X-Message-Number: 18139
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:27:22 -0500
From: Keith Henson <>
Subject: Re: Number One

In #18133: Number One [Ettinger]wrote:

>George Smith (#18131) writes in part about the divide between self-centered
>motivation and social-centered perceived ethics.
>
>As a few of those few who are interested may recall, I agree (along with a
>minority of philosophers ancient and modern) that long term self interest is
>the only rational orientation--and in fact, in an important sense, self
>interest is the only motivation that is physically possible.
>
>But even for those who share this very simple insight, there are many
>difficulties in applying it. "Looking out for No. 1" not only has bad public
>connotations and automatically raises hackles, but there are unresolved
>problems in physics and biology that leave uncertainty--primarily the nature
>of time and the biophysics of the "self circuit."

Developments in evolutionary biology, particularly evolutionary psychology 
over the last 35 years or so leads to an entirely different 
insight.  http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/.  From 
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html,

Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer

Leda Cosmides & John Tooby

Introduction

The goal of research in evolutionary psychology is to discover and 
understand the design of the human mind. Evolutionary psychology is an 
*approach* to psychology, in which knowledge and principles from 
evolutionary biology are put to use in research on the structure of the 
human mind. It is not an area of study, like vision, reasoning, or social 
behavior. It is a way of thinking about psychology that can be applied to 
any topic within it.

In this view, the mind is a set of information-processing machines that 
were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by our 
hunter-gatherer ancestors. This way of thinking about the brain, mind, and 
behavior is changing how scientists approach old topics, and opening up new 
ones. This chapter is a primer on the concepts and arguments that animate it.
. . . .

There has been a flood of good books on the topic in the last 5 or 6 
years.  Robert Wright's _The Moral Animal_ is a good introduction, and I 
highly recommend Matt Riddley's _Origin of Virtue_.   (And other titles by 
him.)   _Origin of Desire_ by David Buss is a more technical work.  Cited 
background in these books is _The Selfish Gene_ by Richard Dawkins, _The 
Evolution of Cooperation_ by Robert Axelrod, and the works of William 
Hamilton, Robert Trivers, and George Williams to name a few.

The late William Hamilton is famous for his insight that he should be 
willing to die (i.e.,evolution should have shaped his psychology to be 
willing) if doing so would save more than two brothers or more than 8 
cousins.  The reason is that genes behind the psychology motivating such 
ultimate sacrifices would spread among people where such dire choices 
happened frequently enough to affect gene frequencies.  (Because of shared 
genes with relatives.)

>The upshot is that no one can say with certainty where ultimate truth lies,
>but any calm look at the evidence leads to a very clear conclusion that your
>best bet is to do your utmost to maximize your long term
>satisfaction--although even if you have made this strategic decision, the
>short term tactics may remain difficult to handle.

Absolutely correct because evolution has shaped the psychology of what 
leads to feelings of "long term satisfaction."  If these seem at odds with 
a rational analysis, chances are it is the genes who stand to profit and a 
rational analysis of raw survival would make sense *from the gene's 
viewpoint.*  The classic would be the choice of a person who would 
sacrifice their life to save all the rest of the people in the 
world.  Fortunately we don't get those choices often.  :-)

Another example, people desire and work in many ways for status, high 
social standing in a community.  Why?  Because those in the past who manage 
to obtain social status as a result of being a good hunter, a skilled rock 
chipper, or a leader were predominately our ancestors.  (Women rejected the 
losers.)

>It is perfectly clear that sometimes your interests diverge from those of
>your society or your nation or even your family.

This is true, but they are less likely to diverge from the psychology 
shaped by genes to propagate genes.  Even in the most radical cases, you 
can see this at work.  For example, consider the 'nad clipping Heaven's 
Gate cult.  What those people had going was intense social attention 
between them and toward the guru.  Our reward system psychology has been 
shaped by genes.  The chemical reward pathway involving endorphins and 
dopamine are activated by attention--the most important way we measure our 
status.  Anyone who has done public speaking knows well the "higher than a 
kite" feeling after giving a talk.  The reward system shaped by genes to 
propagate genes during millions of years in the primitive environment can 
go awry in a more complicated society.

>It is equally clear that
>usually your interests and theirs are rather closely tied. Furthermore, you
>usually cannot make a radical and sudden break with your previous orientation
>without severe psychological consequences.

True, and when you see these events, such as joining cults, the Stockholm 
syndrome, and Patty Hearst and start looking for an evolutionary 
explanation, it usually pops out.  (In tribal times capture was common 
enough that everyone in a typical tribe was descended from someone who had 
been captured within 3-4 generations.  This was often enough to evolve a 
psychological mechanism to socially reorient to the people around you when 
subjected to being captured.  Especially since the consequence of socially 
reorienting was a good chance at being an ancestor and the consequence of 
not was to become the main course at breakfast.)

>As to one of the immediate tactical questions mentioned--support of current
>American anti-terrorist policies or opposition--it's easy. Support of strong
>anti-terrorist policies is advantageous on all counts.

While this is true, in the long term understanding and being able to do 
something about the infectious madness which lies behind cults such as ben 
Ladin's may be more important.

I have a draft article for paper publication on this subject.  If Cryonet 
readers are willing to comment on it, I can send you a copy.  Let me know 
if you want it in Word or text.

Keith Henson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18139