Selfish traits not favoured by evolution, study shows

[The Straight Story]

Evolution does not favour selfish people, according to new research.

This challenges a previous theory which suggested it was preferable to put yourself first.

Instead, it pays to be co-operative, shown in a model of "the prisoner's dilemma", a scenario of game theory - the study of strategic decision-making.

Published in Nature Communications, the team says their work shows that exhibiting only selfish traits would have made us become extinct.

Game theory involves devising "games" to simulate situations of conflict or co-operation. It allows researchers to unravel complex decision-making strategies and to establish why certain types of behaviour among individuals emerge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529849#TWEET843176

[NYC_SKP]

1. Recommended. (nt)

[madinmaryland]

2. Not surprising, unless of course you don't believe in Evolution, which would explain

Republicans, teabaggers, and libertarians.

[cthulu2016]

3. ARGGG! The headline is flat false, and the actual findings are on the "duh" level

Last edited Fri Aug 2, 2013, 05:52 PM - Edit history (2)

This is irresponsible "popular" science at its worst. Exaggerate something obvious to the point it would be extraordinary, if true... which it isn't.

Yes, if we (a social animal by nature) exhibited only selfish traits we (as a species) would have not made it.

Duh. No social animal (as a species) could survive being an entirely anti-social animal.

But guess what? Individual selfishness within the framework of being a social animal on the species level is often adaptive. That's why we are a species full of "defectors" who exploit the species-level cooperative framework. Double duh.

So the study *as reported* is worse than nothing... just some stuff about humans (as a species) that everyone already knew (we are a social species and couldn't have become a social species if there were not some benefit to being social) and most never doubted, but described in a way as to maximize mis-comprehension of evolution.

It also hopelessly confuses species evolution versus individual evolution. Evolution is primarily about individuals. It is marvelous how group interests can be served by the aggregation of individual interests, but that is assuredly the mechanism.

There is no mechanism for entire species to mate with other entire species to create more or less adaptive new entire species.

Benefits and deficits, adaptive and non-adaptive traits, are individual traits.

But in a social species there are constraints on the adaptiveness of selfishness that do not constrain an entirely non-social animal.

How that becomes, "Selfish traits not favoured by evolution..." Geezus. It's maddening. It is false on its face.

If they said, "Is not the only factor" that would be fine, but then it wouldn't promise the reader that almost everything we ever thought about evolution was wrong, and nobody would read the thing.

[bettyellen]

5. yes, but it made me feel a lot better about my sister in law.

you mean she's not keeling over any time soon? Darn.

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

4. Does civilization change that?

I wonder if civilization as we know it changes the potential relevance of selfishness in evolution. Say civilization were to collapse completely tomorrow. Millions, even billions might die in the following weeks or months. The selfish people who have accrued money and power might be better positioned to survive or to help their offspring survive. In a complete collapse, money would presumably become meaningless rather quickly, but the ultra-wealthy might have some advantage at the beginning of the crisis.

These musings may have more than a little to do with my recurring paranoid fantasy that the rich and powerful are conspiring to create a huge die-off event and reduce the global population.

[cthulu2016]

6. Yes. We are domesticated animals, domesticated by civilization.

Every time civilization prevented a violent or dishonest or rebellious or thoughtful or principled person from reproducing the gene pool became more docile and better at going along to get along.

Every time a settled (and self domesticated) civilization went genocidal on a less domesticated group, the human gene pool became more docile... civilized, whatever term one prefers. (I don't mean any term to be loaded.)