In a new book featured in the article “Humans Naturally Cooperative, Altruistic, Social”, Robert Sussman, Ph.D. and C. Robert Cloninger, MD claim that humans and other primates are inherently altruistic and that cooperation serves its own purposes, unrelated to competition. Their claim, while intriguing and attractive to most peace loving people, should incite great discussion and debate, and needs to be scrutinized carefully. Scrutiny is not something reserved for claims that we don’t agree with, but rather, needs to be the standard for all scientific claims.
In this case, the authors are making a claim that flies in the face of much of what we understand about human and non-human primate behavior and evolutionary theory. Altruism is a difficult concept to quantify in human populations, let alone non-human animals. I will mention altruism below, but first, I will focus on cooperation.
Cooperation is an important behavior in many social species, however, it is not as common as many believe. In the world of behavioral studies cooperation requires that two or more individuals act together to accomplish a task or goal, the result of which is that both gain more than they would have by acting alone. Female lions appear to cooperate when hunting, because they work together to bring down prey and are more successful hunting in prides than alone. Similarly, male chimpanzees cooperate to defend territories through group boundary patrols, the result of which is males being more successful than if they were to patrol alone [a behavior that could get them killed].
In the case of humans, cooperation is commonplace. On that point the authors and I agree on what the data indicate. We see cooperation in everything from communal farming and child-rearing, to modern day warfare, to baseball and other competitive sports. Humans are excellent cooperators, especially when compared to other animals. Through language, loyalty and a reliance on each other, we have become supreme cooperators.
The point where the authors and I diverge is in the conclusions we draw from the data. According to Sussman and Cloninger cooperation exists for its own sake, and is natural for humans and other primates. They claim that cooperation is not a by-product of competition, but rather that animals cooperate for cooperation’s sake. This largely ignores a wealth of data showing that cooperation is a strategy adopted by animals, including humans, that allows the cooperators to more effectively exploit their respective ecological niches and survive and reproduce at higher rates, than would otherwise be possible. In other words, cooperation allows individuals to more successfully compete for resources.
One of the difficulties in testing this idea in humans is that humans everywhere cooperate, a lot, and it’s hard to run an experiment where the subjects don’t cooperate. This supports the first position of Sussman and Cloninger, humans appear to “naturally” cooperate. This is nothing new, or surprising.
We have seen humans cooperating over the course of history, so many times that it doesn’t even make sense to cite individual cases. We have also seen that in those cases both parties, invariably, benefit from their cooperative actions. If both parties benefit, the behavior is seen as mutualistic and there is no need to invoke any special level of selection for the behavior. However, if those behaviors are one-sided in nature, resulting in the recipient receiving a benefit, while the provider suffers a cost, they are altruistic and need further explanation.
Almost fifty years ago Hamilton provided one possible explanation for seemingly altruistic behaviors, by pointing out that if genetic relatives live together in social groups, they should act preferentially toward one another. Kin selection has been supported in populations ranging from sickle-back fish, to ground squirrels to humans [think of the Bush and Kennedy political dynasties in the US] and has been recognized as an important factor in evolution.
Nearly forty years ago, Robert Trivers gave us one explanation for what appear to be one-sided cooperative behaviors, or altruism, reported for people worldwide. He introduced the term reciprocal altruism, which applies to both humans and non-humans, and states that if animals [including humans] have long-term social interactions that allow them to receive reciprocation of a cooperative or altruistic behavior consistently enough, they should be willing to cooperate, even if an immediate payoff is not obvious. His hypothesis has been supported over and over in numerous animal and human studies [think of political contributions by big oil].
While these two hypotheses explain much of the altruistic behaviors we see in the natural world, they do not explain them all. We still don’t know everything about altruism or altruistic behaviors, including the biochemical and psychological benefits received by the individuals providing the seemingly altruistic behaviors. One clue may be the fact that hardly anyone, anywhere feels bad when they do something for someone else. Instead, people everywhere appear to get a chemical rush out of acting cooperative and altruistic – it makes them happy. This may give an indication of the importance of those behaviors in our evolutionary past. It may be that it was so important for our ancestors to cooperate, even when their chances of immediate payoff were low, that selection favored those individuals who acted cooperatively, and they were inspired to do so because it felt good. This is somewhat like the reason that sex feels good. The short answer is: because in the evolutionary past, those who had more sex had more offspring, and those who got an immediate payoff through feeling good had more sex.
While intriguing, Sussman and Cloninger’s new book is really one of philosophy, not scientific inquiry. Their philosophy appears to be that resources are not limited, and that all organisms everywhere, do not have to compete for those resources. Much like the current rhetoric coming from one side of the debates over the economic crisis, they seem to think that resources are unlimited and that there need not be competition for those resources. This is the position one is led to if they carry out the two separate logics of: “I want everyone in America to be rich.” (Mitt Romney, 2011) and “Cooperation isn’t just a byproduct of competition, or something done only because both parties receive some benefit from the partnership, rather, altruism and cooperation are inherent in primates, including humans.” (Sussman, 2011).
Neither position is tenable if the once agreed upon fact of limited resources is recognized. For his part, Romney was pandering to the pressures exerted by the public and media over a position of not taxing corporations and wealthy individuals to shore up our economic woes. Sussman’s position, on the other hand stems from what appears to be a philosophical divide. Competition is one of the central tenets of evolutionary theory. Resources are limited for every population of animals throughout the world, resulting in competition for those resources. It is through competition that individuals are selected upon by natural forces and potential mates for their differing characteristics or traits.
It follows that it is only because they have to compete for resources that animals, including humans, cooperate and act altruistically.
I think a far more interesting question at this point, is when and why did cooperation become so intrinsically embedded in what we do as a species?
You Evolving 
33 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 27, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Liz Michael
I watched a video once where an orangutan was given pieces of food/ candy on a few different occasions. Every time he was given something, he broke it in half and gave the other half to a dog. Did he do this because the food was “free”, and there was no competition involved in order to get it? Did it just amuse him to feed the dog? Was it both, or another reason altogether?
September 27, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Heidi Miller
The idea of natural cooperation in humans and primates is an interesting one. It is true that humans cooperate every day. My husband and I cooperate to pay our bills, cook dinner, clean the house, go to school, etc. My sister and her husband cooperate to raise their daughter and run their household. Students cooperate to complete projects. I have to wonder though how much is natural and how much is necessity.
In your blog, you brought up the case of the Bushes and Kennedys and it made me think about power struggles. I know many people who seem to be naturally cooperate and I knew many people who are only interested in their own gains. Sure, they may cooperate with others, but only when necessary to achieve their own goals. Living in American, the idea of power, wealth, status, etc. is driven into us a standard of success and many Americans adopt the idea that we should do whatever we can to achieve that success. Take Martha Stewart for example, she is rich, famous and successful by American standards, but I’ve also heard she is mean and nasty to her employees and she uses others to get what she wants.
Next you mention altruism and Robert Trivers idea of reciprocal altruism. Obviously, this stems from the trade system of reciprocity where you help others with the understanding they will help you down the road. I’ve always been a little leery of reciprocity because it makes you seem nice, but you still are expecting something in return. It’s like buying someone a nice birthday present so you can expect a great Christmas present, how is that really helping someone else?
Bringing this back to the point, we do see a possibility of altruism with hominins. I read an article one time that discussed Neandertals and how some of the skeletons found were elderly and must have been supported by other Neandertals. I believe this would fall under a form of altruism. The Neandertals were using their own energy and taking food they gathered/hunted in order to support their kin after the kin were too old to support themselves. However, I cannot say if this is completely altruistic or of the younger Neandertals received something out of this arrangement such as help with child-rearing or less intense ‘household’ tasks.
September 29, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Kate Oltersdorf
Does altruism really exist? Above you mentioned that Hamilton believes altruism exists because we all live with kin that are genetically related to us. So, we look out for our own genes. That makes sense, but isn’t the definition of altruism to do something for someone else without receiving any benefits from it? If you are protecting your genes than you are receiving benefits because you’re making sure your genes get passed on. It is a kind of peace of mind. That is not altruism to me. Now, do other animals get this piece of mind? I can’t answer that.
If it is in fact that animals are “naturally cooperative” and “naturally altruistic” I would say that it makes a lot of sense. Maybe it is that other animals also get this “peace of mind”, I’m not sure. Regardless, species have to survive. Being social, cooperating and saving your fellow kin increases survival rates, so of course we would evolve to be naturally cooperative. However, I don’t think it is appropriate to put altruism up on a pedestal where it is thought that only intelligent beings do it. To me it is a basic survival skill of the species. It’s really not THAT special.
September 29, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Thomas Zigo
This is the second time that I have ever learned about altruism, as my Sociology course last winter was the first to introduce the concept to me. I truly believe that every good deed goes rewarded; whether it is through returned favors, physical rewards, positive feedback, or even small doses of happiness in the brain. Although these positive returns may not all be a part of the conscious mind, there must be some sort of mental connection/parallel between indirect rewards and these mysterious good deeds. For instance, last week I gave a kid a pencil to take our Marketing exam. We were in the back row, so nobody saw the good deed. He was a complete stranger, so I don’t expect anything in return. And finally, I’m not sure that I received a “happy feeling”, because I was a bit upset that he never returned it. Maybe it was the sheer fact that I hope somebody would do the same for me if I was in that situation.
-I don’t believe in altruism because cooperation is a vital survival skill.
-Human animals wouldn’t have survived this long without cooperation. We’re social creatures. We need someone to gather firewood, someone to hunt the antelope, someone to answer the telephone, and someone to mine the coal.
-The diversion from true cooperation is what leads our societies into mental health epidemics and escalation of hostility between individuals and peoples.
-Our lives depend on the steady release of oxytocin that comes with loving trust as well as the rush of dopamine associated with the gratification of overcoming challenges and providing for our families.
-When humans stop believing that we need to care for each other and begin to force “cooperation” from people who are socially or economically oppressed to feed the world system, it is counter-intuitive to our goal to prosper and multiply because it leads to wars, over-exploitation of the planet’s finite resources, and a less safe/navigable environment for human kind.
September 30, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Koel Smith
The whole article is interesting just because we never really stop to think about human behavior and how it came to be the way it is, but in reality, behavior has been fine tuned over trial and error of the past millions of years. Humans cooperate all the time instinctually, and when someone is not cooperating it sticks out and is very obvious but it is just something we do in everyday life without thinking of. Im interested in the chemicals that rush through our brains and bodies after performing a good deed or other altruistic action because that makes alot of sense why people repeat good actions towards others.
– Cooperation is something i feel is important for any organism trying to survive because having others working toward the same goal will increase the likelihood of success.
– Never would have thought about something like this on my own but having it brought to my attention makes me wonder more about why we act the way we do.
– Cooperation is instilled within us from a young age so we will learn from it and pass it on to the next generation. It is something that we take for granted although it seems so simple because without cooperation our world could be much different.
– Just like a sport team you need cooperation in order to strive for the same goal of victory, in human perspective, the goal to live.
– Cooperation is something so natural to humans it almost is hard to think that our ancestors would do any different given the survival position they were in.
October 1, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Leah McHugh
It is interesting to think about altruism in the human species. Is everything we do for one another evoked by a selfish reason? In my philsophy classed we discussed this in great depth. Sure, we help out the elder woman in the grocery store because we see her struggle and we know it is the right thing to do. We do not immediately think about how afterwards we will naturally feel happy and get that peace of mind because we helped her out. But when we do, we feed off of that. We like the glorification of knowing that we have done something for the better of others. It gives us a deep satisfaction knowing that we have contributed. So– is everything we do traced back to a selfish motive? Helping others and collaborating with each other… do we do it because that is what we are “supposed” to do for the reason that it is what humans have been doing since the beginning of time? Or because of the satisfactory feeling we get? Volunteering and paying it forward, it makes us feel good and we get the added bonus of helping someone else out.
We also have to think about the exceptions. Anonymous donations of millions of dollars have been given to Ohio University. Why anonymous? Why not just have your name on the plaque and get the glorification?
One thing I have learned about philsophy though, is that it is all in theory. Nothing can be set in stone about human behaviors.
October 2, 2011 at 2:32 am
Crystal Reedy
My mind is divided into two subjects: 1) the origin of cooperation and altruism and 2) the modern day need, or should I say instinct, of them. I believe that cooperation millions of years ago originally was mutualistic in the sense that both individuals involved would recieve some sort of benefit such as vital resources. It is possible that in times of great need, cooperation was less valued because each individual responded to his or her own needs and took what they were given rather than gifted it to another when an immediate reward was not guarenteed and a possible outcome was death. I especially like the comment Dr. Sherrow made about unlimited resources. I read the original article and noticed that the need for food, for example, and other resources was not presented in a way that signified any need for struggle, and struggle/competition was prominent for our ancestors.
I believe that altruism was only allowed for when basic resources for survival were readily available at that time because the highest value in their lives was survival, not ethics, not altruism and not moral code. Ethics, altruism and moral codes could have been obeyed by our ancestors, sure, but consciously? The moral may have just been “you don’t steal fruit because the owner is a pregnant female who will kill to defend what she needs for her baby to survive” and there you have cooperation come into place where others may be more weary and allow others to eat their own food whether they desire to do that or not, all dangers aside. This weary cooperation, however, would be less likely to occur if all individuals were starving, for example. Could Sussman’s assumption that “…altruism and cooperation are inherent in primates, including humans,” lead us away from the much simpler solution of motivation for survival?
As for modern day humans, I believe that Robert Trivers’ idea that “if animals [including humans] have long-term social interactions that allow them to receive reciprocation of a cooperative or altruistic behavior consistently enough, they should be willing to cooperate, even if an immediate payoff is not obvious” applies directly to us. I believe, and this may be incorrect but it’s a facinating idea to me, that because altruism was allowed for by the presence of abundant or at least sufficient resources, as our species grew and learned to utilize tools and the land more efficiently (domestication of animals, technology such as atlatl, spears, flint knapping, and agriculture, irrigation, medicine, etc) we therefore came upon more opportunities in which altruism was beneficial to us.
For example, by giving to others we may have increased their health and livlihood making our population as a whole stronger. As our brains grew and we took care of the weak we recieved more resources, respect from others and more complex immotions to the point that “people everywhere appear to get a chemical rush out of acting cooperative and altruistic – it makes them happy.” Sure, I’m skipping many vital steps in the evolution of the brain, but my point is that altruism slowly evolved from a survival tactic into a social norm that is now a part of who we are. Altruism is not 100% present with an absence of essential resources.
October 3, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Rachel Trumbull
If altruism is defined as one sided cooperation then I don’t believe in it. People do what they do because they believe they will get something in return, or they are afraid of what the consequences are of them not doing it. My father gave me an example that I really like; Parishioners working a line in a soup kitchen because they think it will get them into heaven. Not just because they want to feed the hungry. I agree with above statements about how we might not realize the rewards right away after doing something that might seem altruistic. But there is always some kind of benefit, even if it’s just peace of mind.
I think cooperation is necessary for our survival. Cooperation was important in our history in order to get food and accomplish other tasks, and it is still important today. With more cooperation we have more productivity and are able to focus on other things we might not have been able to before such as inventions and studying science. I’m not sure, however, if I think cooperation is just to gain more resources for yourself. Cooperation is so embedded in society that it is hard to think of what it would be like without it. However, this doesn’t mean that it’s natural. I’m not sure if it is, but it sure does seem like it.
October 4, 2011 at 2:06 am
Lauren Byrwa
The idea of altruism in humans is definitely food for thought. I cannot say that I personally believe that we really do anything altruistically. In the end there is part of if that roots back to that “warm fuzzy feeling” we get when we helps others out. I think this has indeed evolved from the fact that when we help each other we survive longer and thrive more. As a result our ancestors that were more inclined to cooperate with one another are the ones who reproduced at a growing rate. All signs point to this as the most likely answer to the amount of cooperation in humans as a species.
Cooperation was necessary for our ancestors and is still necessary for our survival as a species. There are definitely predators out there that are faster than us but by working together and using our very large brains we are able to come together to defeat other organisms.
October 9, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Mackenzie Mayerik
I agree that cooperation is applicable to both humans and animals. It simply makes sense that you are willing to act together to benefit equally. In some ways I think acts of cooperation are being mistaken as acts of altruism. A benefit may not be immediate or certain but benefits may be likely which in turn makes the act an act of cooperation, not altruism. I feel that this idea is far too large to be generalized or summed up. Every action is different and has its own unique benefits and drawbacks and in humans there are far too many psychological reasons for behaving ‘altruistically’. Do our religious or personal beliefs not play any part in our actions? My motivation to help a friend out with rent may be motivated by my desire to please God or someone else, or it may be motivated by my belief in karma and that someday I will be repaid by someone (not necessarily the person who I helped). I am not saying that altruism does not exist but that it needs to be examined on a smaller scale and not generalized.
However, I do agree that those who acted ‘altruistically’ or cooperated in the past are the ones that were most likely to survive and pass on their genes, creating a culture of cooperation and some altruism.
October 10, 2011 at 3:24 am
Eric Osborne
I think it’s interesting to consider the fact that, while other animals may have a similar neurochemically-modulated predisposition toward cooperation, only humans possess a theory of mind. This means that we alone can reflect upon an act of apparent altruism and ascribe meaning to it. Most humans aren’t aware that there exists neurological mechanism to reward “altruistic” behavior, and even those that do aren’t inclined to consider it with every incidence of altruism. Thus, the happiness we feel upon acting benevolently enters into a sense of self mediated by a whole host of cultural discourses on morality and community. So the desire to act altruistically isn’t simply motivated by a small spike in dopamine or oxytocin. Rather, it’s motivated by that spike along with a social discourse on altruism that extends far beyond the bounds of an individual’s neurochemistry.
For instance, there is a clear evolutionary benefit in promoting the survival of one’s kin, and so we can say with reasonable certainty that these behaviors are deeply rooted in the neurological mechanisms inherited from our ancestors. Can the same be said for voting yes on a school levy? Such an act is too abstract and too far removed from our experience of one another as kin to be motivated solely by dopamine. And yet, logically and semantically, we as a culture have drawn parallels between the two acts. Is this theoretical sense of what constitutes altruism enough to trigger a dopamine response? Is it possible to expand the brain’s inborn definition of altruism through linguistic means? To me, it seems likely. After all, something like sexual arousal is a physiological and neurochemical phenomenon, but it too is easily molded and informed by social constructs.
October 20, 2011 at 12:25 am
Ron Hedrick
An important ethical issue as well as a big issue for the whole philosophy of sceince is the concept of falsifiability being needed in order for science to stand on its own tested ground. without something being falsifaible you lose the whole purpose of sceintific inquiry and it then becomes just a comparing of personal views rather than work towards an objective feature in reality. As you said this book seems to be more philosophical in nature which leads me to the question of how one can say that altruism truly exists in that alturism itself is saying that there is no internal factors at work that in somewya benefit from the action being performed. with that being said I feel that it would be impossible to claim that there was in no way benefit at work. even in such cases as kinship and reciprocal altruism there is still some benefit being gained even if it is deeply embedded within a group. I am not one to argue against altruism but attempting to prove it as a part of human nature would be contradictory towards what we know about our evolution.
October 21, 2011 at 4:07 am
Kevin Michael Briggs
At what point did cooperation become intrinsically engrained within the behavior of humans as a species? Hmmm.
I feel like almost all organisms existing within any sort of social structure cooperate to a certain extent. As our bipedal predecessors evolved, I imagine benefit of selection was given to those who existed in a tight familial lineage that shared its resources. I believe that cooperation has always been one of the selected for features within the creatures from which we have evolved – so much so, that it didn’t necessarily enter into human behavior at some distinct (as chronologically distinct as one can get within an evolutionary context, obviously) point, but rather was a behavioral trait existing within our quadrupedal ancestors that has evolved and developed in complexity as we have.
In an absolutely fundamental setting, two animals of the same species will compete for food, but (usually) collaborate when a predatory threat appears – be it as minimal as a mere warning call, or as significant as coming to physical defense. The latter could come to action as a result of the fact that 2 on 1 is always better than 1 on one, or it could be a fundamental form of reciprocity, expecting that if one comes to the aid of another, that other will at some point come to their aid. This spark of a behavioral trait has developed as social complexity has increased. As societies began to develop and expand, it makes sense to me that different organisms can offer that society (as big or small as it will be) various contributions. This stratification of tasks both allows for or is a result of a greater community sense of cooperation. Individuals are able to focus on contributing to other aspects of the group’s necessities, because other individuals are providing food or protection for them.
So, to address the question, I feel the definition of “cooperation” which can be as vague as the definition of “archaic human” or “homo ergaster / erectus”, is necessary to really identify whether or not it developed into this engrained sense at any certain point.
November 15, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Erica Partridge
I agree with the point that humans “naturally” cooperate. I don’t think many people think about it when they cooperate, they just do. But I also agree with the point that humans cooperate for survival purposes. When you have more than one individual working toward the same goal, your chances of survival and success increases. This could explain why cooperation is so natural to humans. As humans, we all want to succeed and survive, and the best way to accomplish this at times is to cooperate with others. Sine the desire to survive is natural, cooperation is natural.
November 16, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Diana Figueroa
Is it still altruism if there is no intention for receiving some kind of reciprocation or “good feeling” after the act? I understand that it’s very likely that we’ve evolved to get a chemical reward in our brains for being cooperative and/or altruistic, but if the conscious intention is only to help another individual, regardless of your own cost, could it still be altruism? I feel like intention should be a major factor when considering altruism because there is so little we truly understand about our brains, let alone how to control their reactions.
November 16, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Meggan Riley
I came across an article in the Assoc Press regarding altruism that I found interesting. A psychology researcher would knock over his books or drop something. He did this with 24 different toddlers who were 18 months old. Each time, without his asking for or help or signalling that he needed help, each toddler would crawl over and pick up whatever he dropped and hand it back to him. The researcher didn’t offer thanks or praise as to not give them an expectation of anything in return. The toddlers would only help if his knocking things over or dropping things looked accidental; if he deliberately threw a pen on the floor they would ignore him. So altruism seems to be able to emerge as early as 18 months of age.
Neat right? So what happens to us as we grow older? Is our willingness to help others without receiving anything in return, or our willingness to even to help others at all, diminishing? Are we too cynical to be capable of altruistic actions? Or is it that we’ve been rewarded throughout our childhood/adolescence for doing good deeds as a way to solidify these actions in our psyche, or to ensure our place in our community? Philosophically, why are people striving to be altruistic? Isn’t that just another way of saying, “I’m better than you,” which by the way would negate the altruistic feature of whatever deed it was that was done to make one feel like that.
Altruism makes more sense from a biological standpoint than a philosophical standpoint. There are many examples of this in the animal world, including those of bats and monkeys. Vampire bats regurgitate blood to donate to other members of their groups if they’ve failed to feed in a night. Monkeys give calls to warn other monkeys of predators. It’s for survival or for increased reproductive capabilities.
November 18, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Taylor Weddle
The idea of altruism picks at my brain simply because I can’t seem to come to a conclusion as to how it potentially originated and if it is even possible to define. Cooperation is easier to understand, as i can imagine a moment in time where humans and even non-human animals benefited from a simple act that included two or more parties working together, especially in a spontaneous instance, that quickly displayed the more successful outcome of working together. I imagine two males who aren’t necessarily related, but have spent a good amount of time together within their group, going out together to hunt when suddenly a adolescent lion attacks one of the men from the side. The male who is attacked quickly wrestles the lion into a pinned situation, but cannot do much more to either kill the lion or get away safely. This is when the other male reacts suddenly and spears the lion as the other male struggles to hold him down. Together they kill the lion and both walk away alive. Although the male who was not attacked had the option of running for safety the moment the other male was approached, he reacted quickly by spearing the lion, while putting himself into a dangerous situation that was not necessary for him at that moment. Although both startled by the attack, the men see the end result of them working together and enjoy the results of it (high-fiving and chest bumping at this point).
I can see how a moment like this could glorify the benefits of cooperation in spontaneous situations that led humans and non-human animals to take advantage of cooperation in the form of a survival strategy. Not only did the men survive the situation but they also probably felt prideful in their combined heroic efforts, and they got to go home with dinner! From that day on, the two men go out and hunt together and thus began an understanding that if you help me out, and I help you out, we can increase our chances of surviving any further attacks, while also increasing our ability to come home with dinner. I believe humans and non-human animals most likely learn the significance of cooperation through similar situations like this, but they are not born with a understanding of such interaction.
Cooperation means that two or more parties join efforts to increase chances of success for everybody, but altruism does not promise the same results. I can’t even say that i completely believe in an actual definition of altruism, but i can say that if it can be defined it would have come after cooperation became evolutionary relevant. I do like the idea of reciprocal altruism because i think it incorporates our theory of mind, and the way our gestures are interpreted by others rather than simply focusing on the actual “good nature” of our altruistic favors.
November 18, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Caitlin McGlade
When and why did cooperation become important? Richard Wrangham has a potential answer for that question. But first, it is important to recognize the difference between cooperation among humans and cooperation among other species. You wrote that male chimps work together to guard their territory and female lions cooperate to kill their prey. But, as you also said, cooperation isn’t as common as we would like to think it is. For non-human species, working together tends to stop there, and revolves around the basic tasks of either providing food or guarding territory. Humans obviously cooperate with each other for more complex tasks, such as partaking in a group project at work or assembling a political activist group.
These principles might just be rooted in the simplistic reasons for cooperation that other species have: food or defending one’s turf. Wrangham argues that cooking food led us to what we are today both biologically and socially. Preparing meals, he argues, sparked the dawn of new complex social networks in which individuals depended on others to hold up their end of the labor division deal. As much as the feminist in me detests this, husbands needed wives to make their dinner and wives needed their husband for protection. Along with this bond came others who were allowed to enter the circle and accumulate around the fire. This social process, brought upon by fire, created a system of filling roles, accepting those roles and ultimately cooperating with others to make the whole thing work. On page 159, Wrangham describes a tribe of hunting people who were deprived from their hunting grounds and individuals had to start stealing from each other to survive. They adopted a very individualistic attitude that every man or women was out for him or herself. Wrangham says that this shows how “savage” people can become if their complex social networks are disrupted.
Thus, maybe the answer to your question has to do with food and has since sprawled out into every aspect of our lives as humans. Cooking food over a fire created a way of life in which individuals could divide the labor and benefit a whole group rather than benefitting one person. And, as Wrangham would argue, those who were intuitive enough to go with cooperative structure passed on more genes.
November 18, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Sarah Karpinski
I have a hard time believing that any cooperative or altruistic action is done simply to “feel good.” Humans as a whole are a very opportunistic species that is capable of cognitive thought and these seemingly altruistic acts can definitely be stored away for a later day. Triver’s suggestion seem to be the most applicable to these altruistic actions. Very few people would be willing to do someone a favor without getting something in return.
I find it hard to believe that out ancestors, living in a dangerous and competitive world would be willing to perform an altruistic act simply to feel good. There must have been an ulterior motive, more than likely reciprocal altruism…’I share my food with you since you don’t have enough, and you better cover my ass when I don’t have any.’
Also, the sex argument confuses me…is the gist of it ‘more sex = more offspring, which lead to good feelings which lead to more sex’ and did it continue in a cyclical pattern like that? And what about sexual selection? Wouldn’t females sleep with more powerful males to insure the survival of their offspring? And wouldn’t these strong males be able to provide for themselves and others, which would boost them to a position of power making them sexually attractive to females? So these good feelings would have led to more sex so much as the ability to provide for others led to more sex, which in fact is a form of reciprocal altruism
November 18, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Julia Healy
1) What is the difference between cooperation and reciprocal altruism? “Cooperation isn’t just a byproduct of competition, or something done only because both parties receive some benefit from the partnership, rather, altruism and cooperation are inherent in primates, including humans.” (Sussman, 2011).
-It is difficult for me to respond to this because I do not know what their argument is saying about humans having both altruistic and cooperative tendencies…. I wonder where and how they are getting their data on people’s “true” intentions, from which they are inferring naturally altruistic and cooperative motives…
Cooperation involves mutual benefits; Altruism implies self-sacrifice… If these authors are including the sort of altruism which involves only a possible chemical release for the giver (which I consider altruism), then yes, humans are naturally altruistic… The other sort of altruism (I help you, for no reason, and it detracts from my wellbeing, because I am not happy to help you) does not make sense evolutionarily or in day to day life…
Your question of when the former version of altruism became evolutionarily beneficial in our natural ancestry is interesting, but difficult to think about because the earliest fossil evidence of altruism will never be reliably early enough.
January 15, 2012 at 5:02 pm
Katie Denning
I agree that out of the natural competition for resources comes the instinct to cooperate and even behave altruistically. As for the question concerning when and why did we as humans start to rely on cooperation, I think it would be very hard to pinpoint an exact date but I would guess cooperation began to develop around the same time as the first hardships plagued our ancestors.
I can remember during the ice storm a few years ago, my entire neighborhood lost power for several days. My family and the neighbors closest to us cooperated to share what little resources we had. We had a gas grill we let them use for cooking, and they had a generator they let us use to run the lights for a little while each day. Without this cooperation, someone would have been in the dark all the time and someone would have been hungry. It was mutually beneficial; but it also would not have been so profound had the ice not knocked out the power. I’m not saying that cooperation does not occur without hardship, I’m simply saying hardship like the above example could have been the catalyst that embedded cooperation so deeply in our species.
Thinking about hunter-gatherer populations, if hunting alone is a hardship causing a lack of food for everyone perhaps those that paired up found more success hunting in small groups. Then hunting in groups would have been selected for over time due to its higher success rate. Cooperation to maintain this success is therefore a part of the society as a result of the hardship. As the society changes, it is only fitting that cooperation would have worked its way into other aspects of life besides hunting, a process that explains the use of cooperation we see in our species today.
January 16, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Jenna Smith
Cooperation is important in society for the simple reason that, without, it life would be much more difficult. I agree that cooperation is for the sake of resources and survival. Even today, children are taught to cooperate, it is one of the most emphasized concepts in early education. But we learn that through cooperation comes reward. To say cooperation is for the sake of cooperation is like saying humans don’t do what they actually want to do on a daily basis for no particular reason. Most of the time, people have a reason they suppress their true wants or desires and it is normally to gain an even greater reward.
I think altruism is another concept that is embedded in societies, but less exercised. Growing up, you see few cases of true altruism, but none the less you learn what it means to act altruistically. It is viewed as a respectable act by many societies because of how rare it is. I think it goes against our instincts to help another person or knowingly put ourselves in harms way without any kind of reciprocation.
January 16, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Sarah Tillett
I think that altruism is an interesting behavior, and the idea of it seems to be embedded in human culture today. Although many don’t display true altruism on a daily basis, in most religions there’s at least one tenant that mentions the need to give alms to the poor or less fortunate and this idea of helping the less fortunate and each other is embedded in mainstream cultures today, in the US you can get tax deductions for giving to charities, as an incentive for people to give to commit seemingly selfless acts. But I think that true altruism is much rarer than our ability to utilize cooperation.
I think that cooperation is definitely something that has been passed down through our genes because in a society like ours very heavily relies on our ability to work together, and it was probably passed down as a survival mechanism.
I would agree that the possible reason to why we do commit acts of altruism is because it makes us feel good to help others. Maybe the chemical reactions in our brains that make us feel good when we do things for others might just be a enough of a personal benefit for us and maybe makes us more attractive to others, that people who help others have an edge that allowed them to pass on more of their genes.
January 16, 2012 at 6:23 pm
Jonathan Frisbee
Altruism is a very interesting behavior because an individual is putting the interests of another in front of their own interests. In our society today we are always being told to consider the way that our actions effect others around us and to do what is best for the group. I believe that the feeling that one has after doing a kind act for another is what keeps people working cooperatively. I personally used to be one of the most selfish people in the world but then I had a reality check from some of my friends and I began to put others in front of myself. There are still people however that refuse to act on the interests of someone else instead of their own.
Working cooperatively is also vital for our survival because if groups do not work together then they would just be demolished by any challenged that they might come across. You can see time and time again in our society that those who succeed in life often do so because they are concerned about others around them. People who work cooperatively will always have a friend by their side in a time of need because they would do the same if the roles were reversed.
January 16, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Heather Schnell
The thought of altruism being a learned trait is an odd one. I do believe that in the beginning, a shared knowledge of responsibility to survive was formed between families and main providers that evolved into a stronger bond over years and years. We would all like to think that people do good things for the sake of doing good things, not for anything in return or because they are afraid of looking bad. Altruism is a broad aspect of respect and mutual understanding that if you do good, you probably will feel better and continue to do so. The simple fact that humans are able to logically realize what the concept of altruism means shows that primates and other animals showing signs of it possess many behaviors that we argue whether they were inherited or learned.
“We still don’t know everything about altruism or altruistic behaviors”, the beginning of that sentence is reason enough to believe that there’s not really any hard evidence or facts that can tell people the truth about the altruism portrayed in animals.
January 16, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Elizabeth Cychosz
The biochemical/psychological angle of altruism interests me. Simply experiencing “good feelings” and repeating altruistic behavior to experience “good feelings” again would not diminish the fact that altruistic behaviors are often detrimental to the actor. An altruist would likely not live as long, nor produce as many offspring, as those who act more selfishly, as you said. How would these feelings gain momentum in evolutionary history if those with the altruistic genotype were less fit?
January 16, 2012 at 11:06 pm
Amanda Loveridge
Altruism is a tricky subject for me because I have yet to fully decide whether or not I truely believe in it. However if I did believe that altruism existed I could agree that it was a learned trait. We usually do get awarded for our good deeds and as time goes on I could see more a more people doing good things for others which would lead to alturism. But I always seem to be asking myself the question, our we doing good deeds because we want to be awarded too or do we just think its the right thing to do? I believe that we react so fast that its hard to decipher why we actually react to situations.
I was always told a story about Abraham and the pig. Abraham was on his way to a meeting when he saw a pig struggling in the mud, but he ignored it and continued on his journey. After miles of traveling Abraham couldn’t get the poor pig out of his mind. So he turned around and jumped in the mud ruining his brand new suit to save the pig. At first Abraham thought he was just doing a good deed but he later learned that he only went back because he didn’t want to feel guilty about leaving the pig.
I believe that there are rare occasions that show altruism but to put others before ourselves may be asking for to much. I enjoy doing good things and helping others. Do I do it because it’s the right thing to do? Yes. But do I gain something from it? Of course. If we can’t get hard evidence on altruism/altruistic behaviors then how can we tell if people or any other animals are actually capable of this trait?
January 17, 2012 at 12:14 am
Amanda Brown
It’s hard to imagine a point in the evolutionary history of animals when cooperation was not the norm. When looking at the fitness of a species, it just seems advantageous for individuals to work together in order to ultimately fulfill their own selfish agendas, while reducing the amount of risk and expended energy involved in doing so. The bigger picture needs to be kept in mind at the same time, however. Surely we don’t understand cooperation when it is happening in real-time with an “I am proliferating our species,” attitude. But it really is just that – for many species who cooperate in groups and who practice what are seemingly altruistic behaviors, though they most likely have selfish motives, they also are behaving in a way that ensures the continuation of the species as a whole.
I am of a similar frame of mind with the rest of the class in thinking that almost any behavior deemed “altruistic” is based on some sort of reward or personal gain. Even if we feed the hungry or donate clothes to a clothes drive – seemingly selfless acts – there are social pressures that are acting upon us that give us that “happy feeling.” Why should any “selfless” behavior make us feel good when we get nothing but satisfaction out of it? It makes no sense, biologically speaking. We feel happy because we are told before performing the action that we will feel a certain way, or we’ll be put up on a pedestal or praised for doing it. Modern humans have been promised tickets to heaven, the approval of peers, and “idealistic” lifestyles (among many other things), for doing tasks that provide us with no personal benefit. These are the intangible rewards, but rewards nonetheless.
January 17, 2012 at 12:34 am
Julia Bunce
I would claim that altruism and cooperation are vastly different subjects with different occurrences. Cooperation is, in my opinion, an instinctual trait of humans and primates as well as many other species. Only the individuals of a population that cooperated with each other ultimately survived and thrived, while those individuals who attempted most tasks alone would not survive as often. Altruism, on the other hand, is to me a definite learned behavior that is simply rewarded within society. Like every learned behavior, like language and swimming, there is an innate presence of the basic ability to learn and succeed in the trait, but without constant observance and practice of these traits it would be impossible to learn. The question of altruism being a learned or instinctual behavior becomes hazy due to its wide variety of occurrence. If altruistic things can be considered anything from engaging in polite small talk with a stranger to saving the lives of millions of people, it is practically impossible to avoid learning and observing this trait. However, even though using more selfish actions is more biologically productive, humans and primates still resort back to altruism–a phenomenon worth pondering.
January 17, 2012 at 1:38 am
Anna Offerman
Although Sussman and Cloninger make an interesting statement, I do not agree. Since we are small children we are taught how to cooperate and share with others. If we were not taught these behaviors none of us would have the capability or attention span to even read this article. The parts of the article that I found interesting were the two hypotheses on why we engage in altruistic behaviors. I think that both Hamilton and Trivers were correct in their hypotheses. However, Trivers hypothesis truly shows the mark of an advanced species. Any species that can look towards the future and cooperate is a species that has evolved and has selected for those traits. Although we may not be certain about the biochemical or psychological benefits in giving in an altruist relationship, it’ obvious that there is some sort of emotional reward involved. Since an emotion award is involved, is there really such thing as altruism?
January 17, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Taylor Weddle
After much thought and several discussion about this I have come to conclude that trying to biologically prove when and why altruism evolved will be about as successful as a dog is at chasing his tail. Only until the dog realizes that his tail has already been a part of him this whole time will he realize that the chase was already won before it even began.
It seems as though our search for why altruism evolved is really just a reason for us to confirm or prove why any being would ever want to do something spontaneously nice without any expectations in return. Despite many of us recalling altruistic moments in our lives in which we were either the one benefiting or the one giving, we sill look to science, biology, or even religion to tell us why we did that and the alternative reasons that we ultimately benefited from. Yet we can find examples of altruism from the past, most likely before any definition of this word was even in order.
We are desperately searching for the purpose of altruism and yet the answer lies within the very nature of the act itself. I believe that our natural ability to help others without any expected or direct benefit is our way of expressing the idea that we are all connected in one way or another and by taking part in small acts of kindness we are reminded that when we help someone else we are also helping ourselves. So maybe then our attempt to even define altruism was doomed from the beginning since anyone and everyone is capable of it, meaning that whenever one acts in an “altruistic” way they are actually experiencing ultimately selflessness within the collective nature of life and our relation to anyone and everything involved.
February 3, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Meggan Riley
I’m tired of hearing about altruism. A few days ago I picked up a guy walking by the side of the road carrying a gas can after I noticed a broken-down truck a mile before I saw him. I correctly assumed it was his truck. I picked him up because the nearest gas station was 3 miles away and, hey, it’s winter. I then gave him a ride back to his truck which made me late for class. I wouldn’t consider this an altruistic act. Not because it made me feel good to do something for another person, oh no, if anything I was annoyed with myself that I stopped, and with him for running out of gas. Why did I stop? Who knows; even I can’t keep track of what my brain is up to half the time. Maybe altruism stems from not wanting to feel like an inconsiderate jerk.
Humans cooperate. We are an advantage-seeking species, and if situations arise that are mutually advantageous, we are definitely more willing to cooperate with each other. I agree (with Dr. Sherrow, not with Sussman and Cloninger) that cooperation is an adapted strategy, not a natural strategy, to allow more successful competition for resources. This is something we were taught. I feel that even if we were not taught cooperation with others when we were young, we would eventually learn it anyways. How big a part of cooperation is dependent on language I wonder.
It’s interesting to read this blog after reading the blog about bullying. Look at how cooperation and exploitation can be combined to achieve an even more advantageous position in a given society (e.g. middle school students cooperating to “gang up” on another student in the act of bullying them, thus achieving a greater degree of social “power” in their school social group).
October 2, 2012 at 8:37 am
Angela Wiedl
I have to agree that it seems highly unlikely that altruism exists just for the heck of it. Environmental pressures such as limited resources and competition for mates are what drives a species in any evolutionary direction. Progress is defined by these factors with an intent of going somewhere – of meeting a forward destination. People, especially students as I have noticed, are required to compete for things every day like internships and grades and jobs on campus, as well as social positions within groups of peers. Students studying together is an example of cooperation (perhaps altruism, but my understanding of this word means there is no gain for the one doing the good deed), and it is seen every day at Ohio University. The goal is for everyone involved in the study session to gain more knowledge of the subject and collectively everyone who participated will perform well in the course or on an exam. This makes perfect sense and definitely seems to be a very successful tactic modern humans have adopted, probably from the previous links in our evolutionary past that were able to survive because of their cooperation skills. But I also have to notice that this can’t be completely separate from competition because most people expect some type of recognition for their work. They want to be noticed and the “feel good” part, in my opinion, only comes from the other party acknowledging what the altruistic thing was and praising the person for it. Other than constant volunteer work with no benefits (which I would argue there are many benefits inherently), I do not see true altruism existing around me. And I would bet that even the most giving volunteers don’t volunteer intending gain absolutely nothing.