The Science Behind "Nice" People

GorillaEsq

While there is a lot of evidence that altruism does serve an adaptive purpose in both animals and humans (which has led to a debate about how altruistic altruism actually is) I think you've massively overstated the amount of evidence for, and the overall impact of, Price's work specifically. Price was not the first person to propose that altruistic behavior had a very real adaptive advantage, nor was he the last. Moreover, just because you can write down an equation about how you think two things are related, does not make it true. This type of model, or theorem is known to be overly reductionist, as Box and Draper wrote "remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful." Price's model undoubtedly provided food for thought, and may even be useful scientifically, but that does not make it absolutely true, or the final word on the subject of either altruism or humanity. Finally, I'd like to contest the use of the word "proven" used in the context of any scientific discussion, as "proof" is not the project of science, rather, the goal of science is to provide evidence against some explanations in order to provide indirect support for others.

Well, no. Actually the goal of science is to establish explanations and predictions that can be proven through course of testable, and repeatable results.

I know this to be fact, because I own a dictionary.

26Nirak

Yes, and what is so bad about that that we have to distrust people? Isn't that the definition if "humanity" to do things we get "something out of" - why else would we do it? I don't think this is a bad thing, I don't think that it implies that we are users or self-centered individual. Sure, I try to be nice and helpful and friendly - why? Because I feel better when I am. Because I feel crappy when I am angry and uptight, and I would be stressed out if I would distrust everyone. I have seen what that innate distrust does to people, and it is neither pretty nor healthy.
I work on the other half of the equation; I believe in the good on people and trust them, unless they prove otherwise (and - oddly enough, very few of them do). Think about your statement that you made, that most people do not prove you wrong when you meet them with distrust. People will usually live up to your expectations. So if you expect them to be lying and conniving, they probably will be. Law of attraction -
I don't think Price's "discovery" about the human psyche is a disheartening one, it is a logical one, and as with everything else, it depends on our individual perception on how we understand it. I think it is a good thing. I am nice (most of the time). I benefit. People around me benefit because they feel accepted. What's wrong with that?

BSchoberg

Very rarely would a woman find a man attractive, and commence to beating that male with a stick.

... define rarely... :devil:

GorillaEsq

What do you think of people who gave their life to save a friend/family member/society/animal.??

That it adheres to Price's Equation of Altruistic Evolution, precisely.

gsager

I'm nice cause it makes me feel good about me. I don't belong to a tribe or really need anything from anyone. People need something from me. Thanks for the post.

vjrose

All the other sniping aside, there is of course a base instinct to always be only interested in our own outcome, however, "humanity" has also provided the training to overcome that childlike, ego-centered reaction. Yes there are some terrible studies on small children that show we are at heart, with no morale training self centered. However, a conscious decision to isolate from other humans based on the Price equation is proving his theory, sadly, more humans are ascribing to the me first and screw all of you attitude and you see it everywhere, road rage, shootings over cutting in line, etc. So, I guess he has a point, you can be totally egocentric and run about in the mindset of "well science says it's ok for me to be egocentric so I will" LOL. I will go with the social patterning folks and continue to be courteous and kind thank you.

GorillaEsq

Most behaviors produce more than one result, intentionally or unintentionally. I fail to see the problem created when "being nice" also benefits the actor in addition to the intended beneficiary of "nice behavior".

I never said anything about any of the issues being a problem, at all, ever.

It's a theorem of evolution.

The same equation can be used to predict cancer is specific ethnic groups.

AwesomeMoJo

I'd say it's more correlated than proven.

Actually, it's one of the most highly accepted scientific theorems in history. Google "Price Equation."

My dear a lot of sceintific theorems have been disproven over the years as well...

I just am who I am... take it or leave it...that's all...

fteale

That is obvious, surely? But it doesn't really matter why someone is nice, the fact is the world is a better place when people are being nice to each other, all too many people are complete *kitten*, and actually, they make life miserable for the rest of us. What's wrong with trying to get along together?

aallegri

I try to act with kindness and compassion because I value those qualities. If someone doesn't act with kindness and compassion towards me, then I make it a point to exit their lives as quickly as possible. And I've found that doing so tends to attract people of like mind. I suppose that forms a community of sorts -- and if it's a selfish community of people acting nicely to attract more nice people, then so be it.

But I live my life based on my own principles, and not on what others do. If I'm true to myself, then I'm at peace. That's my .02.

Have a great day, all...
Adriana

dakitten2

The OP is one of my new friends and I posted this to his wall post when I saw the topic subject............

OK, I haven’t read the post yet, but I will. Before I do, I am a genuinely nice person and go out of my way to help other people. I do it out of love. Last week when I was driving to our home, I saw a small woman trying to stand under a tree to escape the rain that had just started. She was on the phone and I could tell that she was distressed. I stopped and asked her if she needed a ride home. I didn’t have a clue where she lived or what, but she was someone in need. She told me she cleaned one of the houses in our subdivision and the owner wasn’t home to give her a ride home, so she had to walk. She had tried to reach her husband by phone but he didn’t answer. She graciously accepted my offer for a ride and while driving the couple of miles to her home, her husband returned her call and explained that a “nice woman” was bringing her home and that she didn’t need him to come get her now. I’ll be interested to read what your post says about people like me. Also, I do random acts of kindness, I’ll tape quarters to a machine for someone to get a soda, movie, candy, etc. I’ll pay for the person’s food in line behind me, things like that. I buy and donate cat food for a feral cat colony that a friend takes care of every day to help with her cost and my love for animals. For my 50th birthday, I did 50 random acts of kindness and asked my friends for no gifts but to do at least one RAOK. So some people may call me nice, while others may call me a sucker. I have paid for groceries of people in front of me who has more food than money and starts putting stuff back. I won’t hand out money to people on the streets but I do offer to go get them a meal or some groceries. Sorry but it was the way I was raised to be kind to others. So now I’ll go read your post and see if I am science oddity! LOL

fteale

There's certainly no virtue in being a twunt just because you want to rebel against your genetic conditioning.

Bentley2718

While there is a lot of evidence that altruism does serve an adaptive purpose in both animals and humans (which has led to a debate about how altruistic altruism actually is) I think you've massively overstated the amount of evidence for, and the overall impact of, Price's work specifically. Price was not the first person to propose that altruistic behavior had a very real adaptive advantage, nor was he the last. Moreover, just because you can write down an equation about how you think two things are related, does not make it true. This type of model, or theorem is known to be overly reductionist, as Box and Draper wrote "remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful." Price's model undoubtedly provided food for thought, and may even be useful scientifically, but that does not make it absolutely true, or the final word on the subject of either altruism or humanity. Finally, I'd like to contest the use of the word "proven" used in the context of any scientific discussion, as "proof" is not the project of science, rather, the goal of science is to provide evidence against some explanations in order to provide indirect support for others.

Well, no. Actually the goal of science is to establish explanations and predictions that can be proven through course of testable, and repeatable results.

I know this to be fact, because I own a dictionary.

Because apparently we are reifying dictionary definitions as the whole truth on any subject, here is what Webster's says about science:

Science
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science

4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

5 capitalized : Christian Science

Notice that the p-word (i.e. "prove") does not appear anywhere in the definition. Moreover, if we look specifically at the definition of the more relevant term "scientific method" we see:

Scientific method : principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Here the important points are the "systematic pursuit of knowledge" involving the testing of clear hypotheses. A mathematical model can be tested by comparison to actual observations, and in this way, it can be supported or refuted, but a major part of science is the continued testing and refinement of any theory. Regarding something as "proven" suggests that there is nothing more to be learned about a given phenomenon.

_VoV

While there is a lot of evidence that altruism does serve an adaptive purpose in both animals and humans (which has led to a debate about how altruistic altruism actually is) I think you've massively overstated the amount of evidence for, and the overall impact of, Price's work specifically. Price was not the first person to propose that altruistic behavior had a very real adaptive advantage, nor was he the last. Moreover, just because you can write down an equation about how you think two things are related, does not make it true. This type of model, or theorem is known to be overly reductionist, as Box and Draper wrote "remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful." Price's model undoubtedly provided food for thought, and may even be useful scientifically, but that does not make it absolutely true, or the final word on the subject of either altruism or humanity. Finally, I'd like to contest the use of the word "proven" used in the context of any scientific discussion, as "proof" is not the project of science, rather, the goal of science is to provide evidence against some explanations in order to provide indirect support for others.

Well, no. Actually the goal of science is to establish explanations and predictions that can be proven through course of testable, and repeatable results.

I know this to be fact, because I own a dictionary.

Interesting that you focus on the meaning of science, while ignoring the rest of this statement.

opuntia

Finally, I'd like to contest the use of the word "proven" used in the context of any scientific discussion, as "proof" is not the project of science, rather, the goal of science is to provide evidence against some explanations in order to provide indirect support for others.

Well, no. Actually the goal of science is to establish explanations and predictions that can be proven through course of testable, and repeatable results.

Actually, that person was right - the scientific definition of 'proof' (as opposed to the lay definition, which you are using) is not about getting consistent results from behavioural experiments. Consistent results can give you a theory. But actual 'proof', in the scientific meaning, is only possible in mathematics. There is no real proof in psychology. Everything is theory, and debatable. You can only disprove something - not prove it. You see, you could do the experiment one million times and get the same results, but it's always possible to get different results the next time.

GorillaEsq

I beat my husband with a stick all the time, and I find him attractive......

I think I have an obligation as an attorney to tell that... you're probably committing a crime there... just sayin.

126siany

Most behaviors produce more than one result, intentionally or unintentionally. I fail to see the problem created when "being nice" also benefits the actor in addition to the intended beneficiary of "nice behavior".

I never said anything about any of the issues being a problem, at all, ever.

It's a theorem of evolution.

The same equation can be used to predict cancer is specific ethnic groups.

Au contraire. You used it to justify your own anti-social behavior.

_VoV

I bet you don't do much pro bono work, I'm guessing.

LorinaLynn

I generally trust people who are nice to animals more than people who are nice to people.

If you're nice to another person, you might have a motive.

But the only thing you're going to "get" from being nice to a cat is fur on your clothes.

GorillaEsq

Actually, that person was right - the scientific definition of 'proof' (as opposed to the lay definition, which you are using) is not about getting consistent results from behavioural experiments. Consistent results can give you a theory. But actual 'proof', in the scientific meaning, is only possible in mathematics. There is no real proof in psychology. Everything is theory, and debatable. You can only disprove something - not prove it. You see, you could do the experiment one million times and get the same results, but it's always possible to get different results the next time.

Neat.

The Price Equation is a mathematical algorithm to predict evolutionary constructs.

The same equation can used to predict genetic precursors for disease.

I never mentioned anything about psychology, at all, whatsoever.