
Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (2009) - davidjnelson
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kindness-emotions-psychology/
======
sago
When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us
from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed
the emergence of altruistic behaviour.

It was really really difficult. Even knowing exactly the kind of behaviour we
wanted to show, it wasn't trivial to stack the dice enough to roll that
outcome.

I have since read a lot of arguments, a lot of post-hoc reasoning that
justifies why altruism might be a positive contributor to fitness. It is no
coincidence they are almost all hand-waving, narrative arguments.

I don't buy them. Show me the math.

Evolution is a perfect subject for handwaving and post hoc rationalisations. I
do not think all of evolutionary psychology is bunkum, like some have claimed,
but I do think a lot is unfalsifiable, motivated reasoning. My advice would
be, unless it comes with good predictions of evidence from the historical
biological record, or good experimental evidence from mathematical models of
evolution, it was too easily come by to be considered knowledge.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us
> from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed
> the emergence of altruistic behaviour.

OK, math.

There are 200 people in Group A. Each has the choice of taking 1 point for
themselves or giving 2 points to the group. If everyone gives 2 points then
everyone gets 2 points. If everyone keeps the 1 point then no one gets
anything from the group and everyone has only the 1 point. But if you keep
your 1 point and everyone else gives 2 points then you get 1 + 1.99 points =
2.99 points. You can obviously see how everyone might end up defecting here.

But there are also groups B and C who are all under the same rules. After each
iteration everyone in the group with the lowest average _dies_ , is ineligible
to receive points in any future iteration, and is replaced in the next
iteration with a new group that behaves randomly. Each individual gets to
accumulate points for 100 iterations before being replaced, unless their group
dies first.

Now what happens?

~~~
sago
Try it. With actual evolving populations with inherited strategies, and
without hard-coding group selection.

Without hard-coding the groups as separate evolving units, you'll have a hard
time.

In general, it is easy to show the group behaviors you want if you can treat
the group as atomic for the purpose of the model. But you've just moved the
goalposts, your 'individuals' are not the unit of evolution any more, and
you've simply set the required behavior in the fitness function.

So try it and see.

~~~
metafunctor
What do you mean when you say "without hard-coding group selection"?

Are you saying the simulation is not valid unless collaboration between
individuals arises as an emergent behavior?

~~~
dumb-saint
If you hard-code group selection (setting the group as the unit of evolution),
then you are already assuming what you want to prove.

------
m0llusk
This is really sloppy. Altruism is also the basis for Altruistic Punishment
which can promote some of the most vicious behavior that humans are capable
of. Social systems are much more complex than this simplistic reductionism.

~~~
smallnamespace
Not to mention that altruistic behavior towards members of the in-group is
often paired with extreme violence towards outsiders.

Humans are literally Jekyll and Hyde.

~~~
int_19h
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_punishment#Parochi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_punishment#Parochial_Altruism)

------
pcmaffey
Kindness is a poor word choice, except in its most literal sense. Care is much
more apt. Mammals' key evolutionary advantage over reptiles is that they care
for each other, forming social groups which enable greater fitness. Likewise
with primates > mammals, and humans > apes.

(One could argue that intelligence and brain size have more to do with
evolutionary fitness, but I would speculate that intelligence is a result of
increased care, not the other way around. Give a thing more time, space, and
resources to grow, and it will.)

As a species, the more we collectively care for each other--through actions,
not feelings--, the greater chance we have for survival and growth.

~~~
matt4077
It's (part of) agreeableness in the Big Five:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Fi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Five_factors)

------
amasad
In 'The God Delusion' Richard Dawkins mentions a few ways altruism and
compassion etc could've evolved in humans (by way of selfish genes).

I remember one fascinating example about Arabian babblers which use altruism
to assert dominance. They seek out increasingly dangerous positions to alert
the herd of potential predetors. And by feeding others as a way to say 'look
at me I am so superior to you I can afford to feed you'. Of course, they are
rewarded by getting all the mates.

~~~
farnsworth
The Arabian Babbler is a bird, for anyone else who was imagining a babbling
Arabian human.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_babbler#Behaviour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_babbler#Behaviour)
\- interesting

~~~
flukus
I was thinking it might be a sub group of Arabians I'd never heard of, like
berbers.

~~~
abreu
Berbers aren't a "sub group of Arabians"...

------
aliceyhg
Whenever conflict arises at work, I usually just take a pause and buy the
other person a drink and get to know each other on a more personal level. Its
fun doing this and usually it ends up with me understanding my coworker on a
more human level and we come to an agreement and work better together. A few
years ago I would have fought to have my way and as satisfying as it was to
win (occasionally), the attitude is very divisive and alienating for both
parties involved.

~~~
k__
I'm doing Polyamory for the better part of my adult life and I learned much
about conflict resolution. Because when you have multiple partners and they
also have multiple partners you just end up with problems more often. If you
take too long to fix these, the whole thing isn't viable anymore.

This also helped me in my career. I stopped thinking about "relationships"
from a monogamous romantical point of view, but in a more generalized way.

I have feelings for every person I meet in life, some I love, some I like,
some I find sexually attractive, some I find intellectual inspiring etc.

I want to be on good terms with all of those who I consider to be in my life
for longer time, so I can't work with secrecy, fighting or passive aggressive
behaviour.

------
macawfish
This is in line with recent game theory studies. In iterated prisoner's
dilemma, the introduction of kindness wipes out always-defect strategies in
the long run, and is competitive with tit-for-tat.

~~~
Kronopath
Can you elaborate on this? How do you implement "kindness" into the prisoner's
dilemma? Got any links to the relevant studies?

~~~
Applejinx
One way I might do that is, occasionally throw in a 'cooperate' independent of
whatever other strategy I've got.

Doing that will tend to convert tit-for-tatters and might flip other
strategies into cooperating. If you grade by the total number of cooperate
moves in the group, the group wins by 'kindness' flipping a variety of
strategies into cooperate mode. It'll tend to expand pockets of cooperation.
No immediate personal benefit, but tends to make the environment better which
may seem like a benefit.

I don't think 'survival of the fittest' has to mean 'kneecap all your
opponents and rent-seek', but that's the popular interpretation in Western
capitalism :)

------
djyaz1200
There is a thoughtful book on this topic called "Love is the Killer App" that
makes the argument that in a commodity based economy the most ruthless prevail
(think 20th century steel industry), but in an information based community the
most altruistic prevail (the internet). I didn't agree with all of it but it
was a good read and a helpful counterpoint to the widely held view that being
ruthless is good for business.

------
divbit
Perhaps I'm completely cynical at this point, but I think recently I have seen
altruism used in the sense of "please contribute large amounts of free work to
this project I'm heavily invested in."

That said, kindness, in the sense of, willing to make an attempt to
understand, and take into account others views / opinions / needs, definitely
makes for nicer people to be around.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Perhaps I 'm completely cynical at this point, but I think recently I have
> seen altruism used in the sense of "please contribute large amounts of free
> work to this project I'm heavily invested in."_

A bit cynical in a way you put it, maybe, but what you saw is true. But it's
just what comes out when you consider helping someone and _actually getting an
effect_ over helping to just get warm feelings in your belly about how good
you are. It so happens that in a technological civilization, spending our time
as specialists to earn money and giving it to different specialists is a
better way to help than trying to help directly in areas we're not specialized
in. It's how professional specialization works.

------
pasbesoin
None of this exists independent of environment.

Mismatch your behavior to the environment, and you're screwed.

People consistently compliment me for being "such a nice guy." And I've made,
and valued, many alliances with contemporaries.

But the power brokers? They've screwed me right over.

If you are unmitigatedly kind while hoping for reciprocity in matters
essential to your own well-being.

Well, either you are weakening yourself, or you are not really being "kind" by
failing to respect the particular circumstances and the other party. Or some
combination of these.

People become less and less comfortable with you, and continued kindness is
actually perceived negatively.

Unmitigated kindness is another false, simplistic lesson that has been
counter-productively fostered in recent decades.

------
Pica_soO
It was never survival of the fittest- it is survival of the most adapted to a
situation. If the situation rewards kindness- survival of the kindest- if the
situation rewards being a heartless, survival of the heartless. If the
situation is constantly fluctuating, survival of the system swinging between
the both, by adapting to environmental clues. Can we please let go of 1930
evolution papers wording and thinking and move on?

~~~
rfrey
"It was never survival of the fittest- it is survival of the most adapted to a
situation"

Isn't that exactly what "fittest" means? First definition from Oxford: "of a
suitable quality, standard, or type to meet the required purpose."

~~~
prof_hobart
It's one of the meanings, and presumably the one that was in mind when the
term was coined.

But an awful lot of people seem to take it to mean the other sense - "in good
health, especially because of regular physical exercise", and extrapolate that
out to mean that it's always the strongest/fastest etc that survive.

------
jyriand
Reminds me of Peter Kroptotkin's idea of Mutual Aid [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolut...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution)

Full book:
[http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4341](http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4341)

------
mark_l_watson
In modern society, this is so obvious that it seems not worth writing about.
Most successful people I know are kind and considerate while people I have
known who are not so successful in life tend to not consider other people. OK,
I am making a generalization, but one that is usually true.

~~~
k__
The more problems you have, the less time you have for others?

~~~
tomhoward
Or, the less you give to others, the more problems you'll have.

In my experience (and I'm speaking very much from personal experience of
having suffered from - or been punished by - this phenomenon), the causality
is not exclusively in either direction.

Rather, it's a self-perpetuating cycle.

------
venomsnake
One quarter of people in Asia has Chengis Khan's genes. He is probably the
most genetically successfull male in the recent millenia. I am not sure he got
there by altruism alone.

~~~
pmyjavec
Except Ghengis was around Millenia ago, if we all lived like him now, then we
would be in pretty bad shape.

It seems taking more than our fair share has caused some pretty bad situations
with regards to the environment, we can't keep operating just for ourselves
for much longer.

------
foobarian
Feels like there is a type mismatch error in the title. Survival of the
fittest covers all fitness functions, so we can't contrast it with kindness.
Something like "survival of the cruelest" or the "strongest" would be more
correct though it doesn't read as well.

~~~
holyOrIonsBelt
The title does not infer contrast between fitness and kindness, it infers that
(were one to write a fitness function that was made up of a conglomerate of
every human personality trait) kindness is the prime mover in what separates
the fittest from the least fit.

I also think you might misunderstand what the word kindness means, as you
refer to cruelty and strength as some measure of adequate relation to what
would be deemed fit in some similar function.

I think it's a fairly cogent statement, as great and influential persons are,
by and large, incredibly kind. Of course, if one thinks that power equates
with influence, or that fitness is best represented by wealth, I would posit
that there is a huge correlation between wealth, kindness, and authority. For
instance, President Obama is quite obviously an incredibly kind man. William
Gates, Jr., a philanthropist (read: about as far away from unkind as you can
get), Her Majesty the Queen of England, the titular head of an Empire, leads a
family that donates a huge amount of their wealth to the citizenry of the
United Kingdom, and is as sunny as anyone in her position could possibly be
(have you ever once seen her upset in public, because I haven't), these
instances alone give clear indication that kindness is, indeed, perhaps an
indisputable barometer of what is meant by being fit for survival.

By contrast, who do you know who is sought by society for capital punishment?
The unkind, that's who. Those who are cruel are brought up before magistrates,
tribunals, and high courts and told in no uncertain terms that their survival
is undesirable by the masses.

Fitness in a world of more than a few is entirely dependent on symbiotic,
cohesive, gentile (in the French sense, though Christ is an inordinately
germane example of kindness too) behavior.

~~~
matt4077
> The title does not infer contrast between fitness and kindness

The titel "Forget X, it's Y that matters" is pretty close to the definition of
a contrast.

Regarding your other thoughts: it'd be great if it were that easy, and I even
agree that the sort of kindness Bill Gates and Barack Obama exhibit is
probably a useful trait.

But the causality isn't quite clear. My impression is that these success
stories are the result of combining (a) extreme intelligence and (b) extreme
happiness, and that kindness is the natural result if, for example, they have
absolute confidence in themselves and no longer feel any kind of threat from
competition.

But I'd say the "Big 5" model provides a more complete set of traits that have
become more and more relevant over time:

\- Openness to experience \- Conscientiousness \- Extraversion \-
Agreeableness \- (Lack of) Neuroticism

There's also absolutely no doubt that aggression, the desire to punish
wrongdoing by others and other violent traits have at some point been
important for survival of the individual and the group, and probably still
are, at a diminished level.

> Fitness in a world of more than a few is entirely dependent on symbiotic,
> cohesive, gentile...

Let's not forget the immune system. It's one of many "magic" inventions that
made larger societies possible.

~~~
holyOrIonsBelt
The title is inferring that in modern society, the more successful are those
who are kind instead of those who are ostensibly (like, say, a pro athlete)
faster/stronger/more dexterous. In other words, if you socialize better,
you're more likely to find a partner. That's essentially the gist. The
contrast, if you wanna characterize it as that, is to give credence to the
people who do well by helping society thrive instead of browbeating it into
submission.

The Big 5 model is incredibly limiting and is only successful _because_ of its
brevity, not because it is sufficiently explanatory of the kaleidoscope of
human traits. Its reductionism at it's most hubristic, and let's keep it real
here, no five personality traits are adequate enough to span the dynamism of
human emotive.

I believe in a thing called cosmic consciousness, and that is (albeit somewhat
challenging to explain) what drives my defense of why kindness is such a
pivotal factor in human social interaction. There is a line in Gladiator "what
we do in life echoes in infinity" and because that resonance exists, the
kindness we exhibit is important enough to outweigh other traits, and actually
points to a larger issue of whether or not our judgmental, rather vindictive
mindset of late is ultimately counterproductive to the existential state of
civilization. In other words, when we are kind to one another, we facilitate a
happier, healthier world, thus insuring the survival of those who promote that
non-violent, what I would call, state of Grace.

------
stefanix
We certainly have this kind of adaptation for tribal structures. The question
is how this plays out on a larger scale.

BTW Jordan Peterson's latest podcast goes deep on this issue. His podcast is
here:
[http://jordanbpeterson.com/2016/12/podcast/](http://jordanbpeterson.com/2016/12/podcast/)

------
aaronhoffman
How trade creates wealth: "Trade is made of win"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0gGyeA-8C4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0gGyeA-8C4)

------
rustynails
In summary, I dismiss the article as flawed (false and overly simplistic). No
matter how noble (kind) your society, if the next society practices savagery
and you are not prepared, your society will fail.

The level at which you pitch the concept of kindness is essential, as is the
environment. To illustrate, many comments in this thread fail to hold for an
example like the Mongols, or may argue that the Mongols wiping out
civilisations was altruistic or kind. In a simplistic way, the Mongols
survived through cooperation (as their society had some cruel rules that were
definitely not kind), cruelty to outsiders and through theft. However, you
could also contrast Chinggis Khan with Darius I of Persia who demonstrated far
more kindness throughout his reign than Chinggis did. Both leaders in their
own way were quite successful.

If you consider individuals, the dynamics can be quite different from those of
nations, depending on the environment. If you limit the view to modern, first
world societies, cooperation with ones peers is still essential and almost
certainly more important than kindness. To illustrate, if I give everyone
around me all of my money, that could be considered kind (think of a lottery
winner). However, ultimately, such kindness (no matter how misguided) will
usually lead to little or no benefit for the individual. Even if you compare
two similarly cooperative people, the most competent cooperator will usually
out perform a kinder cooperator. It will depend on the society as to whether
an individual's empathy for those in need will add to the success of the
individual and/or the community. For example, where a society has social
welfare, an individual can point to the welfare system rather than directly
contributing to the welfare of those in need.

Family dynamics are yet another level of complexity. Does a priority of
kindness go to the family or the local community? What constitutes success of
the family? Families that cooperate are more likely to succeed beyond those
that are purely kind to each other. However, family cohesion is almost
certainly dependent on both kindness and cooperation.

There are also work place environments, community group environments, local
community environments, state and territory and country environments. In order
to be successful, these environments require competency and cooperation.
Kindness may or may not be required.

Regarding kindness. In my observations of modern society (collectively), I
observe that there are some examples that complicate concepts such as
kindness. For example feminism* insists that domestic violence is something
that only happens to females (through ignorance of statistics or for less
savoury reasons). Ultimately, what this demonstrates is that kindness can be
selectively applied and still be recognised as acceptable.

In summary, I don't see kindness as essential (at least not in all
circumstances). Kindness can be selective (eg. Feminism's human rights
failures with respect to domestic violence by representing only one gender)
and, yet, such kindness can be seen as socially acceptable. Kindness can also
be handed off to community and government groups in some circumstances.
However, unlike kindness, cooperation is essential for individuals and groups.

* to be clear, feminism can not and should not be interchangeably used with female. Not all feminists are female and not all females are feminist. I think of feminism more like the KKK. Not all white people support the KKK and a criticism of the KKK is not a criticism of white people collectively.

------
mjfl
Tell that to the Mongols.

~~~
int_19h
The ones whose empire started falling apart almost as soon as its founder
died?

~~~
mjfl
Genghis Khan was probably the most fecund male in human history.

------
jonmc12
Title should indicate this is from 2009.

~~~
acqq
Yes, from the first question "a book that _was just released_ called Born to
Be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life" is from 2009:

[http://www.barnesandnoble.com/review/born-to-be-good-the-
sci...](http://www.barnesandnoble.com/review/born-to-be-good-the-science-of-a-
meaningful-life)

------
ChrisNorstrom
-

~~~
taneq
You're getting a lot of downvotes but no-one is helping you understand why.

> "kindness" in the human world is similar to kindness in the animal world. It
> translates to weakness, which is why evolution naturally weeds it out of
> most animals.

Kindness among kin groups translates to stronger groups, so There's a reason
that humans are naturally altruistic and punish crimes against their in-group
so vigorously: A solitary human outside of civilisation will struggle and
probably die. A bunch of humans working together rules the planet.

------
lngnmn
Kindness? Among bacteria, fungi, cells and viruses?

How does kindness fits into population genetics?

~~~
bbcbasic
The article is about humans

~~~
lngnmn
Are humans or any part of their biology exempt from the evolutionary forces?

~~~
bbcbasic
No. Your point is?

~~~
lngnmn
That competition for survival and reproduction is _the_ main factor which
outweight everything else. Family and social bonds are also among the most
powerful forces, but it is the selfish aspect of favoring and protecting one's
relatives what matters.

Altruism and kindness are also minor factors, but the weakest ones, and,
obviously, cannot be thought as replacement for the general laws of ecosystems
based on survival and reproduction, which basically means lifetime ongoing
competition for everything that is related to passing of the genes to another
generation.

Reframing of evolutionary forces to be more humanistic is, of course,
bullshit.

~~~
bbcbasic
Ok I see that makes sense.

Austruism and kindness might be beneficial at a tribal level as you will
likely meet the person again and they or their family may pay back the favour.
Even if that isn't a conscious thought by the person being nice.

Nowadays this is less obviously beneficial in our big cities and jet set
lifestyles.

And as you said kindness is part of a bigger set of factors and perhaps a
lesser one.

------
jondubois
The best evolutionary strategy for a human is to pretend to be nice but to be
selfish and manipulative behind the scenes.

Even if you make a mistake and damage your reputation, you can still move to a
different city/country and start over with a clean slate.

~~~
ghusbands
As long as you don't want a family or career.

~~~
jondubois
Family, maybe. But being manipulative and two-faced is great for career - So
long as no one ever finds out.

There are lots of safe strategies that one can use to make sure that no one
ever finds out about your double dealings.

Successful people know how to lie and cheat effectively; but they know where
to draw the line.

I guarantee you that practically every financially successful person ever has
used lying and manipulation to get what they wanted.

The ones who didn't cheat or lie and still managed to succeed just got
extremely lucky.

------
icomefromreddit
> _A psychologist probes..._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science)

