• 🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪
  • 🔥Check Out Muscle Gelz HEAL® - A Topical Peptide Repair Formula with BPC-157 & TB-500! 🏥

Social scientists build case for 'survival of the kindest'

Little Wing

Voodoo Doll
Elite Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2004
Messages
37,245
Reaction score
3,571
Points
113
Location
Bangor, Maine
IML Gear Cream!
12.08.2009 - Social scientists build case for 'survival of the kindest'

By Yasmin Anwar, Media Relations | 08 December 2009

BERKELEY — Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, are challenging long-held beliefs that human beings are wired to be selfish. In a wide range of studies, social scientists are amassing a growing body of evidence to show we are evolving to become more compassionate and collaborative in our quest to survive and thrive.

kindness2.jpg

(Photo illustration by Jonathan Payne)

In contrast to "every man for himself" interpretations of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Dacher Keltner, a UC Berkeley psychologist and author of "Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life," and his fellow social scientists are building the case that humans are successful as a species precisely because of our nurturing, altruistic and compassionate traits.

They call it "survival of the kindest."

"Because of our very vulnerable offspring, the fundamental task for human survival and gene replication is to take care of others," said Keltner, co-director of UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center. "Human beings have survived as a species because we have evolved the capacities to care for those in need and to cooperate. As Darwin long ago surmised, sympathy is our strongest instinct.”

Empathy in our genes

Keltner's team is looking into how the human capacity to care and cooperate is wired into particular regions of the brain and nervous system. One recent study found compelling evidence that many of us are genetically predisposed to be empathetic.

The study, led by UC Berkeley graduate student Laura Saslow and Sarina Rodrigues of Oregon State University, found that people with a particular variation of the oxytocin gene receptor are more adept at reading the emotional state of others, and get less stressed out under tense circumstances.

Informally known as the "cuddle hormone,” oxytocin is secreted into the bloodstream and the brain, where it promotes social interaction, nurturing and romantic love, among other functions.

"The tendency to be more empathetic may be influenced by a single gene,” Rodrigues said.

The more you give, the more respect you get

While studies show that bonding and making social connections can make for a healthier, more meaningful life, the larger question some UC Berkeley researchers are asking is, "How do these traits ensure our survival and raise our status among our peers?"

kindness1.jpg

(Photo illustration by Nick Stanger)

One answer, according to UC Berkeley social psychologist and sociologist Robb Willer is that the more generous we are, the more respect and influence we wield. In one recent study, Willer and his team gave participants each a modest amount of cash and directed them to play games of varying complexity that would benefit the "public good.” The results, published in the journal American Sociological Review, showed that participants who acted more generously received more gifts, respect and cooperation from their peers and wielded more influence over them.

"The findings suggest that anyone who acts only in his or her narrow self-interest will be shunned, disrespected, even hated,” Willer said. "But those who behave generously with others are held in high esteem by their peers and thus rise in status.” "Given how much is to be gained through generosity, social scientists increasingly wonder less why people are ever generous and more why they are ever selfish,” he added.

Cultivating the greater good

Such results validate the findings of such "positive psychology” pioneers as Martin Seligman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania whose research in the early 1990s shifted away from mental illness and dysfunction, delving instead into the mysteries of human resilience and optimism.

While much of the positive psychology being studied around the nation is focused on personal fulfillment and happiness, UC Berkeley researchers have narrowed their investigation into how it contributes to the greater societal good.

One outcome is the campus's Greater Good Science Center, a West Coast magnet for research on gratitude, compassion, altruism, awe and positive parenting, whose benefactors include the Metanexus Institute, Tom and Ruth Ann Hornaday and the Quality of Life Foundation.

Christine Carter, executive director of the Greater Good Science Center, is creator of the "Science for Raising Happy Kids” Web site, whose goal, among other things, is to assist in and promote the rearing of "emotionally literate” children. Carter translates rigorous research into practical parenting advice. She says many parents are turning away from materialistic or competitive activities, and rethinking what will bring their families true happiness and well-being.

"I've found that parents who start consciously cultivating gratitude and generosity in their children quickly see how much happier and more resilient their children become,” said Carter, author of "Raising Happiness: 10 Simple Steps for More Joyful Kids and Happier Parents” which will be in bookstores in February 2010. "What is often surprising to parents is how much happier they themselves also become."

The sympathetic touch

As for college-goers, UC Berkeley psychologist Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton has found that cross-racial and cross-ethnic friendships can improve the social and academic experience on campuses. In one set of findings, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, he found that the cortisol levels of both white and Latino students dropped as they got to know each over a series of one-on-one get-togethers. Cortisol is a hormone triggered by stress and anxiety.

kindness3.jpg

(Photo illustration by Eva Rousse)

Meanwhile, in their investigation of the neurobiological roots of positive emotions, Keltner and his team are zeroing in on the aforementioned oxytocin as well as the vagus nerve, a uniquely mammalian system that connects to all the body's organs and regulates heart rate and breathing.

Both the vagus nerve and oxytocin play a role in communicating and calming. In one UC Berkeley study, for example, two people separated by a barrier took turns trying to communicate emotions to one another by touching one other through a hole in the barrier. For the most part, participants were able to successfully communicate sympathy, love and gratitude and even assuage major anxiety.

Researchers were able to see from activity in the threat response region of the brain that many of the female participants grew anxious as they waited to be touched. However, as soon as they felt a sympathetic touch, the vagus nerve was activated and oxytocin was released, calming them immediately.

"Sympathy is indeed wired into our brains and bodies; and it spreads from one person to another through touch,” Keltner said.

The same goes for smaller mammals. UC Berkeley psychologist Darlene Francis and Michael Meaney, a professor of biological psychiatry and neurology at McGill University, found that rat pups whose mothers licked, groomed and generally nurtured them showed reduced levels of stress hormones, including cortisol, and had generally more robust immune systems.

Overall, these and other findings at UC Berkeley challenge the assumption that nice guys finish last, and instead support the hypothesis that humans, if adequately nurtured and supported, tend to err on the side of compassion.

“This new science of altruism and the physiological underpinnings of compassion is finally catching up with Darwin's observations nearly 130 years ago, that sympathy is our strongest instinct,” Keltner said.



i approve of this :coffee:
 
The real problem with altruism is that it doesn't exist. This is just a front for leftist ideology.
 
Makes sense, giving would be a good outlet for stress. I work with a lot of the rat race folk, and for the most part, they are terrible at dealing with stress. A good chunk of them won't change and, unfortunately for them, they won't be around long because of it. The ones that are willing to change improve their health almost instantaneously.
 
The real problem with altruism is that it doesn't exist. This is just a front for leftist ideology.

altruism is a basic fundamental of many cultures and of most mainstream religions. it was one of the main teachings of jesus christ

you should really try reading, it opens up the mind...
 
altruism is a basic fundamental of many cultures and of most mainstream religions. it was one of the main teachings of jesus christ

you should really try reading, it opens up the mind...

Amen
 
altruism is a basic fundamental of many cultures and of most mainstream religions. it was one of the main teachings of jesus christ

you should really try reading, it opens up the mind...

Exactly, it's a fundamental belief but just like many other religious beliefs it isn't real.

Altruism is an Illusion
 
To me, I feel like it's a product of its environment. Today we don't rely on each other nearly as much as we did even 20 years ago. Technology is ripping us apart I believe.
 
To me, I feel like it's a product of its environment. Today we don't rely on each other nearly as much as we did even 20 years ago. Technology is ripping us apart I believe.

We rely on each other more now than ever. In the beginning we were individually self-sufficient, we hunted and gathered, made our own clothes and shelter; now the average person would die in 2 weeks if made to survive on their own (even less than that based on hikers who get lost here on our tiny island and die or nearly die after only 3 days, it's an Island you walk in a straight line in any direction and hit beach front houses with phones). Anyway what I'm saying is that if most people didn't have water coming out of their faucets, supermarkets and everything else we rely on others for many would perish from stupidity..... Then you have people who can't live without tv, internet or cell phones for an hour let alone a whole day, these people would fall into a deep depression and die from apathy. I'm not kidding either my GF's daughter was miserable in 2007 when a tiny Earhtquake tripped off the Electric Co's generators and we were without power for 14 hours. My girlfriend and I read most of the time, her teen daughter complained and slept and sulked and freaked out the whole time....
 
We rely on each other more now than ever. In the beginning we were individually self-sufficient, we hunted and gathered, made our own clothes and shelter; now the average person would die in 2 weeks if made to survive on their own (even less than that based on hikers who get lost here on our tiny island and die or nearly die after only 3 days, it's an Island you walk in a straight line in any direction and hit beach front houses with phones). Anyway what I'm saying is that if most people didn't have water coming out of their faucets, supermarkets and everything else we rely on others for many would perish from stupidity..... Then you have people who can't live without tv, internet or cell phones for an hour let alone a whole day, these people would fall into a deep depression and die from apathy. I'm not kidding either my GF's daughter was miserable in 2007 when a tiny Earhtquake tripped off the Electric Co's generators and we were without power for 14 hours. My girlfriend and I read most of the time, her teen daughter complained and slept and sulked and freaked out the whole time....
Everyone should watch Survivorman, not that shitty fake show with the Bear guy, the one with Les Stroud. You can pick up so many little things that you really should know, because survival situations happen.

I agree that we are more reliant on others, but that doesn't mean that we are social with them. Just looking at the evolution of communication and downfall of respect, I don't think we are headed in a more social direction. From heartfelt letters, to detailed phone calls once a month/holidays, to everyone having a phone on them at all times, to texting and not even finishing full words and sentences properly (how r u 2day?!). Respect has become very rare. Do people still go to shops and chat up their local producers like they used to? How about at the barber shop?

Hell, half the people who see an accident on the freeway these days run and grab their cellphone to take photos/videos before even thinking to go help. I really don't think that this society is becoming more empathetic, I think its the exact opposite.

I think the movie Idiocracy (Idiocracy (2006) - IMDb) paints a perfect picture of where we are headed, and we are already seeing a lot of the issues come up now.
 
IML Gear Cream!
Exactly, it's a fundamental belief but just like many other religious beliefs it isn't real.

Altruism is an Illusion

Whether altruism is real or not is a philosophical question. If I do good deeds to feel good about myself, I am doing it for selfish reasons. I doubt argue against that. But you have to take into account the dualism that exist between doing good for others and doing good for the doer.

I think it is fair to say that altruism exist, but it does not mean that a person does good for others with no concern for one's self. But then again, what about mothers? A mother would die to protect her child, and this isn't just a human trait. How you you do something for a chemical reward if you know what you are doing means that you will be dead?

That sounds like altruism in the purist sense to me.
 
does anyone else see a major problem with this study?

it's from Berkeley....one of the most liberal schools in the most liberal district in the US.....pelosi's area......spend more!!! become more liberal....

yeah, well the more liberal the nation gets, the more fucked up it gets......but hey with the goal of a NWO and the feminization of the American male thru drugs in our water and other products, it's inevitable that we'll all eventually be equal and thus will have to breed with an alien life force to continue the race or become extinct over time....
 
does anyone else see a major problem with this study?

it's from Berkeley....one of the most liberal schools in the most liberal district in the US.....pelosi's area......spend more!!! become more liberal....

yeah, well the more liberal the nation gets, the more fucked up it gets......but hey with the goal of a NWO and the feminization of the American male thru drugs in our water and other products, it's inevitable that we'll all eventually be equal and thus will have to breed with an alien life force to continue the race or become extinct over time....

Same old rant. Blah, Blah Blah. Go watch Fox "news" and shut the fuck up already.

Berkeley is one of the finest Universities in the country. Period.
 
Some people play nice others don't. Some would rather see the world crumble if they didn't get their selfish way.
 
does anyone else see a major problem with this study?

it's from Berkeley....one of the most liberal schools in the most liberal district in the US.....pelosi's area......spend more!!! become more liberal....

yeah, well the more liberal the nation gets, the more fucked up it gets......but hey with the goal of a NWO and the feminization of the American male thru drugs in our water and other products, it's inevitable that we'll all eventually be equal and thus will have to breed with an alien life force to continue the race or become extinct over time....

Berkley has produced some of the finest minds and cutting edge research in the world. I subscribe to the Berkley Science Grok podcast to hear about cutting edge science news ranging from molecular biology to quantum physics.

This is probably a dumb question, but do you know anything about UC Berkley, or are you letting your asshole do your talking for you again?

ace-ventura-ass-talkin-o.gif
 
I think it is fair to say that altruism exist, but it does not mean that a person does good for others with no concern for one's self. But then again, what about mothers? A mother would die to protect her child, and this isn't just a human trait. How you you do something for a chemical reward if you know what you are doing means that you will be dead?

That sounds like altruism in the purist sense to me.


A mother dying to protect her child is a classic argument against the reality of altruism. Read 'The Selfish Gene' by Dawkins. There's a reason you specified a mother dying for her child as opposed to any child; obviously because it doesn't happen but there's an evolutionary reason for that.

It's (the book) also interesting because he goes into game theory and how that concerns morality; how working together results in a moderate payoff versus working for the sole benefit results in possibly a greater payoff but at a larger risk. The weaker individuals will typically benefit from everyone working for the good of the whole and of course in some cases everyone benefits. Nietzsche already discovered this dichotomy of morality (slave morality versus master morality) many years earlier. Both are forms of selfishness as they are brought about by the drive for personal payoff whether it is conscious or not. This strength in numbers tactic (slave morality) has been integrated to form many different philosophies but is known in it's basic form as altruism. However, people do not arbitrarily make sacrifices for others because there would be no incentive for this behavior.

Some spiders will eat their own mother. This isn't not an altruistic sacrifice by the mother(who couldn't possibly even conceive such a concept), rather it increases the likelihood that her offspring survive and her genes are passed on. It's an evolutionary behavior. Male spiders will sometimes destroy the female's eggs so they have a chance to mate with her. This is no less 'altruistic' than the mother allowing her self to be food for her young; both behaviors are driven by the same incentive.
 
The real problem with altruism is that it doesn't exist. This is just a front for leftist ideology.

Such statements are just mindless drivel for the far right ideology that in all honesty does not have your best interests in mind.

I'm a father of three children and I'd gladly put myself at risk of death for any or all of them. I'd put myself at risk for someone else's child as well. Same for an adult. It's called being human. Animals run away from danger, humans don't.
 
Such statements are just mindless drivel for the far right ideology that in all honesty does not have your best interests in mind.

I'm a father of three children and I'd gladly put myself at risk of death for any or all of them. I'd put myself at risk for someone else's child as well. Same for an adult. It's called being human. Animals run away from danger, humans don't.

See above post, definitely not mindless and the truth isn't dependent on my best interests.
 
A mother dying to protect her child is a classic argument against the reality of altruism. Read 'The Selfish Gene' by Dawkins. There's a reason you specified a mother dying for her child as opposed to any child; obviously because it doesn't happen but there's an evolutionary reason for that.

It's (the book) also interesting because he goes into game theory and how that concerns morality; how working together results in a moderate payoff versus working for the sole benefit results in possibly a greater payoff but at a larger risk. The weaker individuals will typically benefit from everyone working for the good of the whole and of course in some cases everyone benefits. Nietzsche already discovered this dichotomy of morality (slave morality versus master morality) many years earlier. Both are forms of selfishness as they are brought about by the drive for personal payoff whether it is conscious or not. This strength in numbers tactic (slave morality) has been integrated to form many different philosophies but is known in it's basic form as altruism. However, people do not arbitrarily make sacrifices for others because there would be no incentive for this behavior.

Some spiders will eat their own mother. This isn't not an altruistic sacrifice by the mother(who couldn't possibly even conceive such a concept), rather it increases the likelihood that her offspring survive and her genes are passed on. It's an evolutionary behavior. Male spiders will sometimes destroy the female's eggs so they have a chance to mate with her. This is no less 'altruistic' than the mother allowing her self to be food for her young; both behaviors are driven by the same incentive.

That is a lame argument. Spiders do not have complex decision making abilities based on higher brain functions. As far as I know, only mammals and some birds have those abilities.


As far as the rest of it goes, you are still trying to attack a philosophical question using science. I say that a person willingly terminating their own life to save another is altruism. You saw they person willing terminated their life because of evolutionary instinct. We could go around and around with this, but never agree on anything.

I would like to add this, though. To relegate a mother's love for her child to pure instinct also relegates the entire spectrum of human emotion to nothing but evolutionary human machinery. It makes it seem as if we are nothing more than biological robots. We very well may be, but I don;t like to think of us as just that.
 
Animals run away from danger, humans don't.

I disagree. A mother bear or tiger will fuck some shit up and die doing it to save her cubs. I believe compassion and love doesn't stop with humans.
 
Back
Top