The Survival Of The Kindest
We've remarked before on the lack of civility in today's society. Part of it, I suspect, is as it's always been (According to Plato, Socrates famously complained about the disrespect of the youth of his time and warned against the growing indolence of society). Part of it is the ease of anonymity of the internet age allowing you to express your basest self without fear of being known. But we have also become a society where facts matter less than emotion, where self-righteousness and demonization triumphs debate and understanding and too many people assume that you exercising your freedoms mean less for them. It all adds up to a society for which kindness is the least appreciated virtue.
Curiously, according to a recent study, that's actually going against our most successful instincts:
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.
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."[..]
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?"
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."
I want so deeply in my heart for this to be true...I would love to see us champion the generous over the self-interested more. Think how few Republicans would be celebrated. :)
I know this much, among the very poorest one will give another one half of their sandwich, when that one is all they have.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
were people in jail intake who gave away their peanut butter sandwich or even the paper sack to use as a pillow. Might seem trite to those who haven't been in the circumstances, but I assure you, it is not.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Another piece from CalTech:
here
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I will follow the research and pray that I can be convinced that sociopaths and Republicans are not the survivors of the future.
Social organisms tend to be altruistic, and this tendency is self-reinforcing. The whole point of forming a society (or a tribe, or a government, or nearly any other organization of individuals) is that we can work less, produce more, and better protect ourselves when we don't have to do absolutely everything for ourselves.
It's been almost 35 years since Richard Dawkins compellingly connected the dots between the cutthroat nature of nature itself and the drive towards cooperation in "The Selfish Gene", arguably the most misread book since Revelation. He shows that genes for cooperation will always be favored when other organisms with the same genes are around. From the gene's-eye-view, altruism *is* selfishness, because your neighbors (at least in every culture prior to the advent of the steamship) are very likely to be carrying many of the same genes as you are. Social progress, to Dawkins, comes from taking this "natural" circle of cooperation - our family and tribe - and extending it to encompass all humanity and all life.
Of course, cooperative circles will be broken if they're overwhelmed by freeloaders who take advantage of the group. The flip side of kindness and altruism is the drive to locate and punish "cheaters". One shouldn't read too much into these kind of things, but I think there's something of the left/right split there. The left wants to extend the circle, and tends to view those of us who are worse off as just needing some help from the group to get back on their feet and start contributing again - the right wants to narrow the circle and sanctimoniously regards those outside it who can't get by as losers and parasites.
You beat me to it.
Agreed.
Keinsignal says,
"Of course, cooperative circles will be broken if they're overwhelmed by freeloaders who take advantage of the group. The flip side of kindness and altruism is the drive to locate and punish "cheaters". One shouldn't read too much into these kind of things, but I think there's something of the left/right split there. The left wants to extend the circle, and tends to view those of us who are worse off as just needing some help from the group to get back on their feet and start contributing again - the right wants to narrow the circle and sanctimoniously regards those outside it who can't get by as losers and parasites."
This is indeed the key to the split between liberals and so called conservatives. The working class Republican projects his own sense of greed onto people in need who take advantage of help from the larger group. Liberals project their own sense of fairness onto help recipients.
Liberals see a homeless person and say to ourselves, there but for fortune go I.
Illiberals see the same person and refuse to believe that the same misfortune could ever happen to them. However, they can see themselves, if they were not such good people, scamming passersby for handouts.
Both sides will be wrong some of the time.
Personally, I'd rather see 10 parasites get help than to see one person in need go hungry. But then, I'm just a bleeding heart.
Bokonon
That's an interesting take, and I suppose comports with the linked research (about which I thus far remain skeptical, since, as others have noted, is long preceded by Dawkins' theories and hypotheses misunderstood by a legion of people among whose ranks just might be these researchers). Personally, I've never quite seen it that way.
Of course, I haven't done any genuine empirical research myself, so I'm just blurting from my own best judgment, but I'm not so sure conservatives project their own sense of greed onto people in need, and subconsciously condemn them for what they see in themselves. I tend to think that, if they perceive any unfairness at all, their own simultaneous empathy and greed conjure an unpleasant cognitive dissonance. And that doesn't just go for conservatives; it goes for us too. We just resolve the dissonance differently.
I tend to think (and again, I could be way off base when subjected to scientific scrutiny) that, with the exception of the genuine sociopaths, we all are repulsed by sight of another person's poverty or (other disabling, inequitable status), and yet, very few, if any, of us would trade places with that person. We have evolved enough empathic capabilities to feel the other person's pain vicariously, but we're still mostly programmed to ensure the survival and reproduction of our own genes. Since part of our empathy has evolved into a moral sense, we think we should do something to help the suffering other (and Dawkins had long ago elaborated a very decent hypothesis about how that could happen), but, by and large, we don't want to give up what we currently have (also an evolved sense of survival).
Conservatives, I tend to think, resolve the dissonance with simple, authoritarian moral pronouncements. Not quite willing or able to intellectually contemplate the problem, the average conservative mind yearns for an easy moral fix, like, "I don't just have what I have; I deserve what I have. I don't just want what I want, I am entitled to what I want. If that other doesn't have what I have or what I want, he must deserve his fate too."
And we all know, in one form or another, those memes are peddled regularly by the likes of Rash Limbo and FUX News. Their people get what just what they're yearning for, and they soak it in. It's the kind of meme that drowns out empathy, like the proverbial (and often animated) miniature angel and devil arguing on our shoulders, and works especially well on people whose sense of empathy is already weak. Toss in some propaganda to play on the also-evolved "fear of the other," and you have a great recipe for modern, unthinking, conservative America.
Not that conservatives can't be intellectuals (or that intellectuals can't be conservatives), but intellectual conservatives just find more sophisticated ways to rationalize themselves into drowning out their empathy. They embrace (cherry-picked) ideas from Adam Smith, and extol the virtues of capitalism, for instance. Or they determine that while charity is good, it should never, under any circumstances, be forced by the government. Hell, Ayn Rand managed to rationalize herself into a philosophy in which altruism is actually a societal evil. Still others rechannel their urge for self sacrifice into military readiness, a willingness not to give monetarily, but to lay their lives on the line for the concept of country (or, more pathetically, just to "support" those who do with a bumper sticker).
Liberals, on the other hand, have stronger senses of empathy they simply can't drown out, and a generally higher tolerance for sophisticated moral discourse, even that which concludes we really should sacrifice some of our own money. We can't completely silence the angel on our shoulder. Naturally, we land along a broad spectrum. A treasured few might spend their entire lives devoted to giving, sacrificing everything for others but the bear necessities to perpetuate their altruism. Others might just give a little to charity here, maybe a little more over there. And we have our own moral pronouncements too. Consider, for instance, the typical C&L-er genuinely feels that everyone should be forced to give of himself into a common pool, so that everyone can afford certain modern necessities, like health care. And the more you have, the more you should be forced to give. ;)
And make no mistake, our memes can run amok too (though sadly, this is yet another fact the Glen Becks of the world distort to propagate fears about "Socialism").
So, are we projecting? Dunno. I don't know that we liberals "project" our sense of "fairness" onto "help recipients." And if conservatives project anything, I would guess it's their sense of entitlement: Everyone feels entitled to wealth, but since I'm the one who has it, I must be the one god or the universe or the laws of Social Darwinism renders truly entitled to it. And everyone else's sense of entitlement is thus misplaced and repulsive.
But we're all suffering from the same competing senses of empathy and greed. The battle is just won by different sides in different brains in different societies, and across different generations over time.
Oh, I think many conservatives say that to themselves too. They just find reasons not to do anything about it.
Actually, I think illiberals are more likely to believe it could happen to them. And they're more afraid of it. (Ever noticed what wimps conservatives are? How long do you think Dick Cheney or George W. Bush could survive without going insane from disorientation if forced live on even an upper-middle class income? One's whole perception of "necessity" is distorted when the biggest choice of the day is whether to use the diamond-encrusted or the solid gold toilet in the morning.) So they latch onto any argument that justifies their greed and drowns out their empathy. And they want everyone in the world to believe what they believe, precisely so they can keep every little toy they have. They're so afraid of losing it at the hands of all those evil forces out there in the world.
Since you mention the idea, though, there are too many complacent progressives out there who think we can't lose what we have, namely a stable, functioning, free democratic republic. "It just can't happen here," is not phrase bandied about by the right these days. The right sees it happening all around them (and are stupid enough to be manipulated into fighting for the very forces they fear).
Heh, up until the point where you'll perceive a risk in doing so. I mean, if it were scientifically proven that a generally perpetuated 10-1 ratio of parasites to needy necessarily sends countries into economic and moral chaos, even you might change the ratio. (And yeah, I know you weren't being literal.) The point is simply that we all decide how much we are willing to sacrifice in order to help those less fortunate, and we all have our limits. ;)
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Your thoughts go much deeper on the subject and I believe you are right about most conservatives. They are not all greedy--many are very generous and I was unfair.
In general, they are people who really need to believe in a Just World and so they deal with the cognitive dissonance caused by seeing other people's suffering by believing that people deserve what they get. Otherwise, they can't deal with it as well as liberals can.
I have another theory such that empathy is a function of imagination and that conservatives may lack imagination. Maybe I should rethink that one too. Maybe conservatives dismiss empathy because they cannot tolerate the discomfort it sometimes brings.
I think for the most part conservatives have the cognitive age of 6.
Listen to six year olds play, "No fair, that's not fair..." rarely in defense of another just themselves.
Then they argue over who has the bigger piece of the birthday cake.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
circular questions can be resolved or avoided; it may not be necessary to work through them in agonizing detail. When a lot of things are said and done, what ends up being required is simple justice. Justice is the foundation that supports any living and dynamic society of civilization. If I focus on what is just, it has a way of cutting through the fog and obscuring haze of myriad questions that, individually, may not otherwise have answers.
We may not always know what justice is, but I would venture that most people have a pretty good idea of what injustice is. Injustice always creates disunity, and disunity always leads to need and strife in direct proportion to the scale and scope of it. Injustice is a self-defeatig thing. It can be a killer of societies. So, what do we do? We work to avoid injustice and work toward or for justice, as best we can understand what justice is. Justice can create unity, and unity can see to the mitigating or ending of need and strife. Take care of core business, and the rest will tend to unfold as it should.
When the people of a society become, on average, concerned and dedicated to creating or maintaining a just society, everything else will tend to unfold from there. The needy will be cared for, and the parasites will be held in check.
The 10-1 ratio was probably a reference to this. I'm with bokonon, I would rather take risks than indulge in or perpetuate injustice.
Karen...always good to see you here.
the thesis behind Richard Dawkins' book, The Selfish Gene. The title is often misunderstood to mean that we are predispositioned to self interest, but if you read the book, the opposite is true. The genes themselves are selfish insofar as they want to replicate themselves, but individuals within the community will often sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the community. In other words, members of the species who might seem to be in competition with one another, actually fare better when they cooperate because that maximizes the chances of their genetic code continuing into further genterations.
I think that in an environment where scarcity of food (not lack of access, but lack of quantity) is largely removed, such as that we see in much of the world today, it is completely correct to say that altruism is a competetive advantage to a species. When food is removed as a limited resource (effectively), then space becomes the most important commodity, and as more and more members of the species live closer and closer together, the ability to live together in greater equity and comity increases the competetiveness of the group as a whole, since such traits foster unity, and unity allows groups of individuals to act as a unit in competition against other groups more efficiently. However, that is all predicated on food being functionally unlimited.
In any case, even if we accept the predicate that we are in a transitional stage (perhaps even moving to becoming a fully eusocial species, like ants or bees), the important part to remember is not where we are going, but where we are, and in that respect, "transitional" becomes the operative word. Even if empathy and altruism, in the grand scheme, lend competetive advantage, we currently live in a society composed of people with both the advantageous AND the disadvantageous traits, and if we assume that these traits are as fundemental as being parts of our genotype or phenotype, we have to accept that there are members of our society to whom altruistic and empathic arguments are ineffective. For that reason, while I may find studies like this interesting from an intellectual perspective, they have little practical, applicable value to life as we currently know it. Unless of course those of us with the competetively advantageous traits would choose to banish those without them from society... but then that would fly in the face of the idea that we possessed those traits to start with. :)
I agree - but I hope we (progressives) keep this in mind.
I have seen in the past month the blog taking a slide down to the Aires vindictive and pettiness (best evidenced by this mornings lauding of the racist-tea-party "interview").
You don't "win" when you embrace that which you war against.
Embrace and triumph civility and reason.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLb0J8o4Au4
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
And kindness goes to the core of an "Improved Medicare for All" healthcare system in the United States.
Rather than have a patchwork system of private for-profit insurance corporations being the major underlying network of the system, where it is money driven and where people who don't make as much money as others are shut out of receiving the same quality healthcare as those with money (Medicaid compared to say, Blue Cross PPO), a broad publicly run system where the standards of care would be essentially the SAME for ALL AMERICANS would be the ultimate act of kindness the federal government could show those who are "supposed" to be the masters...NOT the servants.
Imagine there is a national disaster related to healthcare....God forbid. Whether a disaster causing a medical or traumatic event.
Which system would best serve the American people ten years down the road? A patchwork system based on money where many are left out, or who only can afford the "fines" and still have no insurance or a system where everyone has access and it's paid for out of general taxes on a fair percentage of deductions from our paychecks?
Obviously, purely from a "medical" point of view, and speaking as a Registered Nurse, I can guarantee you it would be better to have a national healthcare system in place in which to deal with a medical disaster, than to have the for-profit, exclusionary system in place.
Fundamental "kindness" and "caring" for one another is at the core of an "Improved Medicare for All" system. Greed and selfishness and the attitude of, "It's not MY problem if you can't afford the premium. Sorry.", is at the core of a "for-profit" system.
Plus, obviously, the health "outcomes" would be better if everyone had fair access and the care was standardized for everyone.
This is the reason I and most medical professionals support an "Improved Medicare for All" system of healthcare for the United States.
We really do "care"....about "kindness".
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
People who live by the sword get shot by the people who don't.
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiDmMBIyfsU
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=zmcrreUVBeo
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
is a tricky concept for the evolutionary psychologists to explain. Maybe the fact that we don't cut their throats when they say that they can't explain it is a testimony to our altruistic principles in a civil, secular, humanist society.
"Secular humanism -- a fearless, realistic world view replete with doubt and scepticism that attempts to attain an unachievable state of equilibrium between and among the human qualities of reason, intuition, imagination, memory, ethics and common sense.
but then your fundamental decency does seem to inform your posts.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I'm a longtime fan of Alfie Kohn's work ("No Contest," "Punished by Rewards"), and it seems to be along the same lines.
Of course if I want to go even more radical, Kropotkin was talking about this---as a naturalist---years and years ago...
..the neo-cons will claim that "kindness" is "unpatriotic" and "enabling the enemy".
of conservative politics and thinking are mostly clinically definable sociopaths, I'm betting they'd do what sociopaths always do: they will consider kindess to be a weakness to be exploited. And, they will get about the predatory business of doing just that. What those who would be kind need to do to counter such predictable behavior is do what mental healthcare and trained corrections professionals do: isolate the malign personalities from all opportunities to exercise power or influence, meet every lie with truth, show resolute determination to deny the sociopath their desired selfish goal, which - in one way or another - always creates harm to the greater good. Do it all with emotional detachment, such that their own disordered personalities can in no way touch you. When they succeed in emotionally engaging us in their personal pathologies, they achieve the power to manipulate. It goes downhill from there.
If society begins to grow and evolve in the direction of collective altruism and justice, especially in a functioning democracy, these malign personalities will become less appealing. They will naturally find progressively fewer opportunities to function as successful predators (Right now, the opposite is true: we're sick and the pathological personalities are enjoying their day in the sun).
I would say one thing, though. regardless where we are at the moment, one should never estimate the power of good works, of altruistic deeds or the power of justice. The world is full of "wicked works and evil deeds", and those things are loud, noisy, capable of compelling attention and disipating our energy. But they are not more powerful than quiet kindness, or silent justice, or acts of unnoticed heroism. Just the opposite. One is ultimately self-defeating and self-destructive, the other builds and creates. How often has it happened that a single person of determined and mindful virtues and goodness has be key in bringing down entire malign social orders? Gandhi, MLK?
Let the neo-cons claim whatever they will. They are planting the seeds of their own nullification. We've always had them, yet over the long, long term, civilizations has evolved and we have collectively become better than we were at the beginning.
It is very difficult to point out inequality without feeling unequal; to recognize injustice without feeling injury; or to constantly see anger without living in anger. But it is equally important to point these things out, to recognize these things, to see these things - as it is to live without them.
John Lennon asked us to Imagine the world living as one. The next step is to act as if it were true.
This is interesting but I want to point out that the "every man for himself" interpretations of Charles Darwin's theory" has been discredited by biologists for a long time. In fact I'm not sure it ever was really a part of Darwin's theory, rather a mis-application of it by people like Ayn Rand who wanted to justify selfishness via pseudo-science.
In his excellent book The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins shows (rather paradoxically) that genes can and demonstrably do support all kinds of unselfish behavior.
count me in
"You say you want a revolution
Well, you know We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know We all want to change the world"
...
"You say you got a real solution
Well, you know We'd all love to see the plan"
the most selfish among us are usually the loudest.
Here's an excerpt:
Tell them not to mention that I have a Nobel Peace Prize—that isn’t important. Tell them not to mention that I have three or four hundred other awards—that’s not important. Tell them not to mention where I went to school.
I’d like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others.
I’d like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody.
I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question. And I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry.
And I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were naked.
I want you to say on that day that I did try in my life to visit those who were in prison.
I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity.
Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter. I won’t have any money to leave behind. I won’t have the fine and luxurious things of life to leave behind. But I just want to leave a committed life behind. And that’s all I want to say."
Here's the entire sermon---a remarkable speech that truly embodies his genuine humility and other centered service philosophy:
http://cantseetheforest.org/2008/01/21/the-dr...
"We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other."
Robert F. Kennedy
And the best part is that you can feel it working. That kindness, compassion and empathy have an electric impulse made known to both receiver and giver, and that this impulse is strengthened in greater acts of compassion and caring. So yes, your influence will naturally increase when you give of yourself and your time, I believe it is inherent in each of us, we are just all wired that way.
Part of the beauty of man. And perhaps one of the greatest, and most convincing, arguments against torture
Radix Omnium Malorum Avaritia
I'll never be able to understand the shallow rotten shit's in this world , for what ever reason there's just "no one at home" I guess . I'm older now , looking back we've not progressed but regressed and we've lost a lot of ground in this country ...to the worst of .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
Without a collaborative, caring instinct, we would have made ourselves extinct eons ago.
That the best way to assure one's own well-being is to work for the maximum well-being of the greatest possible number of those around you. This has been the litmus test that I have used in making my own personal judgements about who is a true liberal/progressive/real Democrat vs. those who wear the many faces of moderate-conservative/"Centrist"/GOPer Republicanism. There is a spectrum of altruism and there is a spectrum of sociopathy. They are what they do, and the sociopathic spectrum has no solutions and is always, in the long term, self-defeating.
CEO's are very generous... to each other. Fuck everyone else.
Comments are closed on this entry