[Paleopsych] H-N: From Helping to Hand Grenades: Setting the Bar for Altruism
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Wed Jul 20 19:55:12 UTC 2005
>From Helping to Hand Grenades: Setting the Bar for Altruism
by L James Climenhage and Dennis L Krebs
http://human-nature.com/ep/reviews/ep03208215.html
5.7.10
[Thanks to Laird for this.]
Evolutionary Psychology 3: 208-215
Book Review
From Helping to Hand Grenades: Setting the Bar for Altruism
A review of Kindness in a Cruel World: the Evolution of Altruism by
Nigel Barber, Prometheus Books, 2004.
L. James Climenhage and Dennis L. Krebs, Department of Psychology,
Simon Fraser University, 8888 University drive, Burnaby B.C., Canada.
In Kindness in a Cruel World: the Evolution of Altruism, Nigel Barber
suggests that "Kindness exists, but it struggles to stay afloat on an
ocean of cruelty that is the default condition for organisms competing
for existence on this planet" (p. 9). The main premise of Barber's
book is that humans inherit a capacity for altruism that can be
enhanced or diminished through nurture. Barber suggests that the core
of this capacity evolved through kin selection and is reflected in
parental investment. From this center, altruism ripples outward in
concentric circles to reciprocity between members of ingroups, systems
of cooperation in societies, and relations among nations. However, the
larger the circle, the weaker the altruistic dispositions. In
supporting this model, Barber adduces a potpourri of evidence drawn
from a wide array of disciplines, including evolutionary biology,
economics, political science, history, social and developmental
psychology, game theory, anthropology, and neuroscience. By and large,
this book is a good read for lay people and students, but we fear
evolutionary psychologists will find many of the analyses simplified
and compartmentalized, and some of the conclusions overgeneralized and
sensationalized. We were also disappointed by Barber's failure to
define the central construct of the book, altruism, in a consistent
manner, and his tendency to use the word to refer to quite different
phenomena.
The contents of the book
Divided into four parts, this book encompasses a large number of
topics ranging from those dealt with by mainstream evolutionary
psychologists to those with less direct relevance to the evolution of
altruism, such as white collar crime and the sexual behaviour of
priests and nuns. The four sections of this book are organized as
follows.
Altruism in man and beast.
In the first section, Barber offers a brief introduction to Darwin's
theory of natural selection, then goes on to describe Hamilton's model
of kin selection, interpreting the self-sacrificial helping behaviours
of social species such as bees and spiders in terms of mechanisms that
evolved through this process. Barber suggests that "altruism in the
sterile honeybee is no different from altruism of a parent towards
offspring" (p. 70).
Barber accounts for helping among strangers in terms of reciprocal
altruism. He reviews arguments for and against the idea that the alarm
calls of Belding's ground squirrels qualify as altruistic. In
considering the evolution of reciprocal altruism in human beings,
Barber emphasizes the significance of emotions such as guilt, shame,
and moral outrage, arguing that reciprocal altruism works best in
small groups (e.g., hunter gatherers) in which individuals can enhance
their fitness by working together and trading perishable goods.
Finally, Barber explores an apparently altruistic profession largely
overlooked by evolutionary psychologists, suggesting that
"heterosexual priests who refrain from sexual intercourse with women
could be considered reproductive altruists if their renunciation of
heterosexual expression contributed to the welfare and reproductive
success of others..." (p. 96). However, acknowledges Barber, there are
many selfish reasons for choosing chastity. Barber ends this
discussion by offering a lengthy overview of the history of celibacy
in the Catholic Church, which includes evidence that many heterosexual
priests were in fact not chaste.
Growing up to be good.
In the second section, Barber considers the development of altruism in
children, focusing on self-awareness and the emotions that stem from
it, such as embarrassment, pride, and shame. He argues that although
non-human species such as dogs may seem to experience moral emotions,
they "are not self-aware so they cannot have an abstract appreciation
of their effects on others" (p. 102). The ability to think about
oneself, Barber argues, enables a person to go against his or her
natural selfish tendencies, which to Barber is the "essence of
morality."
In examining the roles of nature and nurture in the determination of
altruism, Barber suggests that parents (he implies a mother and a
father.) constitute the moral compass of children. He argues that when
this compass points children in the wrong direction, they may grow up
to become criminals. In a discussion of altruism among thieves, Barber
advances a "genes-load-the-gun, environment-pulls-the-trigger" type of
model, attributing the relatively low crime rates of small communities
to familiarity and detectability. Invoking the classic prisoner's
dilemma game, Barber suggests that criminal acts are equivalent to
defections in which individuals advance their own interests at the
expense of their communities.
Overall, Barber argues that evolved mechanisms that give rise to
altruism are activated through parental investment. If parents invest
too little, they will create poorly socialized individuals who grow up
to be deviants, and in extreme cases, psychopaths.
The social impact of kindness.
In the third section, Barber considers the link between altruism and
health. He discusses the relationship between the neurotransmitter
oxytocin and pair-bonding, reviewing evidence that people are more
likely to help others if they have a neurochemical bond of affection
with them, and that a physically close relationship with an adult
early in life promotes normal brain development and health. Barber
adduces evidence from Harlow's classic contact comfort studies and
orphanage studies conducted in the early part of the twentieth century
in support of the idea that people first learn to be social through
touch. Touch-deprived monkeys (and children) grow up to be hostile
towards peers.
According to Barber "early physical contact is also important for
developing social trust, which is a vital component of altruism" (p.
176). Social trust mediates the expansion of the concentric circles of
altruism, from relations among family members to relations among
strangers. Barber reviews research on such charitable acts as donating
blood and rescuing Jews during the Holocaust. He discusses the
phenomenon of in-group identification, or "groupishness," and reviews
classic social psychological studies on conformity.
As we can all attest, altruism for our fellows is often absent. Barber
ponders how we can explain such incidents of selfishness and cruelty
as the failure of bystanders to intervene in emergencies, road rage,
child abuse, infanticide by mothers, and sexual abuse of children by
parents, strangers, and priests. In accounting for such incidents,
Barber takes the reader on a rather long digression regarding the
heinous history of the Catholic Church, then examines the
underpinnings of hostile driving practices. He considers several
reasons why hostile drivers are different from the "normals" of
society, and opines that "Many [hostile drivers] have antisocial
personality disorder, a comparatively rare problem, that makes it
difficult to conform to social rules and obey laws" (p. 294).
Kindness and politics.
In the final section, Barber considers how we can "tap" evolved
propensities to altruism, arguing that our evolved psychological
adaptations for cooperation have the ability to "unite strangers or
stir up international conflicts" (p. 303). He examines warfare among
hunter-gatherer societies, boiling the problem down to ingroup and
outgroup biases, which Barber claims may be extremely difficult to
overcome. Our cultural evolution from hunter-gatherer tribes to
sprawling urban metropolises has created new challenges for our
species: "With increased economic development, and increased social
complexity, greater conformity is required" (p. 310).
Urban environments, according to Barber, give rise to serious problems
such as disease epidemics, terrorism and pollution. Barber interprets
global pollution in terms of a prisoner's dilemma in which selfish
individuals defect and humanity pays the price. Barber argues that the
reason why the United States refused to sign on to the Kyoto accord is
because the accord left the door open for cheaters by supplying
exemptions to underdeveloped countries. He offers an explanation for
why other large nations, such as Russia, decided to support the
accord, suggesting that evolved mechanisms render humans short-sighted
with respect to the environment.
Barber closes his book by asking, "How can the existence of evil
people be reconciled with adaptations for altruistic behaviour" (p.
357)? In answering this question, Barber discusses the sources of such
egregiously selfish crimes as murder and rape as well as white-collar
crimes. In the end, Barber concludes that, "Nature is red in tooth and
claw unless it is restrained by adaptations of altruism" (p. 368).
An Evaluation
Clearly, Kindness in a Cruel World touches on many topics. Considered
by themselves, Barber's discussions of most issues are engaging but
they tend to lack depth. Regarding the human capacity for altruism,
Barber offers an array of mini-conclusions, some of which seem
inconsistent with others, and he fails to tie them together in a
systematic way.
These problems become apparent in the book's introduction. Barber
opens by acknowledging that it might be difficult to persuade readers
that people are naturally altruistic in view of so much evidence that
they behave in evil ways, then goes on to argue that "none of these
manifestations of evil minimizes the altruistic motive that springs
eternal in the human breast" (p. 9). Why not? What does Barber mean by
"the" altruistic motive? Or by "springs eternal"? And if this
statement is valid, why would kindness struggle to "stay afloat on an
ocean of cruelty that is the default condition for organisms competing
for existence on this planet" (p. 9). If Barber means that humans have
evolved to behave in both kind and cruel ways, we would agree. If he
means that dispositions to behave in evil ways cannot compromise
altruistic motives, we would disagree and point out that this
conclusion is inconsistent with the conclusions he draws about
cheating and defection in prisoner's dilemma types of games. We look
for clarification and justification of this conclusion, but none is
forthcoming, at least in any organized manner.
Later in the introduction, Barber alludes to violent criminals who
behave in depraved ways, and concludes that "some individuals are
indeed born without the capacity to develop a conscience (Others fail
to develop sensitivity to persons because of the brutalizing
conditions of their childhood.)." We are unaware of any evidence that
people with antisocial personalities are 'born' without the capacity
to develop a conscience. However, there is evidence that childhood
trauma can, and does, have a profound effect on children, leaving some
children in a seemingly permanent state of 'arrested emotional
development' (Perry et al., 1995; Joseph, 1999). Such evidence
minimizes the altruistic motive that springs eternal in, at least, the
breast of those with antisocial personalities.
In discussing determinants of criminality, Barber concludes that,"
Criminals are clearly distinguished by genotypes and family
environment that reduce their altruistic tendencies and make them more
likely to put their selfish interests before the good of the
community" (p. 134). Where is the evidence for distinct genotypes? And
what of those who "rob from the rich" to "give to the poor?" Is
altruism purely defined by "acts" or does intent matter? Is it
appropriate to put civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther Kings
Jr. who break laws in order to change them in the same category as
murders and rapists? Many attempts have been made over the last
century to find a genetic link to crime. We do not know of any that
have succeeded.
Toward the end of the introduction, Barber asserts that, "In poor
countries, youngsters are generally much more concerned with the
welfare of others than is true of wealthy countries like our own. The
reason is simple: much is asked of them" (p. 14). Although there is
evidence that children from small rural communities assume more
responsibility for caring for their younger siblings and doing
household chores than children from more urban environments, this
evidence does not establish that children from wealthy countries have
any less concern for, say, the welfare of their parents or schoolmates
than children from poor countries do. It is misleading to account for
complex behaviors by attributing them to simple causes. If only it
were the case that parents could endow their children with a concern
for the welfare of others simply by asking much of them!
A theme that repeatedly pops up throughout this book is the
deleterious effects single parenthood is presumed to have on
children's moral development:
Single parenthood is a major risk factor for crime. Thus,
historical increases in crime have been strongly correlated with
increases in single parenthood (p. 150).
Children raised without their fathers live in a less healthy manner
and experience poorer health throughout their lives, on average...
[which] can produce a decline in altruism...and an increased risk
of becoming a criminal. (p. 176).
Children of divorced parents are more likely to "suffer from
anxiety and depression, to experience alcoholism and drug
addiction, to get in trouble with the law, and to have conflictual
relationships with intimate partners and children of their own" (p.
276).
We know that incidents of crime are correlated with age, race, region,
sex, socioeconomic status, parenting practices, social support and
many other variables that, in turn, are correlated with single
parenthood. And we know that that correlation does not equate to
causation. Still, the underlying message that emerges from Barber's
discussion seems to be that single parenthood produces criminals. We
find this conclusion uncomfortably overgeneralized. How much of the
variance is accounted for by single parenthood when other factors are
controlled? What is it about single parenting that disposes some
children to crime? Why do the children of most single parents turn out
just fine? Indeed, why do some become exemplars of morality?
To Barber's credit, he frequently qualifies the overgeneralized
statements he makes in one part of his book when he revisits the
issues in other parts. For example, when Barber discusses the
assistance that siblings render to one another in hunter-gatherer
societies, he writes, "Such help is not always an unmixed blessing
because of rivalry between siblings. Thus !Kung children left in
charge of younger siblings may abuse them. In rare cases they even
attempt to drown them. This means that young helpers have to be
supervised carefully" (pp. 31-32). This leaves the reader with two
seemingly contradictory conclusions.
What is Altruism?
The subtitle of Barber's book is, "The Evolution of Altruism." The
conclusions one reaches about the human capacity for altruism will
depend on how one defines the construct. Set the bar low, and it will
be easy to achieve; set it too high, it will be impossible. It is
often unclear where Barber is setting his bar. In the introduction, he
defines altruism as "actions that help another individual at some cost
to the altruist." This definition leaves several important questions
unanswered. Do behaviors that proffer help to others at "some cost,"
but with a net gain, qualify as altruistic? What kinds of cost count:
material losses, pain, losses in reproductive success, diminished
propagation of genes? Are altruistic behaviors defined solely in terms
of their consequences, or do intentions matter?
Barber implies that if there is a payoff in helping someone, then the
helping behavior may not qualify as altruistic (p. 9). He goes on to
assert that if a behavior is "predicated on evolved moral emotions
like empathy and shame, it is "really" altruistic. But why? Behaviors
stemming from these emotions could reap net benefits. Barber then goes
on to assert that the "only requirement for altruistic tendencies to
evolve is that they should generally increase the biological success
of individuals expressing them" (p. 10). So, it would seem, behaviors
that help others at a net gain to the "biological success" of the
helper qualify as altruistic. On this definition, there really is
little challenge in establishing that people are altruistic (i.e.,
that they behave altruistically). Yet, a few pages later, Barber
asserts "An altruist is one who puts the survival or reproduction of
another individual before his own" (p. 19). If Barber is defining
"biological success" in terms of reproductive success, how could
tendencies to put the biological success of others above one's own
increase the biological success of those who express them? Although
there may be solutions to this problem, depending on how one defines
biological success, or fitness, Barber does not offer any. Indeed, he
does not even acknowledge that there is a problem.
Types of Altruism
Related to this issue, Barber includes different kinds of helping
behaviors in the same "altruism" category (as do many other
evolutionary theorists). In the introduction, he classifies parental
care as altruistic. Later he classifies reciprocity and cooperation as
altruistic; and still later, heroic self-sacrifice. He insists that
"military service is altruistic, in the sense that the combatants
sacrifice their personal welfare for the good of others." Although all
these behaviors may qualify as altruistic when altruism is used as an
overriding, or umbrella, concept, it is important to attend to and
acknowledge their differences. Evolutionary theory leads us to suspect
that they stem from mechanisms that evolved through different
processes and are designed in different ways. In our view, a great
deal of the confusion in Barber's book and, more generally, in the
literature on the evolution of altruism, could be clarified by
distinguishing among three types of altruism-genetic altruism,
biological altruism, and psychological altruism-and recognizing that
they are all different from cooperation and reciprocity.
Genetic altruism
. Genetically altruistic behaviors serve to propagate the genes of
others at the expense of the alleles possessed by those who emit the
behaviors. Put another way, genetically altruistic behaviors reduce an
individual's inclusive fitness. This type of altruism seems
inconsistent with principles of natural selection.
Biological altruism.
Biologically altruistic behaviors serve to enhance the individual
fitness (survival and reproductive success) of other individuals at an
expense to the fitness of those who emit them. Such behaviors may
evolve through kin selection. Animals may sacrifice their individual
fitness to enhance their inclusive fitness. Although such behaviors
are altruistic at an individual and biological level of analysis, they
may be selfish at a genetic level. (Indeed, if they are not selfish at
the genetic level, they constitute a major challenge to the theory of
evolution!) In some circumstances, the best way for an individual to
propagate his or her genes is to help others who possess copies of
them.
Psychological altruism. In everyday discourse, people use the word
altruism differently from the ways in which evolutionary theorists use
it. Psychologically altruistic behaviors serve to enhance the profit
and pleasure, or fulfill the psychological needs, of other individuals
at a cost to the profit and pleasure of those who emit them. As
explained by such theorists as Batson (2000), Nesse (2000), and Sober
and Wilson (2000), there is no necessary connection between
evolutionary (genetic or biological) and psychological forms of
altruism:
As we once heard Richard Dawkins provocatively but accurately point
out, an allele that produces bad teeth in horses (and leads to less
effective grazing and more grass for others) is an example of
evolutionary altruism. Similarly, an allele that leads one to smoke
cigarettes, which may cause impotence, birth defects, and early death,
is also an example of evolutionary altruism; it reduces one's
procreative potential, thereby providing relative reproductive
benefits to others. Most people interested in the existence of
altruism are not thinking about bad teeth in horses or smoking
cigarettes; they are thinking about psychological altruism. (Batson,
2000, p.207)
Cooperation and reciprocity. Cooperative behaviors, including those
that evolutionary theorists since Trivers (1971) have called
"reciprocal altruism," entail making short term survival and
reproductive sacrifices in order to enhance one's long term interests,
and thus need not be genetically, biologically, or psychologically
altruistic. In some conditions individuals can foster their interests
by coordinating their efforts with others and engaging in social
exchanges that reap gains in trade. As Barber points out, in order for
mechanisms to evolve that dispose individuals to cooperate, the
mechanisms must contain antidotes to cheating.
Conclusion
The take-home message of this book is that children inherit both
selfish and altruistic propensities that may be stifled or encouraged
by the ways in which they are raised: "...altruism is comparable to
physical fitness. We cannot expect children to become athletes without
any opportunity for physical exercise. Neither can we expect them to
help others if they receive no training in altruism...our evolutionary
history has...provided us with altruistic motives that grow stronger
from exercise" (p. 15). We concur with this general conclusion, but
did not find the case Barber advanced in support of it organized as
coherently or argued as persuasively as we believe it should have
been.
References
Batson, C. D. (2000). Commentary discussion of Sober and Wilson's
"Unto others: A service... and a disservice." Journal of Consciousness
Studies, 7, 207-210.
Joseph, R. (1999). Environmental influences on neural plasticity, the
limbic system, emotional development and attachment: A review. Child
Psychiatry and Human Development, 29, 189-208.
Nesse, R. M. (2000). How selfish genes shape moral passions. Journal
of Consciousness Studies, 7, 227-231.
Perry, B. D., Pollard, R. A., Blakley, T. L., Baker, W. L. and
Vigilante, D. (1995). Childhood trauma, the neurobiology of
adaptation, and "use-dependant" development of the brain: How "states"
become "traits." Infant Mental Health Journal, 16, 271-289.
Sober, E., and Wilson, D. S. (2000). Morality and "Unto others":
Response to commentary discussion. Journal of Consciousness Studies,
7, 257-268.
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly
Review of Biology, 46, 35-57.
Citation
Climenhage, L. J. and Krebs, D. L. (2005). From Helping to Hand
Grenades: Setting the Bar for Altruism. A review of Kindness in a
Cruel World: the Evolution of Altruism by Nigel Barber. Evolutionary
Psychology, 3:208-215.
Email
[9]Dennis L. Krebs
[14]What Makes Us Moral?
[15]Kindness In A Cruel World - Further Information
References
9. mailto:krebs at sfu.ca
14.
http://xml.amazon.com/onca/xml2?&t=darwinanddarwini&dev-t=D2C43HO9U0XYC0&AsinSearch=1591022282&mode=books&type=heavy&page=1&sort=+salesrank&f=http://human-nature.com/web-services/asin-to-html-new.xsl
15.
http://xml.amazon.com/onca/xml2?&t=darwinanddarwini&dev-t=D2C43HO9U0XYC0&AsinSearch=1591022282&mode=books&type=heavy&page=1&sort=+salesrank&f=http://human-nature.com/web-services/asin-to-html-new.xsl
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list