Kin Selection & Altruism

I'm thinking that a factor that is ignored in the {kin bonding} aspect is the {group bonding} aspect.Any species that forms groups that are more than extended families need a mechanism for maintaining that group cohesiveness.Apparantly humans made such a transition in their (relatively recent - sapiens?) past, and this is responsible for a greater adaptation ability to face new environments by combining resources.This would be done by extending to non-family group members actions that would otherwise only be done in an extended family, and this would include sharing resources, assistance in times of need, and sharing responsibiity for raising young members to fit into the social group (with associated punishments etc as needed).Then the act of altruism is more dependent on the viewed inclusion of the other person as a member of your group, and the difference in {group perception} would lead to differences in observed {levels of altruistic} behavior.This could be why the chimps in the study did not behave as altruistically as expected (ignoring the problems with the study that have been discussed), because even though they knew the others socially they did not consider them a part of their {family group}.This would also be a point that the researchers might have ignored having expected {group bonding} vs {family bonding} to be as important to chimps as it is to humans.Just my thoughts.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

like democrats versus republicans?

We have the report a couple years back of a female chimp gorilla protecting and saving a human child that got into the display area until the keepers could get him out.There are anecdotal reports of dolphins saving drowning people (usually children) by holding them to the surface.This cannot be explained by any gene sharing model, but it can be explained by a social group model.{corrected above}This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*04*2005 12:03 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The dictionary.com defintition: al·tru·ism (click)
It would seem to me that we are discussing the zoological aspect here more than an purely individual one as you seem intent on doing.Now you can imply that survival of the species is some "expected" reward, but I can't see this behavior as being that conscious to that effect.This gives us the pack animals where one pair breeds and the others assist in the care and rearing and do not themselves breed.This also includes any action protecting the young of a group that are not necessarily your own, thus several herd species that surround the young to protect them when attacked by predators. Game theory shows that there is a net benefit to altruistic behavior without needing a family relationship model. This is one of the things that John Nash did on his way to a Nobel Prize. It does not surprise me that nature would find a similar solution through the computer program of massive trial and error.
http://www.stat.psu.edu/news/conferences/JohnNash/milnor.pdfOnce altruism becomes a feasible solution then there would be measures that would also evolve to stabilize it within a group, particularly as the group gets larger, and that is where the concept of "altruistic punishment" comes in - and they are talking about individuals that don't necessarily benefit from having punished the non-acceptable behavior of the noncooperators (scrooges).This can still fit your definition of "a behavior on the part of a donor that results in a decrease of direct fitness for the donor while 'imparting' a gain in direct fitness for the recipient of the behavior" if the donor never interacts with the recipient again and the recipient becomes a better contributor to it's social group.See Just a moment... I think this is a red-herring in the discussion, and I don't see it being much of a factor at all. Often the actions are taken without long mental evaluation of the {cost\benefit} ratios and futures of the pork market: a situation requires immediate action, the action is taken (by the altruistic) or not (by the scrooge). This gets back to group bonding behavior and a recognition of a larger group than family for belonging. Perhaps this is the evolutionary explanation of religions. It allows a multi-group social interaction at a larger scale than just extended family groups and codifies a behavioral pattern of sharing between the groups that is recognized at some gut level but cannot be articulated otherwise.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Fascinating. I remember it as chimp. The problem I have here is the aspect of beneficial to the species while at a less than neutral benefit to the individual (zool. definition above), and the results of game theory that do show a benefit to the group that employs altruism.This later bit would mean that a behavior is selected by evolution? (didn't we have a thread about that?)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

That gets into the perception of shared existence across species pretty fast, if you're going to invoke it, don't you think?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Helped the boy with no benefit to the gorilla?I don't see why it doesn't qualify based on the definitions

Can they show that the "higher lifetime fitness" is due to helping the nesting of the parents and not due to either:(1) skipping the first potential breeding season to complete growth and development of the individual and building up sufficient resources for breeding the next year(2) higher lifetime fitness of the individual irrespectively (ie would apply even if they did not help parents)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Now you're redefining the cost issue and making it much more specific than it needs to be. All that is necessary is for the act to cost the individual, whether it is a meal or 20 winks is immaterial, there was effort involved that did not contribute to that individuals overall fitness. It does seem you are missing the mniddle concept posed ... Or a third choice: not helping the parents and not breeding either, but becoming a fully developed individual first. I'd be interested in reading the study to see how they control the variables. Can you remember enough key words to google it?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This is what you need to know though to control for the possibility that the delayed breeding crows are just better fed, and because of that more developed, than their cohorts who run themselves ragged trying to breed the first year - ie it may have nothing to do with helping the parent nest. thought that the definition was set by The problem here is how much detriment are we talking? Loss of some sleep? In certain conditions that can become life threatening, while in others it is of no longer effect once sleep has been caught up. Same can be said for any expenditure of time and energy that does not specifically lead to {survival\breeding}. Certainly it doesn't require a reproductive cost, so that is a little more narrow than it needs to be. The most amazing blue you will ever see, no picture does them justice. Against a background of the "Craters of the Moon National Monument" a truly awesome experience.Craters Of The Moon National Monument & Preserve (U.S. National Park Service) Great ... more reading ... gulls can be viscious.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The argument was that crows that helped obtained a benefit in better reproductive success in the following years, the question that I have is whether that benefit was due to (a) helping the parent nest or (b) delayed breeding while continuing to mature and develop. If there is no difference in breeding success between (a) and (b) then helping the parents does not lead to better reproductive success. All I was pointing out was that the definition posted covers zoological usage. You made a comment that further limited the applicability to reproductive success rather than just an (ill defined) detriment. The nature and the degree of the detriment is not discussed in the definition, so it could be just a temporary waste of time and energy.A person who stops to help another change a car tire is making a temporary waste of time and energy to no benefit to themselves, direct benefit to the other person(s), and could jeopardize the {stoppers} life if conditions were bad - it has the potential for personal disaster, yet once completed there would be no lingering detriment.Behavior of any individual animal that does not specifically further its {survival\breeding} success is a temporary waste of time and energy with the potential for personal disaster, and if that time and energy benefits another (a potentially benefits the other to further its {survival\breeding} success) then the behavior qualifies under the definition. My condolances. I've been downwind of such places kayaking.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Actually I have a problem with relating altruism to some evolutionary benefit to the recipient plus deficit to the doner as if fitness were exchanged.But I'm trying to keep within the bounds set. The 'cost' can include a potential for {bad things to happen} during the action and still qualify imho. Perhaps the problem is trying to over analyse the behavior to find some long term benefit when none was intended? I used to live in Grand Rapids, grew up in A², and in between travelled from one end of this country to the other and back before moving to the Northeast (but not the northeast kingdom), and am now a block away from tidal waters ... and where I can get decent seafood cheap.The cormorant colonies I am most familiar with are just off the Elizabeth Islands south of Woods Hole. Especially considering that coming from a chick, it is twice regurgitated ...I've also seen adults upchuck to lighten ship for takeoff, and I've seen seagulls take advantage of it.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

What I am objecting to is the study of trends far beyond the scope of the mental capacity of the individual organism to compute in it's deliberations while making the choice to act altruistically or not.I seriously doubt that the crows, scrub/bluejays, etcetera, can conceive of a future benefit to themselves beyond a week, let alone a year or two down the line.That there is a benefit to the individuals in later years is a reason for the crows that behave altruistically to be selected for.To argue that the improved reproductive success is part of the decision making process is really a post hoc fallacy if not the 'reverse direction' fallacy. I think the {cost/benefit} have to be readily observable within the duration of the action or in its immediate aftermath. Anything a month or so later is really irrelevant as there is no way it could have been part of the considerations, imh(ysa)o.There needs to be a link before you can dismiss the action as altruistic because of a later observed benefit.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

No. This is cart before the horse logic. That does not explain why it happened the first time, it just explains why it continues to happen in that species: the fact that it confers a benefit is why it is selected to be continuedThere could just as easily be the same behavior in other species where it does not confer a selective advantage and thus would not be passed on to the next generation.It could well be a common mutation that {confuses\transfers} DNA between male and female genome subsets (similar to, say, homosexual behavior} with no selective advantage. You could say that the helpers are the {nerd\gay\mothers-boys} of the flock, while their cohorts are busy learning how to be a dick.The behavior would be the same. Thus the following year benefit has no bearing on the behavior, just on the greater preservation of it in one species compared to the other.The only difference would be in the proportion of the gene within the populations ...say ~10% for common repeating mutation gene set versus +50% for the selective advantage copies the gene set.Thus the argument that it is a reproduced benefit does not negate the behavior itself from being altruistic. No, the helpers at the nest sacrifice their {time\energy} to raising other young. The ones that receive an immediate benefit are the parents of the young who do not have to spend as much {time\energy} to raise the young. The next beneficiaries are the young, obviously.The helpers do not see an advantage in the first year {other than maybe being more {healty\fit} than their party-hearty pals. In the species where that is the case. That is why it is selected to be reproduced in those species, but not why it occured in the first place.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I was working on another website and had this thoughtBacterial Conjugation (with animation)Bacterium {A} injects material into bacterium {B} that makes {B} immune to drug X{A} gets no benefit from it, either reproductive or survivalist, yet has given {B} a big benefit to future survival.{A} can also be a different species from {B}.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.