motivating a selfish life form to work for the long term survival.

 

With the brain came memory and emotions. Pain and pleasure. Memory of pain and memory of pleasure were good motivators. Memory of fear and love associated with pain and pleasure vastly more powerful.

 

It is understandable why we evolved fear, pain, and even pleasure as motivational tools of nature, but what of the positive emotions?

 

It would seem that the brute would always have a better chance of procreating. He could simply take the women he wanted, rape them (not to produce children, but simply because it felt good), and watch his children grow. Nature would be satisfied because the strongest survived. But Nature, in her endless experimenting on how to improve things, discovered something else. That high aggression made cooperation difficult.

 

In some of the millions of permutations and mutations, some animals evolved that had the ability to understand what another was thinking. Empathy. The ability to get inside the others head. Mirror their thoughts. Understand if that person was going to help or hurt them.

 

Nature also figured out that empathy was a fantastic moderator of aggression. By forcing empathy upon an aggressor, they would be able to feel the other persons hurt, pain, and fear. An act of aggression on someone else was an act of aggression on ourselves, and being the selfish life forms we are, we would only do so when there was a perceived net gain for us that outweighed the harm.

 

Empathy could not be expanded to far, or else we would not be able to protect ourselves or hunt for food. We tend to extend it only to those close to us for that very reason.

 

The flip side of Empathy was the ability to feel the pleasure of our fellow life forms. Give someone a gift of extra meat we had no need for, and instant self gratification. Every positive emotion we feel in regards to other people stems from this simple process. We sense the adoration of our children, the Pride our mates have in us. We hunt and fight for the village because of the feedback the villagers give to us, but seldom at the intentional loss of our own life or limb.

 

Nature had found the greatest motivator for the ever selfish thinking life form.

 

In the end, each life form serves it's own selfish reasons for almost everything it is doing. Evolution just discovered ways of harnessing this for it's own purposes.

[Cedars]

I think you give the higher emotions too much credit in our motivations. I am not saying they dont exist, but they are just brighter feathers on some peacocks so to speak. And your post seems to be interchanging sympathy and empathy. Using both is fine, it wont change my responce :hihi:

 

Variations in evolution can allow some characteristics to co-evolve, such as empathy/sympathy. I would say most do not have this in a degree that makes it the factor that motivates them (but it can influence the decisions made by self). I see a devastating car wreck along the road and I will feel for the people who love this injured/dead person. But that does not mean the next day, I wont speed on the same highway. If empathy/sympathy was that much of a motivator, I would be pushed by it to not speed anymore. The motivation of self reward is the more powerful impulse which makes the reasoning to speed again justified by self. Those who are moved to not speed on that road because of this very same wreck will most likely speed on the day when they have to weigh their options such as being late for an important meeting. The empathy they truely felt for that loss experienced by another will now be cast aside to serve self.

 

Now place a running police car in the same spot and everything changes, meeting or not. The motivation is now about self and our place in the hierarchy. Fear. Most will not speed. The police car works on most. Only most of course, I personally know several people who had cars that went fast, and they would go out hunting for police to chase them. One who enjoyed this game was himself a policeman.

 

People do not work as a group out of empathy, they do it to promote self. Look at the many cultures of humans where the male of the household does none of the tasks in child/home/property. They do the hunting. They promote their male child to accompany them not for the benefit of the family, it is to carry more of the burden to relieve the self from all of the work and possibly less work the next day. Does it benefit the family, yes. Does the family benefit the hunter? Yes. The hunter has less work to do for himself. The hunter gets the resource, the others convert the resource into a product that benefits the hunter. Look at all the cultures whos base (and I am not saying its wrong) where the children take care of the aged parent. The motivation for teaching the child many skills is for their own future care.

 

hmmm... maybe that is part of what is wrong in education today. Our own social security benefit program has removed some of the motivation of parent to teach child as much as possible, for the parents future is no longer hinged upon the child providing... well thats a different topic isnt it?

 

Back to the original thought. And how many in this very forum remember growing up and watching dad get the biggest/best part of whatever meal was being served, or the first cut, or whatever pattern of behavior which allowed the male head of the house a reward (motivation). As an example: I remember in my own household all the steak was cooked to medium well cuz thats how dad liked it and it was easier for mom to cook it all the same. It was neither right or wrong. It just was actions based on self. Less work for mom. Dad got what he wanted, and once we were doing it for ourselves, we had the opportunity to serve our own self.

 

Ok I kinda babbled a bit. But for the motivation to be classed as an evolved reason, doesnt it need to apply to most rather than some?

 

*oh, and a little more. How many gifts given by self to another do not hold the hope of reward? For example, wild sex later cuz the wife is sooo happy. Is the motivation empathy then? Or is it about rewarding self?

[Kayra]

I think you give the higher emotions too much credit in our motivations. I am not saying they dont exist, but they are just brighter feathers on some peacocks so to speak. And your post seems to be interchanging sympathy and empathy. Using both is fine, it wont change my responce :lol:

 

I see I once again explained myself poorly. Apologies for that.

There is indeed a significant difference between sympathy and empathy.

 

Sympathy is an emotion you feel for someone else's situation. Empathy is the ability that allows you to see and feel that situation from someone else's perspective. Sympathy then is a direct result of our empathic abilities.

 

Empathy is used to understand another person. To imagine what is going on in there mind by mirroring their situation and feelings in your own. It is used just as often to guess at what your enemy will do as it is to understand how your mate is feeling. It is such an important part of our motivation system that the brain has special neurons designed specifically for the task, and no other. The number of these neurons (as a percentage of the entire brain) is consistent across the examined animal kingdom as it relates to how empathic an animal is. Another creature that has a high percentage of these neurons is a bird (for the life of me I cannot remember the name). This is one of the few birds that, when caching it's food, if it knows it is being observed by another of it's kind it will come back later and move the cache. A behavior that implies it can see the world from the other birds perspective and fears the theft of it's food. Few other birds exhibit this particular behavior.

 

Hmm.. it seems I babble as well :eek:

 

The point I am making is that the empathic ability in us is what allows us to have emotionally pleasing events occur in our brain when we do something for someone else that makes them feel pleasure. We do not really do it to make them feel good, but ourselves.

 

We avoid making someone feel bad for the same reasons

 

(Again speaking in generalities)

We volunteer because it makes us feel good about ourselves, not because volunteering is good.

We give to make ourselves feel good.

We share to make ourselves feel good.

We have children because it is pleasurable.

We raise children because it makes us feel good.

We do not steal because it makes us feel bad

We do not strike others without cause because we will feel guilty

 

ALL of these things and more all are self motivated acts because of how they make us feel. And we can feel them because of empathy.

 

Life is a selfish thing. Nature understands this, and uses it.

[Cedars]

Empathy is used to understand another person. To imagine what is going on in there mind by mirroring their situation and feelings in your own. It is used just as often to guess at what your enemy will do as it is to understand how your mate is feeling. It is such an important part of our motivation system that the brain has special neurons designed specifically for the task, and no other. The number of these neurons (as a percentage of the entire brain) is consistent across the examined animal kingdom as it relates to how empathic an animal is. Another creature that has a high percentage of these neurons is a bird (for the life of me I cannot remember the name). This is one of the few birds that, when caching it's food, if it knows it is being observed by another of it's kind it will come back later and move the cache. A behavior that implies it can see the world from the other birds perspective and fears the theft of it's food. Few other birds exhibit this particular behavior.

 

Or its a defensive measure because this bird would do the same if it found anothers cache. Defensive measures to ensure survival are not along the lines of empathy. Theft is not a moral issue in the animal kingdom. Whole species have evolved around the concept. Carnivores most notably, but any time a herd of elephant drives other species away from the waterhole it is a type of 'theft' isnt it? Being able to imagine what your prey is going to do would be a handy skill to have, but that is strategic (fight) and used that way to benefit self in the primary drive of survival.

 

I have not seen the neuron information and it kinda flys in the information I have read about empathy in the animal kingdom. Do you have a link I can reference? If the same general neurons fire due to other, simpler stimuli, then the simplest answer is the right one and the evolved reason. I think you may be mixing up a bit of information here.

Empathy is a description of an emotion that can cause a change in behavior primarily along altruistic lines.

 

 

The point I am making is that the empathic ability in us is what allows us to have emotionally pleasing events occur in our brain when we do something for someone else that makes them feel pleasure. We do not really do it to make them feel good, but ourselves. We avoid making someone feel bad for the same reasons

 

(Again speaking in generalities)

We volunteer because it makes us feel good about ourselves, not because volunteering is good.

We give to make ourselves feel good.

We share to make ourselves feel good.

 

The above points are all learned behaviors. Volunteering is a learned behavior. It can be based in fear (God/mom/teacher requires this of me) or it can be based in self (God/mom/teacher will reward me). There are variables, but they will all fall under either fear or self gratification.

 

 

We have children because it is pleasurable.

We raise children because it makes us feel good.

 

Then why do the birth rates fall in countries which have the most resources to offer the individual? It seems the pattern of behavior in humans is, if I have more for self, I dont have as many children. If the struggle to survive is daily, produce more children to help bear the load. If your right, wouldn’t people in the USA, Europe, Australia be producing children at a higher rate than those in the poor nations of the world?

 

We do not steal because it makes us feel bad

We do not strike others without cause because we will feel guilty

 

Again both of those fall under learned behavior, not evolution. We dont steal because if we get caught there is a penalty to self. We have to teach children to share. Every time you offer a baby a taste of food from your plate you are teaching sharing. Feeding a baby from a bottle is an act of sharing and babies who offer it back are mimicking a parent.

 

Are you telling me you have never wanted to strike some SoB in your entire life? If so, you need to get out more :cup: There alot of people who need a good smack upside the head. Why we dont strike them is because we dont want to pay the price if our expectation of the results is wrong. We could be punished by law or we could find out this particular jerk is a golden gloves boxer (knows someone who encountered that). Its still about self. Defensive. Flight.

 

ALL of these things and more all are self motivated acts because of how they make us feel. And we can feel them because of empathy.

 

Life is a selfish thing. Nature understands this, and uses it.

 

The point I am making is empathy is not an evolved reason for our motivation. Behaviors noted in children as young as 24 months, such as comforting another, are still learned behaviors not evolved reasons for their actions. They learn this from their own experiences with their parent/siblings/etc. We are social animals and many behaviors we exhibit are related to that portion. But look at children who are severely neglected and you will see a whole bunch of the higher emotions missing. They are instilled via learned behavior, not evolutionary mandate.

 

What you do get in their raw form is fear and aggressiveness. And it is a barrier that is very difficult for any person involved in the rehabilitation of this person to alter.

[Kayra]

Or its a defensive measure because this bird would do the same if it found anothers cache. Defensive measures to ensure survival are not along the lines of empathy. Theft is not a moral issue in the animal kingdom. Whole species have evolved around the concept. Carnivores most notably, but any time a herd of elephant drives other species away from the waterhole it is a type of 'theft' isnt it? Being able to imagine what your prey is going to do would be a handy skill to have, but that is strategic (fight) and used that way to benefit self in the primary drive of survival.

Which exactly makes my point.

Because they know they would steal, and they can see from the other animals perspective, they realize that the other animal will steal from them.

Animals lacking these specialized neurons do not exhibit this ability.

 

 

I have not seen the neuron information and it kinda flys in the information I have read about empathy in the animal kingdom. Do you have a link I can reference? If the same general neurons fire due to other, simpler stimuli, then the simplest answer is the right one and the evolved reason.

 

My apologies here. I have searched everywhere and I can no longer find that article :) It refered to Spindle Neurons, mirror structures in the brain, and various animals and humans. I understand that it drastically weakens my case, but I will try to compensate and not reference it until I can find it again.

 

Here are some with similar content. (but not the same :( )

http://www.medicine.uiowa.edu/prestonresearch/EmpathyChapter.pdf

http://www.icn.ucl.ac.uk/sblakemore/SJ_papers/BlaFri_social_NR04.pdf

http://emotion.caltech.edu/papers/Adolphs2001Neurobiology.pdf

 

I think you may be mixing up a bit of information here.

Empathy is a description of an emotion that can cause a change in behavior primarily along altruistic lines.

 

Nope.

The imaginative projection into another's feelings, a state of total identification with another's situation, condition, and thoughts. The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without explicitly articulating these feelings. Fern empathizes with Wilbur; Charlotte empathizes with Wilbur.

theliterarylink.com/definitions.html

 

understanding another person's feelings by remembering or imagining being in a similar situation.

http://www.lymphomainfo.net/lymphoma/glossary.html

 

Appreciation of another's problems and feelings without experiencing the same emotional reaction. To be distinguished from sympathy, which is usually nonobjective and noncritical.

http://www.dphilpotlaw.com/html/glossary.html

 

is interpreted as the ability to take oneself out of oneself and put oneself into another person's world.

http://www.mountainquestinstitute.com/definitions.htm

 

More than feeling compassion or sympathy “for” another person, empathy puts you in their shoes to feel “with” them or “as one” with them. First used in English in the early twentieth century to translate the German psychoanalytic term Einfühlung, meaning “to feel as one with”, though in practice more closely translating the German Mitgefühl, “to feel with” someone.

http://www.jansen.com.au/Dictionary_DF.html

 

Or from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empathy

Direct identification with, understanding of, and vicarious experience of another person's situation, feelings, and motives.

The projection of one's own feelings or emotional state onto an object or animal.

 

 

The above points are all learned behaviors. Volunteering is a learned behavior. It can be based in fear (God/mom/teacher requires this of me) or it can be based in self (God/mom/teacher will reward me). There are variables, but they will all fall under either fear or self gratification.

 

How we learn them is not really relevant. the fact that there is positive emotional feedback to make us feel better when we do them is the point I was making. Without that, the behavior would not continue.

They all fall under emotions that we want to avoid (because they make us feel bad) or encourage (because they make us feel good). Everything we do as a life form is self motivated.

That actually sounds much worse then it is. :)

 

 

Then why do the birth rates fall in countries which have the most resources to offer the individual? It seems the pattern of behavior in humans is, if I have more for self, I dont have as many children. If the struggle to survive is daily, produce more children to help bear the load. If your right, wouldn’t people in the USA, Europe, Australia be producing children at a higher rate than those in the poor nations of the world?

 

Not relevant. not relevant at all. Birth rates are related to the availability of technology to prevent birth, social acceptance of birth control, etc. Not the pleasure in making love.

 

Again both of those fall under learned behavior, not evolution. We dont steal because if we get caught there is a penalty to self. We have to teach children to share. Every time you offer a baby a taste of food from your plate you are teaching sharing. Feeding a baby from a bottle is an act of sharing and babies who offer it back are mimicking a parent.

 

Same as I stated above. Learned or not, the positive or negative feelings are what determine if we will continue an action or not.

 

Are you telling me you have never wanted to strike some SoB in your entire life? If so, you need to get out more :eek: There alot of people who need a good smack upside the head. Why we dont strike them is because we dont want to pay the price if our expectation of the results is wrong. We could be punished by law or we could find out this particular jerk is a golden gloves boxer (knows someone who encountered that). Its still about self. Defensive. Flight.

 

Punching a guy in the nose that you feel truly deserves it is one thing. As I mentioned in my first post, we limit when and where we feel empathy or we could not be able to defend ourselves or even gather food. But how would you feel about stepping on a child's head, striking a pregnant woman in the stomach, or snapping an old ladies neck? Even if nobody would ever find out, you would still feel bad. We do not learn these things, the ability to empathize is within us.

 

 

The point I am making is empathy is not an evolved reason for our motivation. Behaviors noted in children as young as 24 months, such as comforting another, are still learned behaviors not evolved reasons for their actions. They learn this from their own experiences with their parent/siblings/etc. We are social animals and many behaviors we exhibit are related to that portion. But look at children who are severely neglected and you will see a whole bunch of the higher emotions missing. They are instilled via learned behavior, not evolutionary mandate.

 

What you do get in their raw form is fear and aggressiveness. And it is a barrier that is very difficult for any person involved in the rehabilitation of this person to alter.

 

It is true that learned behaviors are some of the most powerful motivators in existence. A brain is an incredibly plastic system, capable of being molded into almost any pattern of reactions. It is that very ability that made it the tool of choice for evolution. It gives animals the ability to adapt to different situations and environments without having to go through the massively slower process of evolution. Social learning has a huge impact on a person.

 

When I speak of empathy, I do not mean to portray it as an overriding, all encompassing ability that absolutely determines who and what we are. I do believe, however, that I have shown that it can be the evolved reason for almost all of our motivations.

 

It is the tool that allows apparently altruistic actions to be explained as selfish ones. All non-altruistic actions are selfish by nature anyway, and do not require Empathy.

[Cedars]

Which exactly makes my point.

Because they know they would steal, and they can see from the other animals perspective, they realize that the other animal will steal from them. Animals lacking these specialized neurons do not exhibit this ability.

 

You assume they are seeing it from the other animals 'perspective'. But according to your reasoning (and links), if the animals had empathy, they would share the food with their species but they dont do they, they move their stash of food. All of your links show, to show an action is empathy, the action undertaken by one subject must relieve stress of another. Moving the food stash does not show that and is contrary to your point. This example is of territory and the hunt for resources.

 

Cedars said: Empathy is a description of an emotion that can cause a change in behavior primarily along altruistic lines.

 

Kayra said:

Nope.

The imaginative projection into another's feelings, a state of total identification with another's situation, condition, and thoughts. The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without explicitly articulating these feelings.

 

Yet in all the links you posted to verify the point, the only way to demonstrate this for research purpose was to have the animal perform an altruistic act. What other purpose does empathy serve if not altruistic? How would that apply for the thread 'evolved reasons for motivations' ? If a creature feels empathy and it doesnt change action, how is this related to motivation?

 

 

How we learn them is not really relevant.

It is for the topic of this thread. A learned behavior is not an evolved reason.

Not relevant. not relevant at all. Birth rates are related to the availability of technology to prevent birth, social acceptance of birth control, etc. Not the pleasure in making love.

Your the one who brought up having children and tried tying it into empathy. And I quote:

We have children because it is pleasurable.

We raise children because it makes us feel good.

I was only asking you to justify this and presented contrary behavior. Actually birth control, etc has nothing to do with the base of my question to you. Empathy as you have presented it would indicate these people in poorer countries with an environment around them showing that most children would die before the age of 5 would produce less children if empathy was involved and people with the greatest chance of having success in child rearing would increase the amount of children the produced, with all the 'spreading our own genes around for the future' motivations ringing throughout this thread. Wouldnt it?

But how would you feel about stepping on a child's head, striking a pregnant woman in the stomach, or snapping an old ladies neck? Even if nobody would ever find out, you would still feel bad. We do not learn these things, the ability to empathize is within us.

We most certainly do learn these things and there is no way you will be able to prove this statement. We have many examples of this exact thing going on in our own homes (domestic violence/child abuse). Are the problems dropping, yes, but its not an evolved reason, its social pressures and legal actions. We have many examples of these same things going on on the streets of america and many other places. What allows this to occur is the offenders do not think they will be caught and punished for the crimes. Do most people feel bad if they do something as you listed, yes. Post trama inflicted guilty feelings dont count do they?

 

Some of the very people who do these crimes would try to hunt you down and inflict extreme pain and possibly death if you were to do this to one of their homies. They would do it because of empathy. Your own posted links indicate this animal testing only works if the creatures are all the same specie. Dont kid yourself about gang mentality. They do feel the pain of the other in this scenario. They do place themself in that position. They do see it from both points of view (their homey victim and the victims perp). They are willing to die for each other. Altruism, you bet it is. Empathy? Yeppers! So is the evolved reason for their motivation still the idealism you were trying to portray? Or will you deny them their humanity because it is used in a method you dont agree with?

 

It is true that learned behaviors are some of the most powerful motivators in existence. A brain is an incredibly plastic system, capable of being molded into almost any pattern of reactions. It is that very ability that made it the tool of choice for evolution. It gives animals the ability to adapt to different situations and environments without having to go through the massively slower process of evolution. Social learning has a huge impact on a person.

 

When I speak of empathy, I do not mean to portray it as an overriding, all encompassing ability that absolutely determines who and what we are. I do believe, however, that I have shown that it can be the evolved reason for almost all of our motivations.

 

It is the tool that allows apparently altruistic actions to be explained as selfish ones. All non-altruistic actions are selfish by nature anyway, and do not require Empathy.

Learned behavior is vital for the survial of all mammals I am aware of. But this thread is about the evolved reasons for our motivation. It may be the ultimate tool of survival for any one species of mammal but you cannot get around the fact a learned behavior is not an evolved reason for our motivation. Learned behavior is the effect of the evolution of brain functions such as memory and how the body processes the brain impluses outside stimuli present.

[Kayra]

Which exactly makes my point.

Because they know they would steal, and they can see from the other animals perspective, they realize that the other animal will steal from them.

Animals lacking these specialized neurons do not exhibit this ability.

 

You assume they are seeing it from the other animals 'perspective'. But according to your reasoning (and links), if the animals had empathy, they would share the food with their species but they dont do they, they move their stash of food. All of your links show, to show an action is empathy, the action undertaken by one subject must relieve stress of another. Moving the food stash does not show that and is contrary to your point. This example is of territory and the hunt for resources.

 

Sigh...

once again sympathy and empathy are being confused with each other (even with all the references.). The point I made refereed to animals using empathy to determine a rivals probable action, not being able to feel for them. Empathy is the ability that allows sympathy to exist, but does not mandate that sympathy exist. Since I can still not find that article, I can not substantiate this point of view.

 

 

Yet in all the links you posted to verify the point, the only way to demonstrate this for research purpose was to have the animal perform an altruistic act.

 

The way to demonstrate Empathy was to show that animals could see the world from a rivals perspective, and modify it's actions accordingly.

 

What other purpose does empathy serve if not altruistic? How would that apply for the thread 'evolved reasons for motivations' ? If a creature feels empathy and it doesnt change action, how is this related to motivation?

 

As shown above, empathy does not exists to allow altruistic actions, it likely evolved as a means of understanding a rival. As we evolved, the Empathy ability in our brain was expanded to help with other motivations. As I pointed out above, evolution used an existing tool in our brain to motivate selfish life forms to cooperate (as a better means of survival and procreation), even when it seems counter intuitive from a single selfish life forms point of view.

 

 

How we learn them is not really relevant. the fact that there is positive emotional feedback to make us feel better when we do them is the point I was making. Without that, the behavior would not continue.

 

It is for the topic of this thread. A learned behavior is not an evolved reason.

 

??? You just countered yourself I think.

 

 

Your the one who brought up having children and tried tying it into empathy. And I quote:

We have children because it is pleasurable.

We raise children because it makes us feel good.

 

Good point. The first one relates to making children. A pleasure response not related to empathy. Please strike it.

The second one relates to how children make us feel. We bask in the reflected adoration in their eyes, pride in ourselves at what we have created, When we see the love in their eyes, it is the Empathy wiring that allows us to feel that love (and endorphins) ourselves. A completely pleasurable experience.

 

 

I was only asking you to justify this and presented contrary behavior.

 

Where?

 

Actually birth control, etc has nothing to do with the base of my question to you.

 

Ahh, I see the question properly now. Quoted below (question was in response to making and raising children)

 

Then why do the birth rates fall in countries which have the most resources to offer the individual? It seems the pattern of behavior in humans is, if I have more for self, I dont have as many children. If the struggle to survive is daily, produce more children to help bear the load. If your right, wouldn’t people in the USA, Europe, Australia be producing children at a higher rate than those in the poor nations of the world?

 

The making is a selfish act of pleasure. It is done even when considerable danger of disease is present. As mentioned above, I mistakenly added it as support for Empathy as an evolved reason for motivation in the first reason.

The people in the 1st world countries can have the pleasure without the consequences. They are still, however, motivated to have children due to the second reason.

 

Remember that having a child is not a selfish act in and of itself.We as selfish lifeforms would NEVER have a child without something being in it for us. Empathic wiring allows for abilities built on it that can provide that "Something". (as stated above)

 

But how would you feel about stepping on a child's head, striking a pregnant woman in the stomach, or snapping an old ladies neck? Even if nobody would ever find out, you would still feel bad. We do not learn these things, the ability to empathize is within us.

We most certainly do learn these things and there is no way you will be able to prove this statement.

 

Perhaps true. But it can also not be disproved, leaving us both with a statement of opinion.

The difference is that my position is supported by a larger body of evidence.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

"While the ability to imagine oneself as another person is a sophisticated imaginative process that only fully develops later on in life or with considerable training, the roots of this ability are probably innate."

and

"One must be careful not to confuse empathy with either sympathy, emotional contagion or mind reading. Sympathy is the feeling of compassion for another, the wish to see them better or happier, often described as "feeling sorry" for someone."

 

You go on to show many points relating to individuals doing crimes, enjoying them, and acting completely counter to a sympathetic person. there are 2 problems with that.

1) I am not speaking of sympathy, but rather Empathy. Something that is constantly being confused in this thread.

2) you are speaking is specifics, when the only reasonable discourse on evolution must be applied only to mankind in general. Specific instances can be found to counter absolutely anything.

 

You also point out an important aspect of Empathy, and one I have mentioned several times. We apply empathy to our enemies, but not often sympathy. At least not in a moment of battle or stress.

 

 

They are willing to die for each other. Altruism, you bet it is. Empathy? Yeppers!

 

Again, you speak to an individual incident. Apply it to all mankind and it falls apart. Will everyone be willing to die for anyone? Not likely. They are in a social situation, and it has it's own set of rules. They are learned, and passed on to each new member. Empathy? Perhaps, but not in the way you meant.

 

 

Learned behavior is vital for the survial of all mammals I am aware of. But this thread is about the evolved reasons for our motivation. It may be the ultimate tool of survival for any one species of mammal but you cannot get around the fact a learned behavior is not an evolved reason for our motivation. Learned behavior is the effect of the evolution of brain functions such as memory and how the body processes the brain impluses outside stimuli present

 

I am glad we see eye to eye on this, but please remember that my comment on learning was made in response to your comments on neglected children. I wanted to show the difference between learned response, and evolved mechanisms for motivating a selfish life form.

 

This post is getting WAY to large I fear :esmoking: