Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kin Selection & Altruism
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 106 of 136 (267678)
12-10-2005 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Cal
12-10-2005 9:22 PM


Re: life is a gamble
It's easy to underestimate the steady, grinding power of a subtle, sustained statistical bias, and something that came as a revelation for me was when I first realized that reproductive success can be measured in very small increments.
Well put. I think true understanding of the power of steady, subtle, sustained bias is something that is a difficult concept for many who reject evolution on a "common sense" or "personal observation" basis.
(Again, I agree with the content of your post, and am trying to decide how I feel about evolution-as-casino metaphors...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Cal, posted 12-10-2005 9:22 PM Cal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Cal, posted 12-10-2005 10:47 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Cal
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 136 (267688)
12-10-2005 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by pink sasquatch
12-10-2005 10:20 PM


Re: life is a gamble
am trying to decide how I feel about evolution-as-casino metaphors
Well, remember, a casino is a battleground...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-10-2005 10:20 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 108 of 136 (267734)
12-11-2005 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by pink sasquatch
12-10-2005 10:12 PM


Re: tired of this?
who was cal discussing altruism with before you engaged him?
thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-10-2005 10:12 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-11-2005 2:19 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 109 of 136 (267735)
12-11-2005 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Cal
12-10-2005 9:22 PM


Re: life is a gamble
But if a gambler makes the best play possible in a given situation, he may be said to be acting in his best interests -- and this is still true even if he loses. After all, gamblers don't have to win every time. ... a revelation for me was when I first realized that reproductive success can be measured in very small increments.
This can only apply at a species level if the losing organisms are removed from the game.
Besides that, until all the 'choices' have been clearly expressed, and their consequences plotted on a payoff matrix, it may not be obvious which 'strategy' offers the best advantage in the long run.
Game theory. Evolution as a computer will try sufficient solutions to find the ones that work (given sufficient resources), and the results will match what game theory predicts, just as happens in the casinos.

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 104 by Cal, posted 12-10-2005 9:22 PM Cal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Cal, posted 12-11-2005 11:15 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 112 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-11-2005 2:39 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Cal
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 136 (267750)
12-11-2005 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by RAZD
12-11-2005 8:35 AM


life is a game
This can only apply at a species level if the losing organisms are removed from the game
I'd be very cautious about attempting to apply it at the species level at all. At the individual level, a losing organism might be one with only 1000 grandchildren, where the average was 1001.
Evolution as a computer will try sufficient solutions to find the ones that work (given sufficient resources), and the results will match what game theory predicts, just as happens in the casinos.
Evolution as a computer. I like that.
While things in the real world are often too complicated to get a firm mathematical handle on, I believe that if we could do that, we would find that 'behaviors' are always the results of 'strategies', either directly or indirectly, and that while not all strategies represent optimal cells on the (current, local) payoff matrix, they always tend to move toward them. In other words, if we ever saw a strategy that appeared to involve genuine altruism, we could be sure that it was a temporary situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2005 8:35 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2005 5:54 PM Cal has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 111 of 136 (267787)
12-11-2005 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by RAZD
12-11-2005 8:25 AM


Re: tired of this?
who was cal discussing altruism with before you engaged him?
You are conflating "your discussion with Cal" with "all discussions with Cal."
That is a logical error.
enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2005 8:25 AM RAZD has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 112 of 136 (267789)
12-11-2005 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by RAZD
12-11-2005 8:35 AM


Re: life is a gamble
This can only apply at a species level if the losing organisms are removed from the game.
Okay, but "losing" organisms aren't always "removed from the game" based on an individual gamble, so your statement is an exaggeration.
The quote you were responding to...
Cal writes:
But if a gambler makes the best play possible in a given situation, he may be said to be acting in his best interests -- and this is still true even if he loses. After all, gamblers don't have to win every time. ... a revelation for me was when I first realized that reproductive success can be measured in very small increments.
...contains two different ideas. The first sentence addresses "gambling" at an individual level; the second, by bringing in reproductive success, implies "gambling" at a species level.
All behaviors are inefficient, and thus may be a gamble for an individual. When that individual is interacting with other organisms, the gamble the individual makes may pay off for another organism, but not the gambler.
This does not mean that "altruism" has occurred. It is about odds and "expectations".
This brings in Cal's idea of the casino - casinos do very well by maintaining a slight edge, which means they lose many hands. To say that the casino is being "altruistic" whenever a player wins a hand is absurd, since the casino is playing the odds and always gets a net positive return on its investment.
If an individual cell gets a return on its gene transfer investment 90% of the time, the 10% of the times that it doesn't get a return aren't "altruism", they are failed gambles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2005 8:35 AM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 113 of 136 (267849)
12-11-2005 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Cal
12-11-2005 11:15 AM


Re: life is a game
Evolution as a computer. I like that.
But very slow and clunky.
I believe that if we could do that, we would find that 'behaviors' are always the results of 'strategies', either directly or indirectly, and that while not all strategies represent optimal cells on the (current, local) payoff matrix, they always tend to move toward them.
John Nash. Game theory. Altruism. google.
I think you'll like:
Forbidden
In other words, if we ever saw a strategy that appeared to involve genuine altruism, we could be sure that it was a temporary situation.
Well, we are talking behavior, right? and given that altruism (definition #1 - Message 18 - "Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.") as exhibited in humans (stopping to fix a tire on a dark and stormy night) is a rather temporary action, you really wouldn't see it except as a temporary condition would you? This would be expecting it to become a 'hard-wired' behavior (wouldn't this be like expecting every person to stop for every flat tire?).
Why expect it to become fixed in a population? Does behavior have to have a genetic basis to be understood in the animal kingdom?
This is where I find the 'zoological definition' to be rather thought restrictive, and I suspect it comes for the time before game theory when people were trying to explain how a 'mere animal' could exhibit altruism (ie observed behavior).
In fact if we look at the definition this becomes rather clear:
It starts with "Instinctive cooperative behavior", thus it is assuming that the only explanation can be from instinct, rather than from a (tends to a?) slight bias in overal better results from cooperative behavior.
Since those early day we've seen developments in game theory (John Nash) showing that cooperative behavior, specifically choosing a cooperative approach that is lesser value than a potential individual approach on average works out to higher value result (steady win-win out weighs ave{WIN\LOSS\WIN\LOSS\...} as a strategy).
Thus cooperative behavior does not need to be instinctual to be selected within a population as a mode of behavior (it would be possible for cooperation to be 'hard-wired' but that is a different issue).
We also see with experiments with capucin monkeys that they are aware of and upset with being treated unfairly (cheated?)
Monkeys Show Sense Of Fairness, Study Says - National Geographic article (click)
The new finding suggests evolution may have something to do with it. It also highlights questions about the economic and evolutionary nature of cooperation and its relationship to a species' sense of fairness, while adding yet another chapter to our understanding of primates.
"It looks like this behavior is evolved . it is not simply a cultural construct. There's some good evolutionary reason why we don't like being treated unfairly," said Sarah Brosnan, lead author of the study to be published in tomorrow's issue of the science journal Nature.
Oops there they go again ... . Now if we were talking about cooperative behavior rather than altruism, I don't think there would be much argument that it (a) doesn't really exist and (b) doesn't display an advantage for the species.
You also see enforcement of cooperation and punishment for non-cooperation (ibid):
Only female capuchins were tested because they most closely monitor equity, or fair treatment, among their peers, Brosnan said.
Hmmm, biased selection? Doesn't that bias the results towards {more\most} cooperative behavior?
The definition ends with "contributes to the survival of the species", and again, if we are talking about cooperative behavior I don't think there is much of a question that this leads to increased survival of the species, whether it is cooperation in hunting or cooperation in sharing resources ... or helping others in times of need.
But is this a necessary part of the definition of altruism? When a person stops on the side of the road to assist another with changing a tire, I don't think it has any value to species survival. Nor that such a consideration even enters the minds of the altruistic stoppers.
Personally I think this is a self-defeating element of the definition (as opposed to the 'begging the question" fallacy) that makes it a very difficult condition to meet.
Isn't adding this element to the definition of altruism conflating it with something else? Are we really still talking about altruism, or has it shifted to species survival mechanisms?
The middle of the 'zoological definition' has "detrimental to the individual" - and again, this is an element added to the definition that doesn't apply when we are talking about human altruism (definition #1). It may exist (the highway could be dangerous) but it isn't a required element of the definition.
Thus to apply "altruism" to other animals the definition adds two very narrow restrictions on the kinds of behavior being considered before it even allows the possibility of such behavior to be altruistic.
This is not a fair application. It smacks of human egotism and a certain species bias.
Can we just apply definition #1 to other species? Yes, but the question will come down to really validating "concern" and "selfless" behavior.
So what, really, is "altruistic" behavior? Isn't it really just one-way cooperative behavior by a single individual where the reciprocal element is removed?
Wouldn't that apply equally to humans and other species?
Of course 'Flies Only' will get on me for "changing the definition" but I think the biggest problem has not been observing altruistic behavior but in making it fit the two narrow conditions that are arbitrarily added for other species.
Cooperation is shown to be a positive element in species survival, and it has been shown mathematically (game theory) to be the more productive approach to many situations, and if any behavior was going to be "fixed" in a population to the point where it was "hard-wired" (insects etcetera) then this would be a logical choice.
If this were so, then I would expect that "altruism" would just be an occasional expression of this cooperative behavior where the reciprocal element is missing.
Thus it would be both transitory and recurring behavior with no need for another mechanism to explain it.
If we generalize it as a subset of cooperative behavrior, the it doesn't need to specifically show {enhanced species survival}, because the cooperation mechanism does that (as an overal tendency rather than based on any one action).
And it doesn't need to show {individual detriment} because any action takes energy and resources, and because this is a bogus condition anyway. What we are really looking for is the absence of reciprocal action. Thus it could be neutral to the benefit of the samaritan, just not provide a direct reciprocal benefit (because that would just be regular cooperation).
That's my take. Altruistic behavior is an observed phenomenom based on the common defintion. It is explained as a subset of cooperative behavior such that selection for cooperative behavior will result in occasional spontaneous acts of altruism.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Cal, posted 12-11-2005 11:15 AM Cal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Cal, posted 12-11-2005 7:01 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 118 by FliesOnly, posted 12-16-2005 12:34 PM RAZD has replied

  
Cal
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 136 (267866)
12-11-2005 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
12-11-2005 5:54 PM


Re: life is a game
John Nash. Game theory. Altruism. google.
Interestingly enough, I've just now been reading "A Beautiful Mind", about the life of John Nash. Seen the movie.
The definition ends with "contributes to the survival of the species"...
But is this a necessary part of the definition of altruism?
No, I don't think so.
Isn't adding this element to the definition of altruism conflating it with something else?
Yes, I think it is.
Altruistic behavior is ... explained as a subset of cooperative behavior such that selection for cooperative behavior will result in occasional spontaneous acts of altruism.
I agree. Or: what appear to be spontaneous acts of altruism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2005 5:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2005 7:41 PM Cal has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 115 of 136 (267878)
12-11-2005 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Cal
12-11-2005 7:01 PM


Re: life is a game
I've just now been reading "A Beautiful Mind", about the life of John Nash. Seen the movie.
I loved the irony of the webpage's first sentence being "life is a game"
Read the book first, it covers a lot of things the movie didn't (by necessity of course, unless you want a 3 day movie ...)
You might also want to look into von Neumann.
I agree. Or: what appear to be spontaneous acts of altruism.
What tends to appear to be possible spontaneous acts of altruism?
I can live with that. I don't really think you can get any closer than an appearance of a "trendency" ...

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 114 by Cal, posted 12-11-2005 7:01 PM Cal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Cal, posted 12-11-2005 9:26 PM RAZD has replied

  
Cal
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 136 (267898)
12-11-2005 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by RAZD
12-11-2005 7:41 PM


Re: life is a game
You might also want to look into von Neumann.
I have a book he co-authored with Oskar Morgenstern, "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior". Not exactly light reading.
I don't really think you can get any closer than an appearance of a "trendency".
One must be ever so careful in choosing one's terms these days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2005 7:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2005 9:39 PM Cal has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 117 of 136 (268450)
12-12-2005 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Cal
12-11-2005 9:26 PM


Re: life is a game
check out von Neumann Machine

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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 116 by Cal, posted 12-11-2005 9:26 PM Cal has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 118 of 136 (270030)
12-16-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
12-11-2005 5:54 PM


Re: life is a game
RAZD writes:
And it doesn't need to show {individual detriment} because any action takes energy and resources,...
Which is why when we discuss altruism we DO take into account a resulting loss in reproductive success because otherwise (as I have repeated stated) any fucking (well...except "fucking" I guess...if successful) behavior would fit. And then what's the point?
RAZD writes:
and because this is a bogus condition anyway.
Only according to you.
RAZD writes:
What we are really looking for is the absence of reciprocal action.
Maybe that is what you are looking for, but not others of us that have an interest in Animal Behavior.
RAZD writes:
Thus it could be neutral to the benefit of the samaritan,...
which is a behavior defined as commensalism.
See RAZD, we have definitions that fit most of the "other" behaviors you have described. Altruism has a definition. It was derived many moons ago by Hamilton. I see no reason to change it simply because some people want to use it in situations where it does not apply.
Here's something sort of funny though. Next semester, I may very well have convinced my old advisor to offer his "Topics in Ethology" course as Altruism. If so, and if I can swing it time-wise, I will most definitely attend. And guess what RAZD, I may very well argue altruism from your perspective...if you would allow me to utilize some of your logic. I will, of course, give you full credit if you want it. What say ye...mind if I put your ideas to the test?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2005 5:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2005 9:36 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 119 of 136 (270410)
12-17-2005 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by FliesOnly
12-16-2005 12:34 PM


Re: life is a game
And then what's the point?
Because the 'zoological' definition is making more out of it than it needs to?
For humans def 1 is sufficient, selfless behavior. No major deleterious impact on individual, no improved species benefit, none of the extra conditions imposed for any other species to exhibit this behavior. Why is that? Species ego? Sapiens centrism?
any ... behavior ... would fit.
No, any selfless behavior would fit.
But the real question is why anything needs to be made of it: it exists (humans notably demonstrate it) as a somewhat random occurance, it has a logical reason (game theory shows an incremental benefit) for existing.
It was derived many moons ago by Hamilton.
a little google later ...
Biological Altruism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
If group selection is not the correct explanation for how the altruistic behaviours found in nature evolved, then what is? In the 1960s and 1970s two alternative theories emerged: kin selection or ”inclusive fitness’ theory, due to Hamilton (1964), and the theory of reciprocal altruism, due primarily to Trivers (1971) and Maynard Smith (1974).
But does it need to have an evolutionary benefit or an evolutionary cause or an evolutionary whatever, if it is a side effect of a cooperative social organisation?
If the behavior of bees (especially if this was used to derive the extended zoological definition in the first place) upon further investigation is shown not to meet that definition then isn't the extended definition suspect? If the behavior that the definition was based on was not really altruism according to the definition, then making the definition try to fit it is a false concept eh?
also
altruism - Everything2.com
Altruism, in anthropology, evolutionary psychology or sociobiology, is an action which is costly to the actor, but beneficial to the recipient. It can be seen in animals, when parents work hard and expose themselves to danger to feed their own children.
Undefined level of cost, undefined level of benefit, nothing about reproduction or species survival. All it needs is a delta to qualify. Seems reasonable eh?
Feel free to use any argument.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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 118 by FliesOnly, posted 12-16-2005 12:34 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by FliesOnly, posted 12-19-2005 3:30 PM RAZD has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 120 of 136 (270824)
12-19-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by RAZD
12-17-2005 9:36 PM


Re: life is a game
RAZD writes:
Because the 'zoological' definition is making more out of it than it needs to?
Not true. It's simply a definition. It is, in the real world, meaningless. Animal do what animals do, they don't read books to determine if the behavior they want to perform has some biological definition. They simply "do".
They question I like to answer is "why".
It is for that reason that I do not want to water down the definition to the point of meaninglessness. We do see true altruism in humans. Why? I don't know, but trying to find out can be very fun. If we instead just change the definition, then we stifle the hunt for answers.
RAZD writes:
If the behavior that the definition was based on was not really altruism according to the definition, then making the definition try to fit it is a false concept eh?
Yes...thank you...this is what I have been saying since the beginning. Making a definition try to fit a behavior is a false concept. It's nice to see you agree with me. Bees are not altruistic.
You are the one that seems to be of the notion that we should simply change the definition of Altruism so that behaviors we observe will fit. I say do not to change the definition. We already have a definition. It's narrowly defined and I think it should stay that way. You have been espousing that the negative result of the donors' behavior can be any arbitrary measure, where as I have been arguing that the negative result to the donor has to be...by definition...a fitness measurement.
RAZD writes:
But does it need to have an evolutionary benefit or an evolutionary cause or an evolutionary whatever, if it is a side effect of a cooperative social organisation?
Cooperative social organization would be mutualism. And the way I see it, the evolutionary benefit, or cause, or whatever, would be the cooperative nature of the behavior. Certainly we can see the positive evolutionary selective pressure of such a behavior. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
RAZD writes:
It can be seen in animals, when parents work hard and expose themselves to danger to feed their own children.
Undefined level of cost, undefined level of benefit, nothing about reproduction or species survival. All it needs is a delta to qualify. Seems reasonable eh?
See...that's utter nonsense. A parent feeding offspring being classified as an altruistic behavior renders the term to such stupidity that anything would fit. What does it tell us? What do we get from describing care behavior as altruism? Nothing. How is insuring the survival of your offspring an altruistic behavior? You don't see it as more of a mutualistic interaction? You see no benefit to the parent? The "desire"...the biological drive to pass on ones genes into the next generation is bullshit? All it really is a from of parasitism? Damned kids, sucking the life out of mom and dad! Come on...I don't think even you believe that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2005 9:36 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 12-22-2005 7:30 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024