Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

George Price's findings on Altruism

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • George Price's findings on Altruism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...tionary_theory

    Other work in evolutionary theory

    Price developed a new interpretation of Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection, the Price equation, which has now been accepted as the best interpretation of a formerly enigmatic result. He wrote what is still widely held to be the best mathematical, biological and evolutionary representation of altruism. He also pioneered the application of game theory to evolutionary biology, in a co-authored 1973 paper with John Maynard Smith. Furthermore Price reasoned that in the same way as an organism may sacrifice itself and further its genes (altruism) an organism may sacrifice itself to eliminate others of the same species if it enabled closely related organisms to better propagate their related genes. This negative altruism was described in a paper published by W. D. Hamilton and is termed Hamiltonian spite.

    Price’s 'mathematical' theory of altruism reasons that organisms are more likely to show altruism toward each other as they become more genetically similar to each other. As such, in a species that requires two parents to reproduce, an organism is most likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological parent, full sibling, or direct offspring. The reason for this is that each of these relatives’ genetic make up contains (on average in the case of siblings) 50% of the genes that are found in the original organism. So if the original organism dies as a result of an altruistic act it can still manage to propagate its full genetic heritage as long as two or more of these close relatives are saved. Consequently an organism is less likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological grandparent, grandchild, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew or half-sibling(each contain one-fourth of the genes found in the original organism); and even less likely to show altruism to a first cousin (contains one-eighth of the genes found in the original organism). The theory then holds that the farther genetically removed two organisms are from each other the less likely they are to show altruism to each other. If true then altruistic (kind) behavior is not truly selfless and is instead an adaptation that organisms have in order to promote their own genetic heritage.


    Helping the homeless

    Unable to accept the selfish reasoning for kindness found in his own mathematical theory of altruism Price began showing an ever increasing amount (in both quality and quantity) of random kindness to complete strangers. As such Price dedicated the latter part of his life to helping the homeless, often inviting homeless people to live in his house. Sometimes, when the people in his house became a distraction, he slept in his office at the Galton Laboratory. He also gave up everything to help alcoholics, yet as he helped them they stole his belongings causing him to fall into depression.

    He was eventually thrown out of his rented house due to a construction project in the area, which made him unhappy because he could no longer provide housing for the homeless. He moved to various squats in the North London area, and became depressed over Christmas, 1974.


    Death

    Price committed suicide on January 6, 1975, using a pair of nail scissors to cut his own carotid artery. His body was identified by his close colleague Bill Hamilton. Friends said he committed suicide because of despondency over his inability to continue helping the homeless.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation

  • #2
    I'm not sure why you posted this, but it serves as a good example of what people mean when they criticize intellectualism. The intellectual visualizes the world that they want and operate accordingly. Assigning an over thinking over reaching philosophy is part of their skewed world view. These altruistic acts can be better explained by the fact that you are emotionally closer to immediate family than others. It really is that simple.

    That bums might screw you and land lords are in the business of making money are simple facts we face if we accept reality the way it is. He was a victim of his own stupidity. And unfortunately, not alone.

    Comment


    • #3
      Actually Jasper, I'd say you're an interesting study in why we should focus on intellectualism, instead of letting people be like you.

      One of the main reasons he became depressed and committed suicide is that he tried to reject his intellectualism for an emotional response.

      His theory on genetically derived altruism was too cold for him, so he rejected it on an emotional bias and began to help random homeless and alcoholics, who, (possibly because they weren't genetically similar to him) betrayed him and stole his stuff.

      He eventually killed himself because of the depression that ensued from that. His failing wasn't in intellectualism, but in not being able to handle the correctness of his altruism, in part because of his emotional bias and in part because of his religious issues with the theory.

      I can't get this board.

      How is it that almost all of you guys think it's valid to criticize intellectualism?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by KevinAndeys View Post
        Actually Jasper, I'd say you're an interesting study in why we should focus on intellectualism, instead of letting people be like you.

        One of the main reasons he became depressed and committed suicide is that he tried to reject his intellectualism for an emotional response.

        His theory on genetically derived altruism was too cold for him, so he rejected it on an emotional bias and began to help random homeless and alcoholics, who, (possibly because they weren't genetically similar to him) betrayed him and stole his stuff.

        He eventually killed himself because of the depression that ensued from that. His failing wasn't in intellectualism, but in not being able to handle the correctness of his altruism, in part because of his emotional bias and in part because of his religious issues with the theory.

        I can't get this board.

        How is it that almost all of you guys think it's valid to criticize intellectualism?
        Nothing wrong with intellectualism, but if it outweighs common sense, it can lead to a bloated sense of self-importance and a lack of usefulness. Being intellectual does not always go hand-in-hand with common sense and "street smarts." There are some very educated people I know who are also among the dumbest, bumbling people because they refuse to see the simplest solutions, refuse to listen to anyone, and can never admit when they need help or when they're wrong. They can tell you the "what" about everything, but never the "why". Intellectualism also, like Jasper said, adheres to idealism. Too many people look at what they think SHOULD be as opposed to what IS.

        Don't get me wrong. We need deep thinkers; but those deep thinkers don't do any good without some simple logical deduction and a healthy dose of reality.
        "If the police have to come get you, they're bringing an @$$ kicking with them!"
        -Chris Rock

        Comment


        • #5
          Duh, yeah. What he ^^^^^^ said. I need more Brondo. It's got electrolytes.
          The All New
          2013
          BBQ and Goldfish Pond Club
          Sully - IAM Rand - JasperST - L1 - The Tick - EmmaPeel - Columbus - LA Dep - SgtSlaughter - OneAdam12 - Retired96 - Iowa #1603
          - M1Garand

          (any BBQ and Goldfish Pond member may nominate another user for membership but just remember ..... this ain't no weenie roast!)



          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by KevinAndeys View Post
            Actually Jasper, I'd say you're an interesting study in why we should focus on intellectualism, instead of letting people be like you.
            We should focus on intellectualism and not let people be what they want? I'm still alive and the dipstick in the story killed himself. Maybe you should focus on reality. Remember, the longest journey begins with a single step.
            One of the main reasons he became depressed and committed suicide is that he tried to reject his intellectualism for an emotional response.
            Intellectualism IS emotionalism. It's just wrapped in a "look at how much smarter I am" philosophy. Like someone logging into a LE forum and telling LEOs how to properly do their job, for example.
            His theory on genetically derived altruism was too cold for him, so he rejected it on an emotional bias and began to help random homeless and alcoholics, who, (possibly because they weren't genetically similar to him) betrayed him and stole his stuff.

            He eventually killed himself because of the depression that ensued from that. His failing wasn't in intellectualism, but in not being able to handle the correctness of his altruism, in part because of his emotional bias and in part because of his religious issues with the theory.

            I can't get this board.

            How is it that almost all of you guys think it's valid to criticize intellectualism?
            Because it leads to smugness and arrogance without realistic answers? But it's intersting that you believe one has to abandon their intellectualim to care for others. That pretty much proves the point.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JasperST View Post
              We should focus on intellectualism and not let people be what they want? I'm still alive and the dipstick in the story killed himself. Maybe you should focus on reality. Remember, the longest journey begins with a single step.
              Intellectualism IS emotionalism. It's just wrapped in a "look at how much smarter I am" philosophy. Like someone logging into a LE forum and telling LEOs how to properly do their job, for example.
              Because it leads to smugness and arrogance without realistic answers? But it's intersting that you believe one has to abandon their intellectualim to care for others. That pretty much proves the point.

              This is my point exactly. Your lack of academic skills lead you to take individuals and use them to prove points that can only be proven by study of groups. You can't prove anything about academic groups by analysing one person like myself, any more than I can analyse the regular joe by analysing your emotionally ruled existence.


              Intellectualism doesn't lead to smugness and arrogance. Those are just words you use when you get told something by someone you don't want to listen to.

              Things in this world haven't been solved by being emotional and "street smart". We haven't figured out complex medical procedures, done thousands of years of work on philosophy, analysed the human mind, traveled into space and the depths of the oceans, and crafted the rule of law by "knowing what's right".

              We've done it as a race by analysing what we don't know, and then seeking the answers to that.

              I'll simply not accept this lowbrow mentality that academics are some failing of the human race.

              This guy was a broken individual. He did some good things, to be sure, but he also had individual emotional and perhaps mental problems. Those are what broke him, not his intellectualism. He became depressed and emotional because he couldn't handle the truth of what he KNEW to be, so he worked against it, and had his heart broken, probably by a real world application of what he had studied.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by KevinAndeys View Post
                This is my point exactly. Your lack of academic skills lead you to take individuals and use them to prove points that can only be proven by study of groups. You can't prove anything about academic groups by analysing one person like myself, any more than I can analyse the regular joe by analysing your emotionally ruled existence.
                That wasn't your point. I didn't base my opinion on the one example. Neither did I consider you an intellectual so your defensive posture isn't necessary. I believe it's been firmly established here that you have no clue what you're taking about. IF you ever were an assisant prosecutor I'm reasonable certain that you were canned.
                Intellectualism doesn't lead to smugness and arrogance. Those are just words you use when you get told something by someone you don't want to listen to.
                The reactionary attitude is all yours. But you have the smugness without the intellect so you can just stand down.
                Things in this world haven't been solved by being emotional and "street smart". We haven't figured out complex medical procedures, done thousands of years of work on philosophy, analysed the human mind, traveled into space and the depths of the oceans, and crafted the rule of law by "knowing what's right".
                And who said otherwise? Earth to Kevin. Hello?
                We've done it as a race by analysing what we don't know, and then seeking the answers to that.

                I'll simply not accept this lowbrow mentality that academics are some failing of the human race.
                No one said they were. I made it clear what I was taking about. Intellectualism as in, excessive emphasis of the intellect at the expense of all else. Like in the OP's article. To quote George Orwell: “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
                This guy was a broken individual. He did some good things, to be sure, but he also had individual emotional and perhaps mental problems. Those are what broke him, not his intellectualism. He became depressed and emotional because he couldn't handle the truth of what he KNEW to be, so he worked against it, and had his heart broken, probably by a real world application of what he had studied.
                Wrong. He failed because he believed in things that don't work in the real world. He couldn't envision all the things that could go wrong wrong because of his utopian mindset. It's a classic example of why I oppose liberalism so much.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JasperST View Post
                  Wrong. He failed because he believed in things that don't work in the real world. He couldn't envision all the things that could go wrong wrong because of his utopian mindset. It's a classic example of why I oppose liberalism so much.
                  I don't think you understand what his belief, and his studies were on.

                  His studies were that altruism is extended along genetic lines, that kindness of that sort is something linked to your family, that you are more likely to help your progeny, etc.

                  He then couldn't handle the "cold" truth of that, and started arbitrarily helping people he was not genetically linked to strongly, in order to avoid the truth of his studies.

                  That is what didn't work in the real world. I'd submit to you that his study actually does work, that in fact, his studies that demonstrated altruism and a link to genetics are part of why the people he helped betrayed him anyway.

                  Let's remember that. He was doing these acts for the homeless because he was trying to reject what he knew to be true, that we most strongly help those in our genetic lineage, that we're callous to other tribes, essentially.

                  He ended up being right. He killed himself because of that truth.

                  He never had utopian mindset mate. A utopian mindset would have been a study that said Altruism is NOT linked to genetic motivations.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by KevinAndeys View Post
                    I don't think you understand what his belief, and his studies were on.

                    His studies were that altruism is extended along genetic lines, that kindness of that sort is something linked to your family, that you are more likely to help your progeny, etc.
                    Yes and I ridiculed it as a "study". Go ahead and re-read the post. That's something cave men knew.
                    He then couldn't handle the "cold" truth of that, and started arbitrarily helping people he was not genetically linked to strongly, in order to avoid the truth of his studies.

                    That is what didn't work in the real world. I'd submit to you that his study actually does work, that in fact, his studies that demonstrated altruism and a link to genetics are part of why the people he helped betrayed him anyway.

                    Let's remember that. He was doing these acts for the homeless because he was trying to reject what he knew to be true, that we most strongly help those in our genetic lineage, that we're callous to other tribes, essentially.

                    He ended up being right. He killed himself because of that truth.

                    He never had utopian mindset mate. A utopian mindset would have been a study that said Altruism is NOT linked to genetic motivations.
                    All liberals have utopian mindsets, it's par for the course. That doesn't mean that all liberals believe the world is or could be perfect. Just that they lean that way. You lean even moreso if when you over intellectualize things, like basic humanity. Even moreso when when you get so wrapped up in it you consider it a moment of discovery and base your life on it. How did he "find" anything except the bottom of a liquor bottle?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JasperST View Post
                      Yes and I ridiculed it as a "study". Go ahead and re-read the post. That's something cave men knew.
                      All liberals have utopian mindsets, it's par for the course. That doesn't mean that all liberals believe the world is or could be perfect. Just that they lean that way.

                      That statement is so ludicrously blanketing as to not even really need disproving.

                      When considering the population of liberals country wide and world wide, calling every one of them a utopian idealist is ludicrous.

                      What do you think conservatives who insist all you need to do is reduce government and taxes and everything just magically solves itself through free market should be called? Realists?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by KevinAndeys View Post
                        That statement is so ludicrously blanketing as to not even really need disproving.

                        When considering the population of liberals country wide and world wide, calling every one of them a utopian idealist is ludicrous.

                        What do you think conservatives who insist all you need to do is reduce government and taxes and everything just magically solves itself through free market should be called? Realists?
                        You know nothing about liberalism or conservativism then. Liberals, as in modern day progressives (not classic liberals) support big government. They do so because they want big brother to correct man's flaws, make them equal, redistribute wealth and pretty much micromanage our lives. That can only come from a utopian mindset, otherwise, why bother?

                        Conservatives favor less government and more individual freedom. We recognize that some people are lazy, some more productive. It's wrong to take from the productive and give to the lazy. Lowering taxes and less spending works! It's been proven. Jesus, how do you libs not
                        know any history? How is raising taxes and growing government goint to help the economy? Has it worked before? They don't give a rats *** that it won't work, they want big government come hell or high water and the lemmings just swim along sipping the Koolaid.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by JasperST View Post
                          You know nothing about liberalism or conservativism then. Liberals, as in modern day progressives (not classic liberals) support big government. They do so because they want big brother to correct man's flaws, make them equal, redistribute wealth and pretty much micromanage our lives. That can only come from a utopian mindset, otherwise, why bother?

                          Conservatives favor less government and more individual freedom. We recognize that some people are lazy, some more productive. It's wrong to take from the productive and give to the lazy. Lowering taxes and less spending works! It's been proven. Jesus, how do you libs not
                          know any history? How is raising taxes and growing government goint to help the economy? Has it worked before? They don't give a rats *** that it won't work, they want big government come hell or high water and the lemmings just swim along sipping the Koolaid.

                          How does the liberal mindset that government can assist in the functioning of day to day society become "utopian".

                          Do you understand what utopia and utopian mindsets are?

                          Most liberals I know are fairly practical people who acknowledge a mixing of personal responsibility with government regulation. That's not utopian.

                          Understand that utopian thinking is a mindset that isn't attributable to a political spectrum.

                          Your second half is just nuts. Our highest economic growth in this country in manufacturing and growth of the middle class came during the 50's and early 60's. Remember that taxation is often argued through over simplification. That's not a good way to handle it.

                          I'd argue, and so would my old economics professor, that the higher income taxed encouraged business people to keep their money in the company, which grew the business. Once the government lowered the income tax rate below the corporate rates, people withdrew more money from their businesses, and that slowed growth.

                          I'm so damned tired of this puerile argument that everyone who uses government aid is lazy, and that the conservatives aren't as ideological as the democrats.


                          Do you really not get that utopian mindsets is NOT a politically dependent thing? That believing in a utopian free market world is the same as believing in a utopian socialist world?

                          Liberals don't want "big brother" to correct man's flaws. Liberals, contrary to utopian beliefs, understand that man's flaws are unavoidable and want intelligent laws and regulations to help control the impact of those flaws on the economy, the legal structure, and individual ability.

                          They also realise that multinational conglomerates break the free market concept, because they are too strong to be acted upon by the market forces theorized in an economic theory created in an era before they even existed. In that sort of situation, some regulation is required.

                          I'd also love to know how you think Conservatives are small government oriented, when they're constantly involved in making laws that grow the prison industry, the defense industry, and the intelligence industry.

                          Trust me, mate, utopian mindsets are two things. 1: They're a small subsection of both political parties. Most of us believe in a practical worldview, and 2: they exist across the political spectrum.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by KevinAndeys View Post
                            How does the liberal mindset that government can assist in the functioning of day to day society become "utopian".

                            Do you understand what utopia and utopian mindsets are?

                            Most liberals I know are fairly practical people who acknowledge a mixing of personal responsibility with government regulation. That's not utopian.

                            Understand that utopian thinking is a mindset that isn't attributable to a political spectrum.

                            Your second half is just nuts. Our highest economic growth in this country in manufacturing and growth of the middle class came during the 50's and early 60's. Remember that taxation is often argued through over simplification. That's not a good way to handle it.

                            I'd argue, and so would my old economics professor, that the higher income taxed encouraged business people to keep their money in the company, which grew the business. Once the government lowered the income tax rate below the corporate rates, people withdrew more money from their businesses, and that slowed growth.

                            I'm so damned tired of this puerile argument that everyone who uses government aid is lazy, and that the conservatives aren't as ideological as the democrats.


                            Do you really not get that utopian mindsets is NOT a politically dependent thing? That believing in a utopian free market world is the same as believing in a utopian socialist world?

                            Liberals don't want "big brother" to correct man's flaws. Liberals, contrary to utopian beliefs, understand that man's flaws are unavoidable and want intelligent laws and regulations to help control the impact of those flaws on the economy, the legal structure, and individual ability.

                            They also realise that multinational conglomerates break the free market concept, because they are too strong to be acted upon by the market forces theorized in an economic theory created in an era before they even existed. In that sort of situation, some regulation is required.

                            I'd also love to know how you think Conservatives are small government oriented, when they're constantly involved in making laws that grow the prison industry, the defense industry, and the intelligence industry.

                            Trust me, mate, utopian mindsets are two things. 1: They're a small subsection of both political parties. Most of us believe in a practical worldview, and 2: they exist across the political spectrum.
                            My God. I think he actually believes this crap. He's lost.
                            The All New
                            2013
                            BBQ and Goldfish Pond Club
                            Sully - IAM Rand - JasperST - L1 - The Tick - EmmaPeel - Columbus - LA Dep - SgtSlaughter - OneAdam12 - Retired96 - Iowa #1603
                            - M1Garand

                            (any BBQ and Goldfish Pond member may nominate another user for membership but just remember ..... this ain't no weenie roast!)



                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by KevinAndeys View Post
                              How does the liberal mindset that government can assist in the functioning of day to day society become "utopian".

                              Do you understand what utopia and utopian mindsets are?

                              Most liberals I know are fairly practical people who acknowledge a mixing of personal responsibility with government regulation. That's not utopian.
                              Everyone believes that government can assist us, that's why we have a government. If that's all they wanted they'd be conservatives.
                              Understand that utopian thinking is a mindset that isn't attributable to a political spectrum.
                              You are very naive.
                              Your second half is just nuts. Our highest economic growth in this country in manufacturing and growth of the middle class came during the 50's and early 60's. Remember that taxation is often argued through over simplification. That's not a good way to handle it.
                              No one made that argument but you. Lowering taxes is part of it, I just said so. Your simplification of the 50's ignore the fact that the US had little to no competition in the world marketplace since Europe and Asia was in shambles. When they got on their feet they caught us fat dumb and happy.
                              I'd argue, and so would my old economics professor, that the higher income taxed encouraged business people to keep their money in the company, which grew the business. Once the government lowered the income tax rate below the corporate rates, people withdrew more money from their businesses, and that slowed growth.
                              No wonder...your econ professor was inexperienced in real world economics. Did he so much as run an espresso stand? Any credentials besides accolades from more of the same? What do people do when they "withdraw" money from the company? They invest it elsewhere and buy things. Closing loopholes was/is important, that's how Reagan helped make it work. And it did work, I was there actually running a business, not teaching redistribution propaganda.
                              I'm so damned tired of this puerile argument that everyone who uses government aid is lazy, and that the conservatives aren't as ideological as the democrats.
                              No one said that either, you are tiring yourself out. Quit listening to the voices.
                              Do you really not get that utopian mindsets is NOT a politically dependent thing? That believing in a utopian free market world is the same as believing in a utopian socialist world?
                              There's no such thing as a utopian free market, like I said before, there are lazy and productives types out there. The market will decide the winners and losers, if it's allowed to.
                              Liberals don't want "big brother" to correct man's flaws. Liberals, contrary to utopian beliefs, understand that man's flaws are unavoidable and want intelligent laws and regulations to help control the impact of those flaws on the economy, the legal structure, and individual ability.
                              ...done by bureaucrats that have no clue. Works every time. How do you correct individual ability with handouts? How do you make businesses more efficient by piling on regulations they can't meet?
                              They also realise that multinational conglomerates break the free market concept, because they are too strong to be acted upon by the market forces theorized in an economic theory created in an era before they even existed. In that sort of situation, some regulation is required.
                              Uhhh....protectionism encourages the free market? How does that make more expensive goods more competitive?
                              I'd also love to know how you think Conservatives are small government oriented, when they're constantly involved in making laws that grow the prison industry, the defense industry, and the intelligence industry.
                              Because the cost of doing nothing often is more than preventative maintenance. smaller government doesn't mean no government.
                              Trust me, mate, utopian mindsets are two things. 1: They're a small subsection of both political parties. Most of us believe in a practical worldview, and 2: they exist across the political spectrum.
                              Why should I trust you? I have your opinion that liberals aren't big government utopians and I have my life's experiences. Hmmmm..I must weigh this carefully.

                              Comment

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 8876 users online. 277 members and 8599 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

                              Working...
                              X