But it might even be possible that no additional circuitry is required if the environment is just right. Consider the case of a very social animal in an environment where individuals, esp. young ones, rarely can take care of themselves alone. In such an environment, there may be many situations where the well-being of others predicts your own well-being. For example, if you give something to the other (and that might just be smile) that makes it more likely to be fed. This doesn’t seem to necessarily require any extra circuits, though it might be more likely to bootstrap off some prior mechanisms, e.g., grooming or infant care.
This might not be stable because free-loading might evolve, but this is then secondary.
I don’t really buy this. For my whole childhood, I was in an environment where it was illegal, dangerous, and taboo for me to drive a car (because I was underage). And then I got old enough to drive, and so of course I started doing so without a second thought. I had not permanently internalized the idea that “Steve driving a car” is bad. Instead, I got older, my situation changed, and my behavior changed accordingly. Likewise, I dropped tons of other habits of childhood—my religious practices, my street address, my bedtime, my hobbies, my political beliefs, my values, etc.—as soon as I got older and my situation changed.
So by the same token, when I was a little kid, yes it was in my self-interest (to some extent) for my parents to be healthy and happy. But that stopped being true as soon as I was financially independent. Why assume that people would permanently internalize that, when they fail to permanently internalize so many other aspects of childhood?
Actually it’s worse than that—adolescents are notorious for not feeling motivated by the well-being of their parents, even while such well-being is still in their own narrow self-interest!! :-P
(And generalizing across people seems equally implausible to generalizing across time. I called my parents “mom and dad”, but I didn’t generalize that to calling everyone I met “mom and dad”. So why assume that my brain would generalize being-nice-to-parents to being-nice-to-everyone?)
It’s true that sometimes childhood incentives lead to habits that last through adulthood, but I think that mainly happens via (1) the adult independently assesses those habits as being more appealing than alternatives, or (2) the adult continues the habits because it’s never really occurred to them that there was any other option.
As an example of (2), a religious person raised in a religious community might stay religious by default. Until, that is, they move to the big city, where they have atheist roommates and coworkers and friends. And at that point, they’ll probably at least imagine the possibility of becoming atheist. And they might or might not find that possibility appealing, based on their personality and so on.
But (2) doesn’t particularly apply to the idea of being selfish. I don’t think people are nice because it’s never even crossed their mind, not even once in their whole life, that maybe they could not do a nice thing. That’s a very obvious and salient idea! :)
habits that last through adulthood [because] the adult independently assesses those habits as being more appealing than alternatives,
I think that the habit of being nice to people is empathy.
So by the same token, when I was a little kid, yes it was in my self-interest (to some extent) for my parents to be healthy and happy. But that stopped being true as soon as I was financially independent. Why assume that people would permanently internalize that, when they fail to permanently internalize so many other aspects of childhood?
I’m not claiming that they “permanently internalize” but that they correctly (well, modulo mistakes) predict that it is their interests. You started driving a car because you correctly predicted that the situation/environment had changed. But across almost all environments, you get positive feedback from being nice to people and thus feel or predict positive valence about these.
Actually it’s worse than that—adolescents are notorious for not feeling motivated by the well-being of their parents, even while such well-being is still in their own narrow self-interest!! :-P
That depends on the type of well-being and your ability to predict it. And maybe other priorities get in the way during that age. And again, I’m not claiming unconditional goodness. The environment of young adults is clearly different from that of children, but it is comparable enough to predict positive value from being nice to your parents.
Actually, psychopaths prove this point: The anti-social behavior is “learned” in many cases during abusive childhood experiences, i.e., in environments where it was exactly not in their interest to be nice—because it didn’t benefit them. And on the other side, psychopaths can, in many cases, function and show prosocial behaviors in stable environments with strong social feedback.
This also generalizes to the cultures example.
As an example of (2), a religious person raised in a religious community might stay religious by default. Until, that is, they move to the big city
I agree: In the city, many of their previous predictions of which behaviors exactly lead to positive feedback (“quoting the Bible”) might be off and they will quickly learn new behaviors. But being nice to people in general, will still work. In fact, I claim, it tends to generalize even more, which is why people who have been around more varied communities tend to develop more generalized morality (higher Kegan levels).
I think we agree that motivations need to ground out directly or indirectly with “primary rewards” from innate drives (pain is bad, eating-when-hungry is good, etc., other things equal). (Right?)
And then your comment kinda sounds like you’re making the following argument:
There’s no need to posit the existence of an innate drive / primary reward that ever makes it intrinsically rewarding to be nice to people, because “you get positive feedback from being nice to people”, i.e. you will notice from experience that “being nice to people” will tend to lead to (non-social) primary rewards like eating-when-hungry, avoiding pain, etc., so the learning algorithm in your brain will sculpt you to have good feelings around being nice to people.
If that’s what you’re trying to say, then I strongly disagree and I’m happy to chat about that … but I was under quite a strong impression that that’s not what you believe! Right?
I thought that you believed that there is a primary reward / innate drive that makes it feel intrinsically rewarding for adults to be nice (under certain circumstances); if so, why bring up childhood at all?
I don’t really buy this. For my whole childhood, I was in an environment where it was illegal, dangerous, and taboo for me to drive a car (because I was underage). And then I got old enough to drive, and so of course I started doing so without a second thought. I had not permanently internalized the idea that “Steve driving a car” is bad. Instead, I got older, my situation changed, and my behavior changed accordingly. Likewise, I dropped tons of other habits of childhood—my religious practices, my street address, my bedtime, my hobbies, my political beliefs, my values, etc.—as soon as I got older and my situation changed.
So by the same token, when I was a little kid, yes it was in my self-interest (to some extent) for my parents to be healthy and happy. But that stopped being true as soon as I was financially independent. Why assume that people would permanently internalize that, when they fail to permanently internalize so many other aspects of childhood?
Actually it’s worse than that—adolescents are notorious for not feeling motivated by the well-being of their parents, even while such well-being is still in their own narrow self-interest!! :-P
(And generalizing across people seems equally implausible to generalizing across time. I called my parents “mom and dad”, but I didn’t generalize that to calling everyone I met “mom and dad”. So why assume that my brain would generalize being-nice-to-parents to being-nice-to-everyone?)
It’s true that sometimes childhood incentives lead to habits that last through adulthood, but I think that mainly happens via (1) the adult independently assesses those habits as being more appealing than alternatives, or (2) the adult continues the habits because it’s never really occurred to them that there was any other option.
As an example of (2), a religious person raised in a religious community might stay religious by default. Until, that is, they move to the big city, where they have atheist roommates and coworkers and friends. And at that point, they’ll probably at least imagine the possibility of becoming atheist. And they might or might not find that possibility appealing, based on their personality and so on.
But (2) doesn’t particularly apply to the idea of being selfish. I don’t think people are nice because it’s never even crossed their mind, not even once in their whole life, that maybe they could not do a nice thing. That’s a very obvious and salient idea! :)
[More on this in Heritability, Behaviorism, and Within-Lifetime RL :) ]
I think the point we agree on is
I think that the habit of being nice to people is empathy.
I’m not claiming that they “permanently internalize” but that they correctly (well, modulo mistakes) predict that it is their interests. You started driving a car because you correctly predicted that the situation/environment had changed. But across almost all environments, you get positive feedback from being nice to people and thus feel or predict positive valence about these.
That depends on the type of well-being and your ability to predict it. And maybe other priorities get in the way during that age. And again, I’m not claiming unconditional goodness. The environment of young adults is clearly different from that of children, but it is comparable enough to predict positive value from being nice to your parents.
Actually, psychopaths prove this point: The anti-social behavior is “learned” in many cases during abusive childhood experiences, i.e., in environments where it was exactly not in their interest to be nice—because it didn’t benefit them. And on the other side, psychopaths can, in many cases, function and show prosocial behaviors in stable environments with strong social feedback.
This also generalizes to the cultures example.
I agree: In the city, many of their previous predictions of which behaviors exactly lead to positive feedback (“quoting the Bible”) might be off and they will quickly learn new behaviors. But being nice to people in general, will still work. In fact, I claim, it tends to generalize even more, which is why people who have been around more varied communities tend to develop more generalized morality (higher Kegan levels).
I’m not too sure what you’re arguing.
I think we agree that motivations need to ground out directly or indirectly with “primary rewards” from innate drives (pain is bad, eating-when-hungry is good, etc., other things equal). (Right?)
And then your comment kinda sounds like you’re making the following argument:
If that’s what you’re trying to say, then I strongly disagree and I’m happy to chat about that … but I was under quite a strong impression that that’s not what you believe! Right?
I thought that you believed that there is a primary reward / innate drive that makes it feel intrinsically rewarding for adults to be nice (under certain circumstances); if so, why bring up childhood at all?
Sorry if I’m confused :)