If we’re discussing group selection, we must be talking about genetic altruism: genes coding for traits that increase the group’s fitness at the expense of the individual’s. Such a trait could be a behavioral trait, including the psychological altruism exhibited by an intelligent being.
Can you point to a mistake that is made as a result of conflating the two concepts? If not, I don’t see a problem with the terminology.
Altruism in the conventional sense? Yes, there are plenty of cases. Vampire bats will let non-kin bats suck their blood if they would otherwise starve. Apes will hunt and battle, risking their lives for the good of the tribe. Pets will risk their lives to help their owners. In addition to ″The Selfish Gene″, I’d recommend Bob Wright’s books in the same area.
Well, there are lots of cases of one animal helping another of a totally different species (e.g. dolphins helping drowning swimmers). But you could argue that those are just kin-selected heuristics applied broadly.
But in that case, is there a real case of human altruism in the animal kingdom?
Right. Although you should note that that’s exactly what I said in my last sentence (except the reader had to think it themselves):
But in that case [if animal altruism is just kin-selected heuristics being applied broadly], is there a real case of human altruism in the animal kingdom?
Also note that the poster I was replying to was particularly interested in altruism not explainable by kin selection.
I’ll edit it to be nicer. I guess I don’t like it when people miss the subtext of my posts and then tread over the exact same ground, not noticing my footprints.
I guess I don’t like it when people miss the subtext of my posts and then assume I must be missing something.
Understandable, and I know that feels like losing status hit points which you then need to recoup, but at least within LW, it’s best to assume good faith on the part of other commenters, including assuming that object-level criticisms aren’t disguised status attacks to be returned in kind. (And even if some object-level criticism seems to imply some status loss on your part by implying that you’ve made some very obvious mistake, a counterargument or explanation should suffice as a response to that.)
If we’re discussing group selection, we must be talking about genetic altruism: genes coding for traits that increase the group’s fitness at the expense of the individual’s. Such a trait could be a behavioral trait, including the psychological altruism exhibited by an intelligent being.
Can you point to a mistake that is made as a result of conflating the two concepts? If not, I don’t see a problem with the terminology.
is there a real case of (non-human) altruism among non-kin in the animal kingdom? I don’t think there is...
Altruism in the conventional sense? Yes, there are plenty of cases. Vampire bats will let non-kin bats suck their blood if they would otherwise starve. Apes will hunt and battle, risking their lives for the good of the tribe. Pets will risk their lives to help their owners. In addition to ″The Selfish Gene″, I’d recommend Bob Wright’s books in the same area.
Well, there are lots of cases of one animal helping another of a totally different species (e.g. dolphins helping drowning swimmers). But you could argue that those are just kin-selected heuristics applied broadly.
But in that case, is there a real case of human altruism in the animal kingdom?
How is that different from arguing that human altruism is just heuristics for assisting kin-and-ingroup applied broadly?
It’s a description, not an explanation. Both are valid altruism.
Right. Although you should note that that’s exactly what I said in my last sentence (except the reader had to think it themselves):
Also note that the poster I was replying to was particularly interested in altruism not explainable by kin selection.
That seemed really pointlessly condescending.
(Edit: This referred to a previous version of the parent comment.)
I’ll edit it to be nicer. I guess I don’t like it when people miss the subtext of my posts and then tread over the exact same ground, not noticing my footprints.
Understandable, and I know that feels like losing status hit points which you then need to recoup, but at least within LW, it’s best to assume good faith on the part of other commenters, including assuming that object-level criticisms aren’t disguised status attacks to be returned in kind. (And even if some object-level criticism seems to imply some status loss on your part by implying that you’ve made some very obvious mistake, a counterargument or explanation should suffice as a response to that.)