Evolution of Human Generosity

[thinker_jeff]

Imagine you're dining at a restaurant in a city you're visiting for the first -- and, most likely the last -- time. Chances are slim to none that you'll ever see your server again, so if you wanted to shave a few dollars off your tab by not leaving a tip, you could do so. And yet, if you're like most people, you will leave the tip anyway, and not give it another thought.

These commonplace acts of generosity -- where no future return is likely -- have long posed a scientific puzzle to evolutionary biologists and economists. In acting generously, the donor incurs a cost to benefit someone else. But choosing to incur a cost with no prospect of a compensating benefit is seen as maladaptive by biologists and irrational by economists. If traditional theories in these fields are true, such behaviors should have been weeded out long ago by evolution or by self-interest. According to these theories, human nature is fundamentally self-serving, with any "excess" generosity the result of social pressure or cultural conformity.

 

Recently, however, a team of scientists at UC Santa Barbara conducted a series of computer simulations designed to test whether it was really true that evolution would select against generosity in situations where there is no future payoff. Their work surprisingly shows that generosity -- acting to help others in the absence of foreseeable gains -- emerges naturally from the evolution of cooperation. This means that human generosity is likely to rest on more than social pressure, and is instead built in to human nature.

 

Their findings appear in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

"When past researchers carefully measured people's choices, they found that people all over the world were more generous than the reigning theories of economics and biology predicted they should be," said Max M. Krasnow, a postdoctoral scholar at UCSB's Center for Evolutionary Psychology, and one of the paper's lead authors. "Even when people believe the interaction to be one-time only, they are often generous to the person they are interacting with."

 

"Our simulations explain that the reason people are more generous than economic and biological theory would predict is due to the inherent uncertainty of social life," added Andrew Delton, also a postdoctoral scholar at the Center for Evolutionary Psychology and the paper's other lead author. "Specifically, you can never know for certain whether an interaction you are having right now will be one-time only -- like interacting with a server in a distant city -- or continue on indefinitely -- like interacting with a server at your favorite hometown diner."

 

Krasnow and Delton co-authored the paper with Leda Cosmides, professor of psychology and co-director of the Center for Evolutionary Psychology; and John Tooby, professor of anthropology and also co-director of the Center for Evolutionary Psychology.

 

"There are two errors a cooperating animal can make, and one is more costly than the other," noted Cosmides. "Believing that you will never meet this individual again, you might choose to benefit yourself at his expense -- only to find out later that the relationship could have been open-ended. If you make this error, you lose out on all the benefits you might have had from a long-term, perhaps life-long, cooperative relationship. This is an extraordinarily costly error to make. The other error is to mistakenly assume that you will have additional interactions with the other individual and therefore cooperate with him, only to find out later that it wasn't necessary. Although you were 'unnecessarily' nice in that one interaction, the cost of this error is relatively small. Without knowing why, the mind is skewed to be generous to make sure we find and cement all those valuable, long-term relationships."

 

The simulations, which are mathematical tools for studying how natural selection would have shaped our ancestors' decision making, show that, over a wide range of conditions, natural selection favors treating others as if the relationship will continue -- even when it is rational to believe the interaction is one-time only. "Although it's impossible to know the true state of the world with complete certainty, our simulated people were designed to use the 'gold-standard' for rational reasoning -- a process called Bayesian updating -- to make the best possible guesses about whether their interactions will continue or not," Krasnow noted.

 

Delton continued: "Nonetheless, even though their beliefs were as accurate as possible, our simulated people evolved to the point where they essentially ignored their beliefs and cooperated with others regardless. This happens even when almost 90 percent of the interactions in their social world are actually one-time rather than indefinitely continued."

 

According to Tooby, economic models of rationality and evolutionary models of fitness maximization both predict that humans should be designed to be selfish in one-time only situations. Yet, experimental work -- and everyday experience -- shows that humans are often surprisingly generous.

 

"So one of the outstanding problems in the behavioral sciences was why natural selection had not weeded out this pleasing but apparently self-handicapping behavioral tendency," Tooby said. "The paper shows how this feature of human behavior emerges logically out of the dynamics of cooperation, once an overlooked aspect of the problem -- the inherent uncertainty of social life -- is taken into account. People who help only when they can see a gain do worse than those who are motivated to be generous without always looking ahead to see what they might get in return."

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110725162523.htm

 

 

 

[Kookas]

Very interesting and thanks for the article. It does seem that we do a lot for people we'll only interact with once in our lives (or even, in some cases, may not interact with at all). I'd question that last line though:

 

People who help only when they can see a gain do worse than those who are motivated to be generous without always looking ahead

 

It seems to me that everything we do wilfully has a gain of some sort, even if sometimes only an emotional one. I look at it as an incentive that ultimately leads to the preservation of the species. Those who are motivated to be generous without looking ahead are driven by the emotional benefits of their actions in the same way that those who help "only when they can see a gain" are. Makes evolutionary sense, doesn't it? You can't deny that paying the homeless or tipping the waiter makes you feel better about yourself - the emotional drive to try and maintain social relations.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Kookas

[Greg Boyles]

Imagine you're dining at a restaurant in a city you're visiting for the first -- and, most likely the last -- time. Chances are slim to none that you'll ever see your server again, so if you wanted to shave a few dollars off your tab by not leaving a tip, you could do so. And yet, if you're like most people, you will leave the tip anyway, and not give it another thought.

These commonplace acts of generosity -- where no future return is likely -- have long posed a scientific puzzle to evolutionary biologists and economists. In acting generously, the donor incurs a cost to benefit someone else. But choosing to incur a cost with no prospect of a compensating benefit is seen as maladaptive by biologists and irrational by economists. If traditional theories in these fields are true, such behaviors should have been weeded out long ago by evolution or by self-interest. According to these theories, human nature is fundamentally self-serving, with any "excess" generosity the result of social pressure or cultural conformity.

 

Recently, however, a team of scientists at UC Santa Barbara conducted a series of computer simulations designed to test whether it was really true that evolution would select against generosity in situations where there is no future payoff. Their work surprisingly shows that generosity -- acting to help others in the absence of foreseeable gains -- emerges naturally from the evolution of cooperation. This means that human generosity is likely to rest on more than social pressure, and is instead built in to human nature.

 

Their findings appear in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

"When past researchers carefully measured people's choices, they found that people all over the world were more generous than the reigning theories of economics and biology predicted they should be," said Max M. Krasnow, a postdoctoral scholar at UCSB's Center for Evolutionary Psychology, and one of the paper's lead authors. "Even when people believe the interaction to be one-time only, they are often generous to the person they are interacting with."

 

"Our simulations explain that the reason people are more generous than economic and biological theory would predict is due to the inherent uncertainty of social life," added Andrew Delton, also a postdoctoral scholar at the Center for Evolutionary Psychology and the paper's other lead author. "Specifically, you can never know for certain whether an interaction you are having right now will be one-time only -- like interacting with a server in a distant city -- or continue on indefinitely -- like interacting with a server at your favorite hometown diner."

 

Krasnow and Delton co-authored the paper with Leda Cosmides, professor of psychology and co-director of the Center for Evolutionary Psychology; and John Tooby, professor of anthropology and also co-director of the Center for Evolutionary Psychology.

 

"There are two errors a cooperating animal can make, and one is more costly than the other," noted Cosmides. "Believing that you will never meet this individual again, you might choose to benefit yourself at his expense -- only to find out later that the relationship could have been open-ended. If you make this error, you lose out on all the benefits you might have had from a long-term, perhaps life-long, cooperative relationship. This is an extraordinarily costly error to make. The other error is to mistakenly assume that you will have additional interactions with the other individual and therefore cooperate with him, only to find out later that it wasn't necessary. Although you were 'unnecessarily' nice in that one interaction, the cost of this error is relatively small. Without knowing why, the mind is skewed to be generous to make sure we find and cement all those valuable, long-term relationships."

 

The simulations, which are mathematical tools for studying how natural selection would have shaped our ancestors' decision making, show that, over a wide range of conditions, natural selection favors treating others as if the relationship will continue -- even when it is rational to believe the interaction is one-time only. "Although it's impossible to know the true state of the world with complete certainty, our simulated people were designed to use the 'gold-standard' for rational reasoning -- a process called Bayesian updating -- to make the best possible guesses about whether their interactions will continue or not," Krasnow noted.

 

Delton continued: "Nonetheless, even though their beliefs were as accurate as possible, our simulated people evolved to the point where they essentially ignored their beliefs and cooperated with others regardless. This happens even when almost 90 percent of the interactions in their social world are actually one-time rather than indefinitely continued."

 

According to Tooby, economic models of rationality and evolutionary models of fitness maximization both predict that humans should be designed to be selfish in one-time only situations. Yet, experimental work -- and everyday experience -- shows that humans are often surprisingly generous.

 

"So one of the outstanding problems in the behavioral sciences was why natural selection had not weeded out this pleasing but apparently self-handicapping behavioral tendency," Tooby said. "The paper shows how this feature of human behavior emerges logically out of the dynamics of cooperation, once an overlooked aspect of the problem -- the inherent uncertainty of social life -- is taken into account. People who help only when they can see a gain do worse than those who are motivated to be generous without always looking ahead to see what they might get in return."

 

http://www.scienceda...10725162523.htm

 

 

 

 

For some people leaving a tip is a status symbol similar to having an expensive car. Leaving a tip under such circumstances might be an act of self gratification or demostration of high social status. So it is not necessarily inconsistent with evolution and self interest.

[StringJunky]

Ants and termites et al don't work for themselves, they work for the 'collective organism' that is their colony and maybe generosity with no immediate personal gratification on our part as humans is a nod in that direction. That behaviour of cooperation favours a more functional society, which makes evolutionary sense for perpetuating the species and in a roundabout way hopefully favours the continuation of the offspring, or, more specifically, the genes of the giver although not directly from the person they have been generous to but will likely receive the benefit of someone elses generosity...the act of generosity is indirectly reciprocated. Put another way, the subconscious social mechanism, if uttered verbally, goes something like: "I will help you, if you help someone else and someone else from our group will help me".

 

The 'reward' path is non-linear and in effect that action is an investment paid into our 'colony' to keep it functionally healthy thus ensuring the long term survival of the progeny of the giver...the motive is ultimately selfish.

Edited August 4, 2011 by StringJunky

[thinker_jeff]

It sounds all of us believe that the generosity is caused by selfish of the genes.

Does anyone think something different?

[StringJunky]

It sounds all of us believe that the generosity is caused by selfish of the genes.

Does anyone think something different?

 

If I found a wallet full of money I would seek to return it to its owner because it would make me happy to make them happy...is that the selfish gene in action acting in a subtle way or have I transcended my innate programming to become altruistic?

[Greg Boyles]

If I found a wallet full of money I would seek to return it to its owner because it would make me happy to make them happy...is that the selfish gene in action acting in a subtle way or have I transcended my innate programming to become altruistic?

 

As previously state the pathways involved with self gratification and self interest etc are not linear and there is great scope for unpredicted behaviour that is not necessarily clearly linked with survival.

 

Believe what you want to believe about your altruism.

 

But in the end I doubt that what we believe about ourselves and our behaviour matters much because much of it is probably an illusion created in and by our grey matter.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[thinker_jeff]

Let me make this topic more interesting.

 

Chimpanzees Are Spontaneously Generous After All

Researchers at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center have shown chimpanzees have a significant bias for prosocial behavior. This, the study authors report, is in contrast to previous studies that positioned chimpanzees as reluctant altruists and led to the widely held belief that human altruism evolved in the last six million years only after humans split from apes.

 

The current study findings are available in the online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

According to Yerkes researchers Victoria Horner, PhD, Frans de Waal, PhD, and their colleagues, chimpanzees may not have shown prosocial behaviors in other studies because of design issues, such as the complexity of the apparatus used to deliver rewards and the distance between the animals.

 

"I have always been skeptical of the previous negative findings and their over-interpretation," says Dr. de Waal. "This study confirms the prosocial nature of chimpanzees with a different test, better adapted to the species," he continues.

 

In the current study, Dr. Horner and colleagues greatly simplified the test, which focused on offering seven adult female chimpanzees a choice between two similar actions: one that rewards both the "actor," the term used in the paper for the lead study participant, and a partner, and another that rewards only the actor/chooser herself. Examples of the critically important simplified design aspects include allowing the study partners to sit close together and ensuring conspicuous food consumption, which the researchers achieved by wrapping pieces of banana in paper that made a loud noise upon removal.

 

In each trial, the chooser, which was always tested with her partner in sight, selected between differently colored tokens from a bin. One colored token could be exchanged with an experimenter for treats for both members of the pair (prosocial); the other colored token would result in a treat only for the chooser (selfish). All seven chimpanzees showed an overwhelming preference for the prosocial choice. The study also showed the choosers behaved altruistically especially towards partners who either patiently waited or gently reminded them that they were there by drawing attention to themselves. The chimpanzees making the choices were less likely to reward partners who made a fuss, begged persistently or spat water at them, thus showing their altruism was spontaneous and not subject to intimidation.

 

"We were excited to find female after female chose the option that gave both her and her partner food," says Dr. Horner. "It was also interesting to me that being overly persistent did not go down well with the choosers. It was far more productive for partners to be calm and remind the choosers they were there from time to time," she continues.

 

The authors say this study puts to rest a longstanding puzzle surrounding chimpanzee altruism. It is well-known these apes help each other in the wild and show various forms of empathy, such as reassurance of distressed parties. The negative findings of previous studies did not fit this image. These results, however, confirm chimpanzee altruism in a well-controlled experiment, suggesting human altruism is less of an anomaly than previously thought.

 

The study authors next plan to determine whether the altruistic tendency of the chimpanzees towards their partners is related to social interactions within the group, such as reciprocal exchanges of food or social support.

 

For eight decades, the Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Emory University, has been dedicated to conducting essential basic science and translational research to advance scientific understanding and to improve the health and well-being of humans and nonhuman primates. Today, the center, as one of only eight National Institutes of Health-funded national primate research centers, provides leadership, training and resources to foster scientific creativity, collaboration and discoveries. Yerkes-based research is grounded in scientific integrity, expert knowledge, respect for colleagues, an open exchange of ideas and compassionate quality animal care.

 

Within the fields of microbiology and immunology, neurologic diseases, neuropharmacology, behavioral, cognitive and developmental neuroscience, and psychiatric disorders, the center's research programs are seeking ways to: develop vaccines for infectious and noninfectious diseases; treat drug addiction; interpret brain activity through imaging; increase understanding of progressive illnesses such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases; unlock the secrets of memory; determine how the interaction between genetics and society shape who we are; and advance knowledge about the evolutionary links between biology and behavior.

 

http://www.scienceda...10808152220.htm

Edited August 10, 2011 by thinker_jeff

[Marqq]

Honestly, I'd have to say it's a side effect of empathy. We work in the same social environment for most of our lives, and have done so for well...since we were much furrier. The addition of empathy to our psyche has been very useful for our usual situations of sustained social interactions. The fact that empathy still expresses itself outside our normal situations (in 'foreign' social environs) is no more peculiar than the fact that skin color doesn't conform to what is common in foreign territory. (I am nice at home. I am nice in Timbuktu. I am nice )

 

As to the idea of human altruism, well, I must object (for monkeys, too). Benefits to the self are abundant in every conceivable situation. Empathy plays a large role in this, and I HAVE met humans with a low tendency towards it. Those humans have few friends, are generally regarded as 'creepy', and all have extremely low self-esteem. Showing empathy, even fake empathy, has amazing benefits socially. For most people, with a healthy level of empathy, just being kind is a reward. Anyone who has given a gift and felt themselves melt into a big squishy fool upon seeing the light in the recipients eyes knows this. Even in times when we don't get to observe this (seemingly avoiding our reward), we can imagine far greater than reality would provide. In addition to the social and empathic rewards of showing empathy, there is a reward of identity. This is the 'status' mentioned by Greg. You get to think of yourself as being a better person. Unfortunately, the drive for this is culturally formed, and some end up without it or with a warped version of it. The final reason for generosity is to teach. I'm not really sure whether this tendency is cultural or genetic in origin. To varying degrees, humans like to teach the young and/or ignorant 'better ways'. If genetic, I'd suspect that this tendency rides with the tendencies to nurture(feminine, usually) and challenge(masculine, usually) one another. While apparently having no reward, we are driven to do so for the sake of satisfying a seemingly primal urge (for me...what's it for you?). Much like when I (obtrusively and neurotically) correct people's grammar or spelling, it's because it almost hurts not to. In the same fashion, I'd teach generosity to others by example. I do it for completely selfish reasons, and I love it.

[Alex Williams]

Thanks for sharing that article, very interesting stuff!

 

Ironically, it could be argued that your posting of that article constitutes a community benefit with no direct benefit to yourself.

[thinker_jeff]

Thanks for sharing that article, very interesting stuff!

 

Ironically, it could be argued that your posting of that article constitutes a community benefit with no direct benefit to yourself.

 

I am glad to take your comment.

 

[questionposter]

I want to ask:

 

If generosity is an instinctive and something you just "evolve" to have it instead of choosing to do it, is someone really a good person? Or are they just following their instincts? That is, if generosity is in fact somehow genetic kindness instead of something you choose to follow. It seems like it defeats the purpose of having generosity if its instinctual because kindness is suppose to be a trait that is involved with humans being better than just animals, so if its just something your programmed to do, its not really transcending the animal part.

[Marqq]

I want to ask:

 

If generosity is an instinctive and something you just "evolve" to have it instead of choosing to do it, is someone really a good person? Or are they just following their instincts? That is, if generosity is in fact somehow genetic kindness instead of something you choose to follow. It seems like it defeats the purpose of having generosity if its instinctual because kindness is suppose to be a trait that is involved with humans being better than just animals, so if its just something your programmed to do, its not really transcending the animal part.

 

No, no, no...only intellect separates us from the animals. Ethically, due to our intellect, we're simply more accountable. Even roaches are ethically superior to us--they know no better and have no conscious control.

 

As far as being 'good people', do you really have to hold it against someone if it's built-in? If two people are differently 'programmed', but are equally nice, who the hell cares? Besides, it isn't hard-wired. You still have a choice, and many people ignore the natural impulse towards generosity.

[questionposter]

No, no, no...only intellect separates us from the animals.

 

It seems like your thinking that humans are vastly superior to animals because of some kind of intellect, but we're only 10% out of the jungle yet (which happens to be how of the brain's potential an average human uses in their life time). Just look at all the violence and selfishness in the world. That's how other animals act and that's how they think in order to survive as well. In order to overcome the animal side, you need to embrace its existence, no "intellect" excuse. People will do complex things just because of their instincts or feelings, In fact, most of what people do is because of their instincts or feelings. Other animals also go around killing things and raping their members and would probably also do things like farm other animals lives for their own needs if they have the opportunity.

The the general processes of thinking that usually happens with humans is the same kind of thinking that happens in other animals, but to lesser degrees. This is because all the animals on Earth have the same base pairs of DNA and the similar DNA between all the animals which makes up their brain, makes up a similar brain structures for most animals. Even for things like coral though, their brain has similarities, but what they think is to a much lesser degree.

As far as being 'good people', do you really have to hold it against someone if it's built-in? If two people are differently 'programmed', but are equally nice, who the hell cares? Besides, it isn't hard-wired. You still have a choice, and many people ignore the natural impulse towards generosity.

 

 

If your not doing it because your choosing too but because your programmed to and that's accepted by the group, then when would you ever reach out to become an even better human being? Sometimes you need to do more than just a few kind acts to keep things rolling, and doing a few kind things definitely isn't going to solve all the world's problems. If you have the kind of control where you can chose to do it, then that means you've overcome your feelings so that you can do what's right despite your feelings.

 

Even with generosity your talking about, it's naturally and usually towards humans (it may seem like a shock, but many people won't even acknowledge that animals like dogs and fish can feel pain when its scientifically proven, and besides, are you going to share a nice meal with a dog? Or are you going to go all around and do volunteer work to clean up the environment. It would be incredibly kind, but...), but that obviously isn't enough with all the animal species that are going extinct and all the environmental problems that are happening. We need to overcome mainly being kind to humans in order to care for the environment.

Edited August 14, 2011 by questionposter

[Marqq]

It seems like your thinking that humans are vastly superior to animals because of some kind of intellect, but we're only 10% out of the jungle yet (which happens to be how of the brain's potential an average human uses in their life time). Just look at all the violence and selfishness in the world. That's how other animals act and that's how they think in order to survive as well. In order to overcome the animal side, you need to embrace its existence, no "intellect" excuse. People will do complex things just because of their instincts or feelings, In fact, most of what people do is because of their instincts or feelings. Other animals also go around killing things and raping their members and would probably also do things like farm other animals lives for their own needs if they have the opportunity.

The the general processes of thinking that usually happens with humans is the same kind of thinking that happens in other animals, but to lesser degrees. This is because all the animals on Earth have the same base pairs of DNA and the similar DNA between all the animals which makes up their brain, makes up a similar brain structures for most animals. Even for things like coral though, their brain has similarities, but what they think is to a much lesser degree.

Humans have empathy, most 'lower' animals do not. Empathy is the ability to view the world from another's point of view. There are a great many other facets of human thought that are very well-defined that add to our mental separation from 'lower' animals. I'll grant you that we still act on feelings a great majority of the time, along with following our conditioned response schemata, tending to conform to social expectations and essentially running through all situations without conscious thought (like animals). Overcoming these animalistic tendencies, though, is mostly accomplished during our progression through the stages of moral development. (Be sure to at least skim the link.) Very few non-human animals make it even as far as the conventional reasoning level, so their mechanisms for thought are a far cry from being 'the same, but to a lesser degree'.

[questionposter]

Humans have empathy, most 'lower' animals do not. Empathy is the ability to view the world from another's point of view. There are a great many other facets of human thought that are very well-defined that add to our mental separation from 'lower' animals. I'll grant you that we still act on feelings a great majority of the time, along with following our conditioned response schemata, tending to conform to social expectations and essentially running through all situations without conscious thought (like animals). Overcoming these animalistic tendencies, though, is mostly accomplished during our progression through the stages of moral development. (Be sure to at least skim the link.) Very few non-human animals make it even as far as the conventional reasoning level, so their mechanisms for thought are a far cry from being 'the same, but to a lesser degree'.

 

 

While it's true other animals don't accomplish as much as us mentally (as far as we know), its still no excuse to not better ourselves if we can. There's still a lot of terrible things happening despite this development.

Edited August 18, 2011 by questionposter

[Edtharan]

There is an example in game theory that helps explain generosity (and altruism too).

 

This is the example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

 

In the ultimatum game, one player is given a sum of money and is then required to split it with another player. However, the second player has the power to reject, or accept the deal. If the deal is accepted, then both players get the amount specified by the first player. However, if the second player rejects the deal, then neither player gets any money.

 

Now, on a first look, it seems that, as any money is better than none, as the second player you should always accept the offer and so as the first player you should give only the smallest amount you can to the second player (as they will accept anything in preference to nothing).

 

However, if you make 1 change to the basic game: Play the game repeatedly or with a social group. Then you get an interesting change.

 

Players who reject unfair deals start to get better deals offered to them. This is because they get a reputation for rejecting unfair deals and this means that the first player should offer a fair deal as something is better than nothing. Not only that, but players who offer fair deals also start to get more money because they will have the second player be more likely to accept a deal than reject it (because the player who are offering unfair deals keep having their deals rejected and they earn no money from those).

 

Because of this, and because we are a social species, we are subject to the second type of Ultimatum game (it doesn't just apply to money, but to helping someone, mutual sharing of resources, etc), and that means that there is a strong evolutionary advantage for generosity and altruism (that is: offering fair deals).

[zapatos]

It sounds all of us believe that the generosity is caused by selfish of the genes.

Does anyone think something different?

 

It's probably not too hard to explain any human begavior in terms of evolution. On the other hand, maybe we do some things because our parents taught us to do so. Tipping is not a world wide behavior. If no one told me it was expected I imagine I would only pay the amount on my food tab and nothing more. If it is due to evolution, why don't we tip the guy at the hardware store?

 

 

 

It seems like your thinking that humans are vastly superior to animals because of some kind of intellect, but we're only 10% out of the jungle yet (which happens to be how of the brain's potential an average human uses in their life time).

 

 

I believe studies have shown that the vast majority, if not all, of the human brain is used on a regular basis.

[thinker_jeff]

There is an example in game theory that helps explain generosity (and altruism too).

 

This is the example: http://en.wikipedia..../Ultimatum_game

 

In the ultimatum game, one player is given a sum of money and is then required to split it with another player. However, the second player has the power to reject, or accept the deal. If the deal is accepted, then both players get the amount specified by the first player. However, if the second player rejects the deal, then neither player gets any money.

 

Now, on a first look, it seems that, as any money is better than none, as the second player you should always accept the offer and so as the first player you should give only the smallest amount you can to the second player (as they will accept anything in preference to nothing).

 

However, if you make 1 change to the basic game: Play the game repeatedly or with a social group. Then you get an interesting change.

 

Players who reject unfair deals start to get better deals offered to them. This is because they get a reputation for rejecting unfair deals and this means that the first player should offer a fair deal as something is better than nothing. Not only that, but players who offer fair deals also start to get more money because they will have the second player be more likely to accept a deal than reject it (because the player who are offering unfair deals keep having their deals rejected and they earn no money from those).

 

Because of this, and because we are a social species, we are subject to the second type of Ultimatum game (it doesn't just apply to money, but to helping someone, mutual sharing of resources, etc), and that means that there is a strong evolutionary advantage for generosity and altruism (that is: offering fair deals).

 

I like this example. It should be good to explain a lot of behavior in economical field. The owner of the house who wants to sell it seems as the first player, and the realtor seems as the second player.

To the human beings before civilization, I'm not so sure if it worked that much.

[questionposter]

 

 

 

I believe studies have shown that the vast majority, if not all, of the human brain is used on a regular basis.

 

So not true. There's a BIG difference between when I watch movies and when I do calculus and number theory. In fact, studies have shown that when watching a movie your brain exhibits similar brain patterns to sleeping.

[zapatos]

So not true...

 

 

The 10% of brain myth is the widely perpetuated urban legend that most or all humans only make use of 10 percent (or some other small percentage) of their brains. It has been misattributed to people including Albert Einstein.[1] By association, it is suggested that a person may harness this unused potential and increase intelligence.

 

Though factors of intelligence can increase with training, the idea that large parts of the brain remain unused, and could subsequently be "activated" for conscious use, is without foundation. Although many mysteries regarding brain function remain, every part of the brain has a known function.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth

Though an alluring idea, the "10 percent myth" is so wrong it is almost laughable, says neurologist Barry Gordon at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore.

...

"It turns out though, that we use virtually every part of the brain, and that [most of] the brain is active almost all the time," Gordon adds.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=people-only-use-10-percent-of-brain

New brain-imaging evidence would dismiss the notion that only 10% of the human brain is only used at any given time. In PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans for any activity including sleeping, the entire brain "lights up" in nearly every area indicating a great amount of cortical activity taking place during the execution of nearly all cognitive tasks. More than 60% of the brain is active even during REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep or dreaming.

 

http://www.sciencemaster.com/columns/wesson/wesson_part_05.php

Edited September 9, 2011 by zapatos

[questionposter]

http://en.wikipedia....5_of_brain_myth

 

http://www.scientifi...ercent-of-brain

 

http://www.sciencema...son_part_05.php

 

 

Well, that's news to me. Perhaps what I was thinking of was some kind of comparison like "watching TV is like only using 10% of your brain" or something like that.

In either case, most people at least don't consciously think as much as they should anyway, especially when you come home from work and turn on the TV/computer, you don't want to think a lot since your tired.

 

No wait, I think I found it. The amount of "parts" of your brain you use is a lot like 60+%, as in you use 40/60 parts, but the actual brain "function" is 10%, or how much those parts are wholly used. Now that I think about it 10% is pretty low, but then again it's a measurement based on the maximum possible capacities.

Edited September 10, 2011 by questionposter

[Greg Boyles]

I want to ask:

 

If generosity is an instinctive and something you just "evolve" to have it instead of choosing to do it, is someone really a good person? Or are they just following their instincts? That is, if generosity is in fact somehow genetic kindness instead of something you choose to follow. It seems like it defeats the purpose of having generosity if its instinctual because kindness is suppose to be a trait that is involved with humans being better than just animals, so if its just something your programmed to do, its not really transcending the animal part.

 

Exactly. Doesn't make it any less pleasurable to being on the receiving end of an alturistic act by another however.

 

Why should it really matter whether altruism is wired into our brain rather than an act of pure free will?

 

Unless you have any religious hangups about the true nature of human beings.

[questionposter]

Exactly. Doesn't make it any less pleasurable to being on the receiving end of an alturistic act by another however.

 

Why should it really matter whether altruism is wired into our brain rather than an act of pure free will?

 

Unless you have any religious hangups about the true nature of human beings.

 

Because if its not your own choice, then your not actually becoming better, your not actually transcending your instincts, and if you just continued along that path for everything, not much would get done. Some times you have to be tough in order to get things done anyway.

Edited September 12, 2011 by questionposter