What are the evolved reasons for our motivations and impulses?

[Cedars]

dup post

[TheFaithfulStone]

You may have picked up that I have some deep reservations when applying such a subjective behavior [altruism] to an evolved reason for motivation/actions of people.

 

What's subjective about altruism? Biologically speaking if you take an action that decreases your own fitness for the benefit of another, that's altruism.

 

Monkeys screaming an alarm when a predator approaches is a fear reaction.

 

I think there's plenty of evidence for monkey alarms being an altruistic action and not just a scream of terror. Monkeys make different alarms for different kind of predators, which they wouldn't do if it were just the monkey equivalent of "Holy Crap! I'm scared!" In fact Diana monkeys can even "modify" the alarm with a "maybe" so the other monkeys won't go into immediate freak out mode.

 

http://calvin.st-andrews.ac.uk/external_relations/news_article.cfm?reference=253

 

Here's another explanation of altruism, which explains why "being nice" would be selected for.

 

PDF Warning!

http://www.santafe.edu/~jpepper/ papers/Pepper&Smuts2002.pdf

 

TFS

[Cedars]

What's subjective about altruism? Biologically speaking if you take an action that decreases your own fitness for the benefit of another, that's altruism.

 

I think there's plenty of evidence for monkey alarms being an altruistic action and not just a scream of terror. Monkeys make different alarms for different kind of predators, which they wouldn't do if it were just the monkey equivalent of "Holy Crap! I'm scared!" In fact Diana monkeys can even "modify" the alarm with a "maybe" so the other monkeys won't go into immediate freak out mode.

 

http://calvin.st-andrews.ac.uk/external_relations/news_article.cfm?reference=253

 

Here's another explanation of altruism, which explains why "being nice" would be selected for.

 

PDF Warning!

http://www.santafe.edu/~jpepper/ papers/Pepper&Smuts2002.pdf

 

TFS

Simply put the act of altruism is described as an act of unselfishness. When your call is to alert members which carry your own genes, its does act to keep your own genes in the pool and is not altruistic, its a defensive (flight) method of self survival. Lots of our methods of defense involve signaling the danger. It also serves to call other members of the group in to drive out invaders. An evolved scream of fear/fight is not altruistic, its evolved language.

 

Lots of animals describe the danger via their language. They also describe food sources via language. As I said, what I find remarkable is the number of other species who learn the danger calls of other animals and apply that to their own survival.

 

Subjective because we have no conclusive (heres the genes) idea why bees or ants or any other creature do these things. People we have a grasp of and it appears to be culture and society which propel these actions into existance and those actions by society are not selfish either, they are a defensive behavior which acts to protect the whole, but is actually designed to protect the individual (self) from other individuals and their impulses.

[Michaelangelica]

This was interesting

Are humans the only animals who want causes and effects?

 

Scientist Lewis Wolpert talks about his book, 'Six impossible things

before breakfast: The evolutionary origins of belief'. It's an

exploration of why we have evolved to want religion, what function it

serves and whether we can do without it.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/incon/

 

Also heard a geneticist say it may be possible to cross chimps and humans they were so genetically close.

Apparently we were in-breeding with them a mere 5 million years ago.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Cedars - I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

 

Given:

1) Animal behaviors are the product of evolutionary development.

Sub: The mechanism of evolution dictates that animals that behave in ways that increases their reproductive fitness should have greater success in breeding.

 

2) Animals sometimes behave in ways that do NOT increase their individual reproductive fitness. (altruism)

 

3) Therefore one of the following must be true:

a) Altruism is an inherent trait in animals that is not subject to evolutionary pressures. (therefore 1 cannot be true, and 3a is rejected.)

B) There must be some benefit to behaving altruistically, such that the trait is selected for.

or it's converse

c) There must be some negative consequence to behaving selfishly, such that the trait is "deselected" for.

 

This is distinct from Kayra's argument that we act ONLY out of selfish motives, and that when we appear not to, that there are in fact, deeply hidden selfish motives within each action. An action in and of itself may be purely altruistic (such as the suicide defense of the Red Colubus monkey, or the work of sterile bees.) New York Times, referencing Pepper, et al. But you may gain in some other area, NOT as a direct result of that action.

 

For instance, if my name is Ed, and I spit on my girlfriends and call them names, the chances that I will get to actually breed with any of them are pretty rare. If my name is Ned, and I just ignore them - neither being mean nor nice, the chances that I get to breed with any of them are slightly better, but still low. If my name is George, and I hold open doors, provide support at the expense of my own comfort, and even defense up to the point of placing myself in harms way (or dying!), the chances that I get to breed are really good (Chicks DIG the hero.)

 

So, while any individual act of altruism cannot be explained in terms of selfish motives, and in fact individual acts of altruism have nothing at all to DO with selfish motives, the existence of altruism itself CAN be and is explained in terms of selfish genes.

 

You can't say "that's not real altruism" because the individual acts themselves are "truly altruistic" in the sense that they do not benefit the actor, only the recipient, but it does provide a mechanism by which "selfish" evolution gives rise to cooperation and kindness.

 

(read the Smutts paper for another example of how "responsible" foragers outlast the "exploitive" foragers.)

 

TFS

[questor]

I would think that your IQ is determined by your genes, barring any fetal damage. this establishes your potential. if your neural pathways develop to their capacity, your potential will be such that you can develop your knowledge and wisdom (knowledge + experience) to its maximum. most people never do this because other exigencies always get in the way. it might be said that people in certain cultures only develop half their potential, others more, some less.

the thoughts you think and the activities you follow are mostly determined by the culture you live in. i do think that exercising the brain cells with education, reading , dicussions and so forth helps you better approach your potential. you don't hear of many highly intelligent Amazonian indians.

[Kayra]

Excelent post and article TFS./

[Michaelangelica]

I would think that your IQ is determined by your genes,

 

you don't hear of many highly intelligent Amazonian indians.

 

Intelligence as measured by IQ tests is culturally specific.

Could you survive in an Amazonian Jungle?

Would you know what plants to eat for food or medicine?

Would you know how and what to hunt for food?

You would probably be considered very dumb by Amazonian standards.

 

IQ is what IQ tests, test.

IQ is much overrated and has many popular misconceptions, including your racist one above

[Kayra]

Your IQ, however you define or measure it (aboriginals in Australia have an astoundingly high average spatial IQ), is likely set by your genes, and modified by your environment. Like almost every aspect of us.

 

I suspect that if you studied 2 twins separated at birth, their IQ's you have a common baseline, and be modified by their CURRENT environment. If removed from that environment, the IQ would drift towards it's baseline. (Yes, IQ's can go down as well as up within a lifetime.) I would bet that habits acquired in the environment would cause the IQ to resist moving completely back to it's baseline though.

 

No proof folks, just my thoughts on it.

[InfiniteNow]

Diet and nutritional intake plays a role too.

 

So, our IQ makes us want to reproduce? That has Jack, and his other brother, ****, to do with this thread really... but whatever. :eek2:

[Kayra]

Diet and nutritional intake plays a role too.

 

So, our IQ makes us want to reproduce? That has Jack, and his other brother, ****, to do with this thread really... but whatever. :eek2:

 

LOL

[HydrogenBond]

The way food could play as role in intelligence is connected to hunger. If one is hungry it becomes difficult to concentrate because the hunger is distracting and taking up mental energy. The nagging impulse is to find food for hunger and maybe even survival. This may limit how far learning could go, since one would have half their brain tied behind their back most of the time.

 

Part of the reason sexual desire is rated so high on the scale of impulse and motivation is that culture allows one to more easily satisfy the rest of the impulses so they appear to almost disappear. If culture was disrupted, food and water would weigh much heavier on the brain. The old fashion breeding season may become all that would be needed in the way of desire and procreation, unless one found abundance of food and water so desire could return to the forefront.

[InfiniteNow]

The way food could play as role in intelligence is connected to hunger. If one is hungry it becomes difficult to concentrate because the hunger is distracting and taking up mental energy. The nagging impulse is to find food for hunger and maybe even survival. This may limit how far learning could go, since one would have half their brain tied behind their back most of the time.

 

Okay, I'll bite...

 

The hunger response is also tied to blood glucose levels. The "ose" energies in food are metabolized with insulin, making them usable by the body. Let's call it glucose, or "sugar"... The blood "sugar" allows the hemoglobin molecule to carry oxygen to the brain. Less sugar translates into less oxygen.

 

This translates into a focus of the transported energy into the survival mechanisms like heartbeat and breathing (more central regions of the brain), and the outer regions receive less energy/sugar. This is why it's hard to concentrate when we haven't eaten. The distraction is your body telling you "hey ****tard, stop contemplating differential calculus and go get some food."

 

 

If culture was disrupted, food and water would weigh much heavier on the brain. The old fashion breeding season may become all that would be needed in the way of desire and procreation, unless one found abundance of food and water so desire could return to the forefront.

 

Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.

 

 

 

Cheers. :eek2:

[Cedars]

Cedars - I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

 

Given:

1) Animal behaviors are the product of evolutionary development.

Sub: The mechanism of evolution dictates that animals that behave in ways that increases their reproductive fitness should have greater success in breeding.

 

2) Animals sometimes behave in ways that do NOT increase their individual reproductive fitness. (altruism)

 

3) Therefore one of the following must be true:

a) Altruism is an inherent trait in animals that is not subject to evolutionary pressures. (therefore 1 cannot be true, and 3a is rejected.)

:eek2: There must be some benefit to behaving altruistically, such that the trait is selected for.

or it's converse

c) There must be some negative consequence to behaving selfishly, such that the trait is "deselected" for.

 

TFS

 

or

 

The occasional acts of apparent altruism are so infrequent through out the evolution of life in general that they are a non-issue in evolution and a byproduct of other more tangible factors such as;

 

have a base in chemical/hormonal actions/reactions by those involved and are physical in origin

 

or

 

are learned behaviors dictated by culture/society/pack/herd that the life form is present in.

 

But then maybe we are not talking about the same thing. I have been working hard projects around home the last few days and I am tired. So maybe the points just are not sinking in.

[TheFaithfulStone]

The occasional acts of apparent altruism are so infrequent through out the evolution of life in general that they are a non-issue in evolution and a byproduct of other more tangible factors such as;

 

Well...I think this is factually untrue.

 

Stephen Jay Gould as well.

 

I mean, think about it. There are a million tiny act of kindness every day. Even if you take a real tragedy like 9-11, or WWII, you'll see that the heroism, and the nobility of humanity far outweighs the evil. Imagine, twenty men hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings, but 150 New York firefighters rushed into that building and gave their lives to try and save others.

 

Good is more common that evil. And therefore less newsworthy.

 

TFS

 

in any case both of the examples you site would be evolved behaviors. Either the physical "reasons" you site would have to evolve, or the society would need to "select" for altruistic behavior.

[Cedars]

I mean, think about it. There are a million tiny act of kindness every day. Even if you take a real tragedy like 9-11, or WWII, you'll see that the heroism, and the nobility of humanity far outweighs the evil. Imagine, twenty men hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings, but 150 New York firefighters rushed into that building and gave their lives to try and save others.

 

Good is more common that evil. And therefore less newsworthy.

 

TFS

 

in any case both of the examples you site would be evolved behaviors. Either the physical "reasons" you site would have to evolve, or the society would need to "select" for altruistic behavior.

 

Altruism as I understand its definition is unconditional. When applied to evolutionary reasons for our motivativations, it seems to be a luxury behavior that is discarded in the lean times for self, and seems to be selective in its application as I understood the links posted to attempt to verify its evolutionary imperative.

 

For every tiny act of kindness you see, count the paper cups/fast food wrappers callously discarded by another human being. Think about every time someone pulled out in front of you or wouldnt let you merge into traffic, because their sense of self and the value of their time outweighs the risk they put you in when you have to slam on your brakes to accomodate their bully behavior. Remember the times you had gum stuck to the bottom of your foot because some other humans vision of the world was so narrow and self absorbed they didnt even give it a thought when they spit out their gum (even though the entrance to most buildings has a trash can). Watch how many people in the grocery store give up their place in line and offer it to a mother who is struggling with children who are behaving badly. Count the grocery carts left in car spaces and wonder about the reasoning used by someone who does this. Remember that employee theft outweighs shoplifting losses for stores. I have no reason to think these thousands of acts of kindness are not negated by the other actions I see all around. We are inherently selfish by nature and any actions beyond the pack/herd hierarchy have to be cultivated by a society/culture to exist. Even with all our 'good intentions' we do not mandate charity giving, community service or any number of other altruistic idealisms simply because its goes that much against our selfish nature.

 

A sense of loyalty/duty is not the same thing as altruisim. Were there acts of altruism in the above mentioned extremes? Yes. It was a great loss of fire fighters and related persons that most likely would have been reduced if the communications had not failed. No one imagined the buildings coming down as they did. You did notice the helicopters that did not lift people off the tops of the buildings right? Heroics are an anomily and that is what makes them remarkable and newsworthy. And the same thing occured in WW2. Nobility? Sure cases of it happened but it was an anomily in the course of the social/behavioral reality of the people. The normal reaction is to ignore that which does not impact us directly.

 

Think about police dogs as an example. You can train them to do the same thing the firemen did during 9/11 but it is due to the hierarchy of the pack mentality that allows this interaction between species in this regard. Do you know why police dogs are mostly male and not female? Because you cannot consistantly train a female dog to go into a building alone, follow a suspect far, and a number of other related issues. Her pack behavior drives force her (by nature) to stick by her handler and protect him (protect the young). Males protect the territory and their natural drive allows this lead behavior to drive out the invader to the territory. This is what I was told by the different members of different police forces who used to come and select pups from my parents dog litters for police work. Altruistic behavior by the dogs? You can call it that I suppose. But doesnt it make more sense to attribute this to the inherant genetic drives of male/female predator/prey dominant/submissive evolutionary drives common to most (not some) life forms on this planet.

 

The articles linked to in various places thru this thread all seem to be struggling to prove their point, and the most common occurances of 'altruism' are female initiated occurances and I just cant help but think the whole 'altruism' as an evolutionary drive is related to the drives to protect our young/territory and communication/language skills. Altruism is a side effect of these natural drives.

[InfiniteNow]

But what if your very first statement is not accuate, and it's not unconditional?