Altruism found to be hard-wired into us

[kheegster]

From the Beeb

Altruism 'in-built' in humans
By Helen Briggs
BBC News science reporter


Infants as young as 18 months show altruistic behaviour, suggesting humans have a natural tendency to be helpful, German researchers have discovered. In experiments reported in the journal Science, toddlers helped strangers complete tasks such as stacking books.

Young chimps did the same, providing the first evidence of altruism in non human primates.

Just rewards

Scientists have long debated what leads people to "act out of the goodness of their hearts" by helping non-relatives regardless of any benefits for themselves. Human society depends on people being able to collaborate with others - donating to charity, paying taxes and so on - and many scientists have argued that altruism is a uniquely human function, hard-wired into our brains.

The latest study suggests it is a strong human trait, perhaps present more than six million years ago in the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans. "This is the first experiment showing altruistic helping towards goals in any non-human primate," said Felix Warneken, a psychologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

"It's been claimed chimpanzees act mainly for their own ends; but in our experiment, there was no reward and they still helped."

'Astonishing'

Dr Warneken and colleague Professor Michael Tomasello wanted to see whether very young children who had not yet learned social skills were willing to help strangers.

The experimenters performed simple tasks like dropping a clothes peg out of reach while hanging clothes on a line, or mis-stacking a pile of books. Nearly all of the group of 24 18-month-olds helped by picking up the peg or the book, usually in the first 10 seconds of the experiment.

They only did this if they believed the researcher needed the object to complete the task - if it was thrown on the ground deliberately, they didn't pick it up.

"The results were astonishing because these children are so young - they still wear diapers and are barely able to use language, but they already show helping behaviour," said Felix Warneken.

Lost spoon

The pair went on to investigate more complicated tasks, such as retrieving an object from a box with a flap. Children and chimpanzees are both willing to help, but they appear to differ in their ability to interpret the other's need for help in different situations
Warneken at al

When the scientists accidentally dropped a spoon inside, and pretended they didn't know about the flap, the children helped retrieve it. They only did this if they believed the spoon had not been dropped deliberately.

The tasks were repeated with three young chimpanzees that had been raised in captivity. The chimps didn not help in more complex tasks such as the box experiment, but did assist the human looking after them in simple tasks such as reaching for a lost object.

"Children and chimpanzees are both willing to help, but they appear to differ in their ability to interpret the other's need for help in different situations," the two researchers write in Science.

Ugandan study

Further evidence of chimps' ability to cooperate was revealed in a separate study published in the same edition of the scientific journal.

Alicia Melis at the Ngamba Island Chimpanzee Sanctuary in Uganda found that chimps recognised when collaboration was necessary and chose the best partner to work with. The chimps had to cooperate in reaching a food tray by pulling two ends of a rope at the same time. "We've never seen this level of understanding during cooperation in any other animals except humans," she said.

But she said there was still no evidence that chimpanzees communicate with each other about a common goal like children do from an early age.

So much for the Bible being the only source of morality, eh?

[Lord Zentei]

Indeed.

And damn you for beating me to it.

[mr friendly guy]

Whats the betting they will interpret this "hard wiring" as proof that God exists as he did this in defiance of his doctrine of free will.

These people claim that there is evidence that the tendency to believe in God is "hard wired" into the brain (never mind that it contradicts their own doctrine of free will). I suspect that the study they use to make that claim was based on a study (can't remember the name) where scientist investigated why people were prone to delusions.

[Lord Zentei]

Whats the betting they will interpret this "hard wiring" as proof that God exists as he did this in defiance of his doctrine of free will.

These people claim that there is evidence that the tendency to believe in God is "hard wired" into the brain (never mind that it contradicts their own doctrine of free will). I suspect that the study they use to make that claim was based on a study (can't remember the name) where scientist investigated why people were prone to delusions.

There is also the point M Shermer brought up in one of his columns: smart people can beleive in silly things because they are good at justifying beleifs they arrives at by non smart means. So the issue of self critique is also impoertant

[Andrew J.]

Hah! Take that, Ayn Rand!

[Molyneux]

Well, that makes my day a little brighter.
It's always nice to realize that kindness is a survival trait...

[Lord Zentei]

Hah! Take that, Ayn Rand!

As I understand it, she did not object to altruism as much as government sponsored welfare.

[mr friendly guy]

It's always nice to realize that kindness is a survival trait...

I would have thought thats its intrinsically obvious from an evolutionary point of view with social animals such as ourselves. Reciprocity leads to increase benefits and in the case of relatives (say in tribes) it improves the very important evolutionary task to ensuring your genes survive.

But of the course the creationist still bring up the "what is the evolutionary advantage to kindness" again and again, no matter how many times its been explained.

[wolveraptor]

Strange that adults are so much less likely to practice such behavior in both species.

[Adrian Laguna]

Strange that adults are so much less likely to practice such behavior in both species.

Perhaps the reason is thus: Children are more naturally altruistic so that they form bonds with eachother during childhood. That way they are friends and more likely to help each other as adults, thus ensuring the survival of the tribe. Adults are less likely to be "good Samaritans", particularly with strangers, because they have a rather important job, that is defending the tribe from outside threats. In order to be able to deal with the action of killing another human being, even if it was in the defense of self or family, it is likely that adults would have to be somewhat less inclined to be altruistic.

Does this make sense?

[wolveraptor]

So people may in fact learn not to be as altruistic with age.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Hah! Take that, Ayn Rand!

As I understand it, she did not object to altruism as much as government sponsored welfare.

Well, at least from her quotes and the explanations I have seen from Peikoff, she actually puts forth the idea that altrusim is "teh great satan", not just government sponsored ones. She argues against altruism if you don't get anything out of it. In Atlas Shrugged, which I had to slog through, one of her characters--I think it was Dagney Taggart--believed that altrusim was evil incarnate, and since her characters were symbolic of elements of her philosphy, representitive of how she thought the world ought to be, it reflects her. But also, she has labled altruism as a vice compared to selfishness in her book: "The Virtue of Selfishness." In it, she claims

According to the ARI and the Objectivist Centre, "Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal." As a vice, people ought not sacrifice anything of themselves if they are not getting something in return and it is wrong to tell people they ought to do so if they don't want to. You are right that she's against forcing them, but she also thinks that, as a moral principle, it is bad because it gives the individual the wrong idea. If you want to help because you are "objectively" getting something, it is ok because there is mutual exchange, but if you are doing it for apparently no reason other than to help others, that's a vice.

This is her view in her own words, though: "altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value - and so long as that beneficiary is anybody than oneself, anything goes.". She has a fairly warped definition of altruism.



I think it's hilarious, though, how hypocritical she is. She stayed with her relatives while she tried to learn English when she came to teh states. They just let her stay there out of the goodness of their hearts. Apparently, that's bad. She didn't complain, though.

[Molyneux]

It's always nice to realize that kindness is a survival trait...

I would have thought thats its intrinsically obvious from an evolutionary point of view with social animals such as ourselves. Reciprocity leads to increase benefits and in the case of relatives (say in tribes) it improves the very important evolutionary task to ensuring your genes survive.

But of the course the creationist still bring up the "what is the evolutionary advantage to kindness" again and again, no matter how many times its been explained.

Well, I had reasoned that out on my own, but even so it's nice to have hard corroborating evidence.

[Elfdart]

I don't know why this is such a surprise. Most primates don't have horns, claws, tusks, hooves, speed or strength to escape being eaten by predators. We have two trump cards: intelligence (learning, communication, memory) and altruism.

Primates, wild pigs and members of the dog family are among the few animals that will risk their lives to defend others who are not related by blood. A doe might risk her life to defend her own young or she might not. She isn't going to do a thing for another doe's offspring. There's a great National Geographic special about the herds on the Serengeti. Not only will zebras and wildebeest not aid young not their own, they will deliberately kick and trample them to death if they call for help. On the flip side, when a small group of peccaries gets attacked by a jaguar, one of the older ones will deliberately try to fight the jaguar single-handed while the others escape -essentially jumping on a grenade for the others. A larger group will gang up on the attacker. Ayn Rand cultists belong with the hoofed cud-chewers who trample the young of others, while decent people belong among the more intelligent mammals.

[wolveraptor]

Dolphins also exhibit this behavior, if I'm not mistaken. In fact, most gregarious cetaceans do, though larger ones don't tend to have much to protect each other from.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Does the phrase, "what comes around, goes around, and we could all use more of this going around" make me seem like captain obvious? I have never heared anyone else use this, so I believe I invented this trite little bromide.

[Archaic`]

I'm not entirely sure I see how this utterly proves altruism is hard coded, to be honest. Even though no rewards were offered, if there was an expectation of a reward (or of other possible future benifits), something the chimps raised in captivity would almost certainly have had if they've ever participated in other experiments, isn't this just an example of enlightened self interest?

[wolveraptor]

If they're worth their shit as scientists, they would've repeated the experiments with green babies as well as those accustomed to labs.

[Surlethe]

Hah! Take that, Ayn Rand!

As I understand it, she did not object to altruism as much as government sponsored welfare.

If Atlas Shrugged is any indicator of her beliefs, she objected to all altruism -- e.g., (if you don't want the book to be spoiled, don't read on) John Galt taking Dagny Taggart instead of letting Francisco Iforgethislastname have her; there's a direct quote in that scene slamming altruism in general.

[Adrian Laguna]

Here's the thing about Altruism, it has a couple of advantages. One, it helps prolong the species. In a battlefield situation if a man throws himself on a frag granade he gains shit, but the squad suffers one cassualty instead of five. As far as our hard-coded behavior patterns are concerned, this means that more members of the tribe will survive to pass down their genes.

The second benefit, is that altruism is very often not totally altruistic. When you help someone, the beneficiary of your kindness may feel like they "owe you one", unless said someone is an asshole. The point being, "I help you in your time of need, and if I ever need a hand you can help me in turn." Hell, isn't The Godfather based on this?

[wolveraptor]

Well, the Godfather demanded favors in return for his deeds, while altruists expect favors in return, and they don't have a job in mind beforehand when they commit the "selfless" act.

[CorSec]

Young chimps did the same, providing the first evidence of altruism in non human primates.

I don't readily agree with this comment. (See Below)

I'm not entirely sure I see how this utterly proves altruism is hard coded, to be honest. Even though no rewards were offered, if there was an expectation of a reward (or of other possible future benifits), something the chimps raised in captivity would almost certainly have had if they've ever participated in other experiments, isn't this just an example of enlightened self interest?

One of my favorite excerpts is from Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.

In the annals of primate ethics, there are some accounts that have the ring of parable. In a laboratory setting, macaques were fed if they were willing to pull a chain and electrically shock an unrelated macaque whose agony was in plain view through a one-way mirror. Otherwise, they starved. After learning the ropes, the monkeys frequently refused to pull the chain; in one experiment only 13% would do so -- 87% preferred to go hungry. One macaque went without food for nearly two weeks rather than hurt its fellow. Macaques who had themselves been shocked in previous experiments were even less willing to pull the chain. The relative social status or gender of the macaques had little bearing on their reluctance to hurt others.

According to dictionary.com, altruism has two definitions. The first is an "unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness;" the second applies to zoology "instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species."

Given the tentative results from both experiments, I'd say it's entirely possible that animals can exhibit altruistic behavior. At one time I would have ascribed it to the glory of God, that his nature is imprinted on everything created. Now? Now it exemplifies how evolution works. As has been stated previously, we protect and care for one another because it propagates the species.

Sure, it sounds clinical when written that way. But in practice, at least on the human level, it's no less a feel good experience to be giving to others, or to receive something from someone else.