Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kin Selection & Altruism
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 136 (258049)
11-09-2005 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Omnivorous
11-08-2005 11:26 PM


Re: anecdotal
When we enter the realm of maternal behavior, all other bets are off.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Omnivorous, posted 11-08-2005 11:26 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Omnivorous, posted 11-09-2005 8:24 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 32 of 136 (258055)
11-09-2005 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by RAZD
11-09-2005 7:31 AM


Re: anecdotal
RAZD writes:
That gets into the perception of shared existence across species pretty fast, if you're going to invoke it, don't you think?
The stimuli of neoteny are powerful: that a protective instinct is triggered in one adult female primate by the distressed young of another seems unsurprising. Periodically, we hear of much more distant species interacting as offspring and parent: there was a recent case of a big predator African cat adopting/protecting a young (?springbok/gazelle).
While I believe that animals (mammals and birds in particular) have a much greater degree of consciousness and intelligence than is commonly supposed, we don't have to invoke that stance to explain these maternal behaviors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 11-09-2005 7:31 AM RAZD has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 33 of 136 (258071)
11-09-2005 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
11-08-2005 6:38 PM


Re: anecdotal
RAZD writes:
We have the report a couple years back of a female chimp protecting and saving a human child that got into the display area until the keepers could get him out.
But that was not an altruistic behavior.
I'm more interested in addressing situations of altruism between unrelated individuals. How often do we see this occur?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2005 6:38 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 11-11-2005 7:39 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 34 of 136 (258088)
11-09-2005 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
11-08-2005 7:21 PM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
RAZD writes:
This gives us the pack animals where one pair breeds and the others assist in the care and rearing and do not themselves breed.
Well, I think we should be careful here. I'm not claiming to know all, but again, my understanding is that very few examples of this behavior truly exist. More times than not, when presented with an opportunity to mate, these "altruistic" individuals will seize that chance. Their prior lack of mating is NOT something they are doing for the good of the pack, but rather it is "forced" upon them by the dominant male or female of the pack.
RAZD writes:
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.
The link your provided in an interesting read. However, I am by know means a math wiz (I like to say that my brother got the math brains at the cost of not getting any common sense, where as I went the other way), so I am reading it again and again to sort it all out. Thanks though, for providing it.
RAZD writes:
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).
I completely agree. I was not trying to make this claim for all instances of supposed altruism, but instead what I meant, or intended to imply, was that often times, when altruism is invoked, it can more easily be explained by reciprocity.
Indeed, it is the cases where reciprocity does not explain the behavior that I am most interested in exploring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2005 7:21 PM RAZD has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 35 of 136 (258098)
11-09-2005 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Omnivorous
11-08-2005 9:13 PM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
Omnivorous writes:
Crows also stay with the parent pair for a few years and help to support subsequent nestings.
I seem to recall studies which have shown that those individuals that help at the nest have higher lifetime fitness than those that attempt to breed during the first season. Learning how to care for the young is a very important aspect that cannot be over looked.
Additionally, some studies have shown that those that hang around may very well "inherit" the territory in the event that one parent or the other dies.
So helping at the nest may very well be a selfish behavior, not an altruistic one.
Omnivorous writes:
...while the degree of relatedness attenuates, the degree of altruism does not: perfect strangers risk their lives to save perfect strangers, and they do it often.
But in how many species? I would guess that it's relatively few (humans...maybe apes, and chimps but I'm not even sure about those last two). Even the link provided by RAZD in message 25 looks only at humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Omnivorous, posted 11-08-2005 9:13 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Omnivorous, posted 11-11-2005 10:27 PM FliesOnly has replied
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2005 1:22 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 36 of 136 (258984)
11-11-2005 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by FliesOnly
11-09-2005 9:11 AM


Re: anecdotal
But that was not an altruistic behavior.
Helped the boy with no benefit to the gorilla?
I don't see why it doesn't qualify based on the definitions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by FliesOnly, posted 11-09-2005 9:11 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by FliesOnly, posted 11-14-2005 7:35 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 37 of 136 (259003)
11-11-2005 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by FliesOnly
11-09-2005 10:10 AM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
FliesOnly writes:
I seem to recall studies which have shown that those individuals that help at the nest have higher lifetime fitness than those that attempt to breed during the first season. Learning how to care for the young is a very important aspect that cannot be over looked.
Additionally, some studies have shown that those that hang around may very well "inherit" the territory in the event that one parent or the other dies.
So helping at the nest may very well be a selfish behavior, not an altruistic one.
That makes sense to me, though I'd love to see the studies.
I would not have expected the nesting-helpers' behavior to be purely altruistic. I'm not sure I believe there is such a thing except in the possible case of the Heroic Stranger.
Still, I would especially like to know if the activity is selfish (reproductively profitable) counting only the possible parenting and territorial factors. Or is the reproductive balance sheet favorable only if we include the benefit nestlings receive from the prior brood and the social and territorial benefit they receive in the nest-helper role. Crows in the wild do not live to anything near their capacity (just as we didn't, and probably don't yet), and one or two lost breeding seasons is a big hit to take. I have also wondered if there are any "sneaky nesters" in this scenario; do helpers brood the eggs, too? Could they sneak in an egg? I haven't been able to find a good catalog of their helping behaviors.
Relating to the "Heroic Stranger":
But in how many species? I would guess that it's relatively few (humans...maybe apes, and chimps but I'm not even sure about those last two). Even the link provided by RAZD in message 25 looks only at humans.
I would have an equal lack of surprise to find the Heroic Stranger only among H. sapiens, though I doubt we were the first hominids to display that behavior. I don't generally expect to find identities between other animals and us, but I do expect to find similarities, any "uniqueness" being a matter of degree.
That we see apes, monkeys, and some other species engage in apparent altruism, behavior whose eventual reproductive gain we can trace (sometimes with difficulty) but may see the Heroic Stranger only in H. sapiens, could mean many things: 1) there is a subtle fitness gain we have not discerned (the Hero's young prosper); 2) the behavior is rooted in an apparent altruism of the sort we share with other species which has been superstimulated by culture (Hail the Hero); 3) altruism is a variable trait, like sickle cell, that is reproductively disadvantageous only in severe cases (the Idiotic Stranger); 4) the behavior is actually a threat/predator-mobbing response (it is so often an adult attempting to rescue child(ren), all the above, none...
Hell, I dunno. I am skeptical of true altruism--fitness benefit to another at immediate cost to self and without a later recouping. But the Heroic Stranger, for me at least, remains a tough nut to crack. We might find that would-be rescuers have a pretty good success rate, and the rewards of success are fitness; perhaps rescuers have a dismal success rate, and it's really all about H. sapiens' poor risk assessment skills.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by FliesOnly, posted 11-09-2005 10:10 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Cal, posted 11-12-2005 12:31 AM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 42 by FliesOnly, posted 11-14-2005 8:33 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Cal
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 136 (259018)
11-12-2005 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Omnivorous
11-11-2005 10:27 PM


group size, range
But the Heroic Stranger, for me at least, remains a tough nut to crack.
It might help to consider group size and range of protohumans. If you lived an entire lifetime in the same little (say) valley, how likely would it be to meet a person to whom you were not related to at least some degree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Omnivorous, posted 11-11-2005 10:27 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Omnivorous, posted 11-14-2005 9:12 AM Cal has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 136 (259102)
11-12-2005 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by FliesOnly
11-09-2005 10:10 AM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
I seem to recall studies which have shown that those individuals that help at the nest have higher lifetime fitness than those that attempt to breed during the first season.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by FliesOnly, posted 11-09-2005 10:10 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by FliesOnly, posted 11-14-2005 8:00 AM RAZD has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 40 of 136 (259560)
11-14-2005 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by RAZD
11-11-2005 7:39 PM


Re: anecdotal
RAZD writes:
Helped the boy with no benefit to the gorilla?
And at no reproductive cost either = not altruism.
RAZD writes:
I don't see why it doesn't qualify based on the definitions
I guess my main problem IS the definition(s) being used. It seems that the term "altruism" has been defined in more than one way, simply to allow its use in situations that do not fit the classic definition. I'm against that sort of thing. We have a definition (I gave it earlier)...if the behavior being studied doesn't fit, then it's not altruism. Call it something else if need be, but why redefine the term? Personally (and this is only my humble opinion), I think this sort of thing only makes biologists look bad. It’s somewhat similar to creationists changing their tune as needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 11-11-2005 7:39 PM RAZD has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 41 of 136 (259563)
11-14-2005 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
11-12-2005 1:22 PM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
RAZD writes:
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
Well, this wouldn't really matter. Since they are helping, their lifetime fitness (direct + indirect) would be higher than individuals that did not help (assuming that these first year breeder failed of course).
RAZD writes:
(2) higher lifetime fitness of the individual irrespectively (ie would apply even if they did not help parents)
I'm not sure what you're asking here?
I'm going to have to do some research and try to find the papers we discussed in class. It was some time ago and I'm sure I still have them, plus I'm reasonably sure that more work has been done since then. However, this may take a while, as I'm a little busy right now.
Nonetheless, let me recall what I can.
There are two choices for a first year male. First, you could return the following year and help. Or second you could return the following year and attempt to establish a territory, attract a mate, and breed on your own.
Now, as I remember it, in many instances those that returned and helped benefited in more than just an increase in indirect fitness. They "learned" how to raise chicks. Many first year breeders are unsuccessful and may be unsuccessful the following year as well. Those that helped, learned a few things and then when they did breed, they had higher direct fitness than those that did not help.
Now, remember, this was almost 13 years ago and I could be basically pulling most of this right out of my ass (aka: PIDOOMA) . I’ll see what I can find . but it may take a day or two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2005 1:22 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2005 11:58 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 42 of 136 (259567)
11-14-2005 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Omnivorous
11-11-2005 10:27 PM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
Omnivorous writes:
That makes sense to me, though I'd love to see the studies.
Yikes...it was almost 13 years ago that I had the class. I'll see if I can find those studies...plus anything new.
Omnivorous writes:
I would not have expected the nesting-helpers' behavior to be purely altruistic. I'm not sure I believe there is such a thing except in the possible case of the Heroic Stranger.
On this we agree.
Omnivorous writes:
Still, I would especially like to know if the activity is selfish (reproductively profitable) counting only the possible parenting and territorial factors.
My mistake, selfishness was not the term I should have used. Helping at the nest would more properly be described as a mutualistic behavior I believe.
Omnivorous writes:
Crows in the wild do not live to anything near their capacity (just as we didn't, and probably don't yet), and one or two lost breeding seasons is a big hit to take.
I'm not so sure that this would be an issue. If we assume that both helpers and non-helpers live the same number of years, then helpers would have to pass the direct fitness levels of non-helpers in their first one or two breeding seasons. Beyond that time, I would imagine that they both have relatively equal seasonal reproductive success, so it would be a wash.
Omnivorous writes:
I have also wondered if there are any "sneaky nesters" in this scenario; do helpers brood the eggs, too? Could they sneak in an egg?
I think not. Helpers at the nest are always male (as I remember it).
Omnivorous writes:
Hell, I dunno. I am skeptical of true altruism--fitness benefit to another at immediate cost to self and without a later recouping. But the Heroic Stranger, for me at least, remains a tough nut to crack.
I agree. But yet we do see this behavior. I always use the example from years ago when the jet crashed into the Potomac River. The one gentleman (I think they finally identified him...but I cannot remember who he was) that insisted on helping all the others, rather than be rescued himself (he eventually slipped under and died) to me fits the classic definition of an altruist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Omnivorous, posted 11-11-2005 10:27 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Omnivorous, posted 11-14-2005 3:30 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 43 of 136 (259578)
11-14-2005 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Cal
11-12-2005 12:31 AM


Re: group size, range
Cal writes:
It might help to consider group size and range of protohumans. If you lived an entire lifetime in the same little (say) valley, how likely would it be to meet a person to whom you were not related to at least some degree?
Hi, Cal: I agree. I thought about it as follows from earlier in this thread.
It has also occurred to me that, as is the case in other behaviors, we need to look at the environment in which any "altruistic genes" were selected for: e.g., we eat badly now (too much fat and too much bingeing) because it once made sense in a world of uncertain and intermittent food supply.
If altruistic traits evolved in clan/tribal living arrangements, those traits evolved in a context where everyone was related--in which case there would not necessarily be any selection for a finer discrimination: anyone would by definition genetically qualify to benefit from an altruistic act.
I don't think any analysis of "altruism" can be complete without considering this original context.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-14-2005 09:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Cal, posted 11-12-2005 12:31 AM Cal has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 44 of 136 (259684)
11-14-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by FliesOnly
11-14-2005 8:33 AM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
FliesOnly writes:
Omnivorous writes:
Hell, I dunno. I am skeptical of true altruism--fitness benefit to another at immediate cost to self and without a later recouping. But the Heroic Stranger, for me at least, remains a tough nut to crack.
I agree. But yet we do see this behavior. I always use the example from years ago when the jet crashed into the Potomac River. The one gentleman (I think they finally identified him...but I cannot remember who he was) that insisted on helping all the others, rather than be rescued himself (he eventually slipped under and died) to me fits the classic definition of an altruist.
Thanks, Flies: all your points were interesting and helpful; your remarks on the corvids are persuasive. I do understand about the long-ago encountered studies: I probably have references to them in my book shelf of corvid studies, but, as you say,..yikes! That's a lot of pages
Please understand that I am fully in the land of speculation with what follows. No claims.
It is indeed the "classic definition of an altruist" that you refer to that fascinates me. Most other flavors are more properly called, as you have suggested, mutualism, commensalism, etc. The neo-Darwinian analyses of these are interesting enough on their own, but ultimately there seems to be no great mystery.
I recall studying the notion of a "supernormal" stimulus years ago in the context of wasps and orchids, specifically in an instance where the representation of a female wasp had been so refined by the orchid that the male wasp did not simply land upon the flower, but slammed into it at high speed; thus, a normal behavior driven to its extreme by a supernormal stimulus). The flower, IIRC, was hinged and flipped the wasp where the orchid "wished" it to be, in the pollen. The orchid, in fact, had co-evolved with the wasp to not only elicit the supernormal response, but to depend on it.
I don't intend to make a close analogy, but perhaps the scenarios that provoke instances of classic altruism share some common ground: in your jet crash case, the sheer number of those needing assistance might be a supernormal stimulus to a mutualistic or commensalistic behavior; a drowning child might have the same effect on someone whose parental instincts are already in play. I connect this to my earlier speculations about cultural mediation of behaviors evolved in radically different social/familial environments: what we once would do only for family may be generalized by enculturation, or not require any generalization at all, since those behaviors evolved in small clan groups. I have also wondered if classic altruism might not be largely culturally-determined behavior, and the Heroic Stranger merely an individual more susceptible to enculturation (whether via "no great love" religiosity or the secular mythology of the Heroic Stranger).
Two quick anecdotes:
1.
Many years ago I was in a biker bar (don't ask). A young beat cop walked in with an outstanding warrant; he shoulda known better. The crowd inside circled slowly around him until no exit was clear; he looked about warily, then said, "Well, it looks like I'm all alone here." Suddenly, one of the bikers jumped into the circle and said, "Naw, man, you're not alone--I'll watch your back!" Needless to say, the cop didn't esp. want or trust his help (though in the general chaos that ensued, the cop saw the better part of valor and simply left); the other bikers were so outraged at the "altruistic" biker's behavior that he, too, had to flee and go into hiding. I talked to him later, and he said, "Man, I don't know why the hell I did that...I guess I just wasn't thinking."
2.
Many other years ago, I drove an ice cream truck, the classic Mr. Softee step-van with two side doors and an engine cowl in the driver's compartment. To make a long story short, the truck exploded from a build-up of gas fumes, and the engine sprayed gasoline from a ruptured fuel line. I was lucky enough to be blown out of the truck through the driver's side door and rolled to extinguish the flames. The 12-year-old kid helping me was blown into the passenger side step-well, where he huddled and burned; the passenger side door was chained against thieves. I could hear him screaming, and I jumped back into the truck to pull him out. I didn't think, "Gee, if I go back in there, I might get burned up, but I have to because it's the decent thing to do!" or "Christ wants me to do this!" or "Hey, I could be a hero!" I didn't think at all--in fact, effective action precluded time for thought--I just acted.
Like the biker case above, the kid didn't belong to my tribe. He was from another family, another race, another neighborhood--I never saw him again after a few brief commiserations in our respective hospital rooms. What interests me about these anecdotes is two-fold: the difficulty of explaining the behavior in terms of natural selection, and the nearly-reflexive nature of the act...not from ideals, love of kin or friend, not from religion, social pressure, or thoughts of possible reward...not from thought at all.
Thanks again for your thoughtful replies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by FliesOnly, posted 11-14-2005 8:33 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by FliesOnly, posted 11-14-2005 3:51 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 45 of 136 (259687)
11-14-2005 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Omnivorous
11-14-2005 3:30 PM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
Omnivorous writes:
2.
Many other years ago, I drove an ice cream truck, the classic Mr. Softee step-van with two side doors and an engine cowl in the driver's compartment. To make a long story short, the truck exploded from a build-up of gas fumes, and the engine sprayed gasoline from a ruptured fuel line. I was lucky enough to be blown out of the truck through the driver's side door and rolled to extinguish the flames. The 12-year-old kid helping me was blown into the passenger side step-well, where he huddled and burned; the passenger side door was chained against thieves. I could hear him screaming, and I jumped back into the truck to pull him out. I didn't think, "Gee, if I go back in there, I might get burned up, but I have to because it's the decent thing to do!" or "Christ wants me to do this!" or "Hey, I could be a hero!" I didn't think at all--in fact, effective action precluded time for thought--I just acted.
Holy Crap! What an absolutely incredible story...honestly.
The question that comes to my mind is how someone else would have acted. We now know that you acted as an altruist (and failed...you survived), but how would I have acted...or RAZD...or randman...or Holmes...
True altruistic behavior it what intrestes me the most. As you said, most other "variations" have some sort of logical, selfish, mutualistic explanation.
I did glance through a couple of papers by Harry Power dealing with Mountain Bluebirds, but have not had time to look at them in any detatil. Perhaps tonight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Omnivorous, posted 11-14-2005 3:30 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024