Jealousy divides and separates group members and causes fights and conflicts. It causes a deep lack of satisfaction and an avoidance of doing work at its best. Why, then, has jealousy persisted through evolution?
"If that's what you're going to do at our wedding, I'm not marrying you." said my fiancee with a fiery look.
"But I don't want to go around among all the guests and say thank you for coming like a parrot!" I got old. "This is also my wedding! I want to have fun, dance, eat the steaks. Why do I have to get pinches on the cheek from all the aunties I don't even know?"
"Because someone has to do it, and I'm not doing it alone." It is a paragraph.
"So marriage is actually a shared suffering?" I asked despondently.
"Let me put it this way," she said with steely eyes, "If I have to fall, I'm dragging you with me."
"You scare me," I murmured. "And besides, we're both going to enjoy our wedding. I'll just enjoy it more. If you cancel the whole wedding because of this, it will be revenge for her sake.”
My fiancee rolled her eyes, sighed from the bottom of her heart and went to wash the dishes. She does it sometimes, when she realizes that I talk nonsense and argue just for fun. I stayed in the living room alone and stopped talking, but I started thinking.
I had a lot to think about, because my partner's approach reminded me more than anything of the familiar ultimatum game from economics.
The simplest ultimatum game does not include an ultimatum at all. It's worth it in your mind because you got caught up in a game where you compete against the other participant. The game is not particularly sophisticated: your opponent has to divide ten shekels between him and you, as he sees fit. You may agree to the distribution or refuse. If you refused the offer, both you and the opponent will be removed from the game without receiving even a single spent penny. What is the best distribution for the opponent?
In a world without envy, the opponent's most successful strategy would be to give you one penny, and take 9.99 shiny new shekels for himself. Apparently, if we look at the offer in a purely rational way, it seems to be quite fair. Although the opponent earns a huge amount of money - 999 times greater than the amount he chooses to transfer to your disposal - but you also came out with a profit compared to the situation in which you started! True, only for one penny, but that's a profit too!
What, you are not satisfied? If you are human, probably not. And the reason you are not satisfied is the feeling of jealousy and aversion to inequality. In every interaction in the game, you feel obligated to compare your opponent's profit with your own, and realize that although objectively you made a profit, compared to your opponent you made a big loss. It is quite clear that this situation is not acceptable to you.
Why do we bother to constantly compare ourselves with our friends and rivals? This question has existed for thousands of years in different variations: Why do many of us feel that when the employee next to us gets a raise, our value is diminished? Why can't we do a job for nothing, and feel satisfied just doing the task? What do we really care if the person next to us gets paid more for the same task? All these are not questions in Alma. Apparently, the feeling of jealousy is supposed to be extremely harmful to any society. Jealousy divides and separates group members and causes fights and conflicts. It causes a deep lack of satisfaction and an avoidance of doing work at its best. Why, then, has jealousy persisted through evolution, with such intensity that each of us experiences this emotion every day?
Some have said that during evolution the human species was the only one to develop the emotion of jealousy, as a sort of by-product of self-awareness. But today we know that other species of animals are also endowed with the same way of obsessive behavior. Friedrich Range, a researcher at the University of Vienna, proved in 2008 that even dogs can be jealous of their friends. He put two dogs in the same room, and trained them to reach out for a click on command. Every time they successfully performed the polite task, the dogs received a small reward - a piece of bread or a sausage. As long as both dogs received the same reward, they both obeyed happily. But when Range chose to give a prize to only one dog and not the other, the underprivileged dog was insulted and, in a petty vindictiveness, English gentlemen style, refused to shake Range's hand. Similar phenomena were also demonstrated in experiments with capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees, during which the monkeys threw away rewards that were less valuable than those received by their cagemates for performing the same tasks.
It seems that the feeling of jealousy is deeply embedded in the minds of many animals, and is not the lot of the human race alone. This fact only further illustrates the magnitude of the problem. If jealousy is a negative emotion, why does it exist to such an extent in nature?
The answer can be obtained from a renewed review of the Ultimatum game. In the previous version we demonstrated, devoid of jealousy, you would be ready to accept any offer, no matter how insulting. In this situation where we do not feel jealous of those around us, they are not afraid to offer us obviously unfair offers, and even expect us to accept them.
But what happens once jealousy comes into play? This is the improved version of the ultimatum game, which takes place in every interaction between two people, and has been tested in many real experiments of the game. In these experiments, it was shown that the other player would consistently prefer to veto an offer that seemed unfair to him. Like monkeys and dogs, humans do not work in a purely rational way. If we believe that we have failed, then we will be willing to give up our small profit for the purpose of revenge.
Armed with these insights, I crept into the kitchen with my tail between my legs. "Well, I'll come with you to all the uncles and aunts," I restarted the conversation, "and when I said you were motivated by revenge, I meant it as a good thing."
"This is not revenge," my partner smiled humorlessly, "this is justice."
And actually, this is really about justice. The ultimatum game well demonstrates the importance of jealousy in economic and interpersonal relationships. If you ever get involved in such a game in real life and have to divide the ten shekels, you will most likely choose an equal division in the 50:50 region. From being human beings we can understand even before the division, that the righteous jealousy of the other party will invalidate any other division. In this way, individual jealousy leads to the creation of a delicate status quo of social justice, in which each individual in society is obliged to respect the interests of the other, in order to avoid arousing the jealousy of the other. Because this is so, envy, revenge and aversion to inequality became the basis of social justice, and were qualities that should be preserved during evolution.
...
three days later -
"My love, I wrote a short article that includes a reference to you. Can I post it?”
"Hmm," my partner reviews the above document, "I'm coming off really bad here. But you come off as childish, so it's okay.”
I sighed. There is no doubt that the woman I will marry has a developed sense of justice.
46 תגובות
To Michael:
Thanks for the call.
Good Day.
Mushon:
Believe me that before formulating each of my comments I went back and read the entire debate between us and I am firm in my opinion that your latest comments are simply trying to rewrite history.
I have no idea what lies you're talking about, even if I was misled by the misrepresentation of
Dawkins (I started from the premise that the selfish gene approach is inconsistent with memes)
It's not about lies yet.
I also do not understand at all this form of personal debate/discussion, and what kind of history I am distorting.
We'll finish with that, but I recommend that you forget for a moment what you think I said (Tabula Rasa)
And reading my comments from the first to now, I have a serious feeling that's why
For some reason you got the impression that I had some kind of agenda and jumped in to defend it... (maybe it
Was the mention of Dawkins? Maybe you thought I was a creationist...
I have no agenda, I have ideas/thoughts/opinions whether justified or wrong
I am willing to accept a mistake and I am constantly learning new things.
Your angry attitude in the conversation, the impatience and "belligerence" with which you came out to defend
About your truth is one of the things that keep teenagers away from the world of science and straight into ignorance.
You should also do a little homework on the conversation culture...
Good Day
Mushon:
It is true that you mentioned your mistake regarding Dawkins, but not before you came to me with claims about what I understood - partly because of her (that is - she was definitely a sufficient reason for understanding things as I understood them but - as I said - there were other reasons for this).
I promise you that every time you try to twist history you will be able to claim later that you once again encountered a rant.
For me, arguing is an instinctive reaction to lies.
To Michael:
- I already mentioned the mistake: "unlike Dawkins".
- I did not claim that their name will cause the development of a biological trait - I claimed that when a relationship is established
Between the existence of a society and a significant strengthening of a biological feature (like brain-hands)
There is also a connection between the survival of society and the survival of individuals in the opposite direction
(From the direction of the company to the direction of the details). I never once claimed that the company is
The ***only*** thing that gives an advantage to the hands/mind, except that it strengthens
in a significant way their usefulness far exceeds their usefulness in a single individual.
-There is really no point in explaining that hands contributing more to society will mean that there will be
More companies whose details have hands - because that's not what I claimed.
-I've already shown you that I'm talking about memes from the very first moment again:
"Next to the description of utility
The properties of the organism itself add another angle to the description of social systems as an organism
In itself which undergoes evolution and has beneficial/harmful properties..."
-You for some reason think I'm saying that memes affected biological evolution and it's not
What I argued, I was trying to say that companies can reach a point where the company itself
becomes so significant that its evolution (of memes) has as much or even an effect
More than biological properties.
I could be wrong and I could have no idea what I'm talking about.
But I must say that I have never had such an unpleasant and heated conversation
And I would have to agree with you that it's better to end it now
Good Day
Mushon:
First of all - a meme is not exactly a social system and when you use the phrase "unlike Dawkins" who is the man who invented the concept of a meme, don't make claims to someone who understands that you don't mean a meme.
In light of the examples you provided for the sentence you quoted (hands and brain) - I have no doubt even now that you were not talking about memes.
Blasphemy, blasphemy - will not change history.
I have already said everything that can be said to explain it to you.
There's no point in telling you again that society (let's say - because it's not true at all, but let's say anyway) is the only thing that gives hands an advantage - will cause hands to develop. On the contrary - if society is the only thing that gives the hands an advantage, this will prevent their development! I've already explained it but you, it turns out, still think it's true.
There is also no point in explaining that the fact that the hands give more points in the company will not mean that there will be more companies whose details have hands.
In general - if you are talking (just now!) about memes, then the human race is more or less the first example throughout evolution of the significant existence of memes! There are - here and there - revelations of memes in monkeys and birds but there is really nothing to compare and in these animals it is certainly not something that affected evolution.
See, Mushon:
You, in your excavations, already needed insults and distortions.
I, therefore, stop arguing with you.
To Michael:
Regarding the hands and feet - read again and you will see that I claimed that these biological features
In my opinion, receive an increased and more important expression for survival only within a social structure -
And that's why it's important to preserve the social structure (to get the full benefits of the features)
Hence the connection to the survival of the company as a company...
again:
Attribute A is worth 100 survival points as an individual and 5000 survival points in a company
Therefore the value of the company is about 4900 survival points and hence the features of the company
receive relative value accordingly
Hope that was clear enough
Good Day
Here is a quote from my first comment:
"Perhaps, contrary to Dawkins' "selfish garden" method, we should move to the side of the description of utility
The properties of the organism itself add another angle to the description of social systems as an organism
in itself which undergoes evolution and has beneficial/harmful properties..." (By the way, it turns out according to Wikipedia
which is not really unlike Dawkins...)
So I don't understand how exactly you claim that I just started talking about memes? Who did I talk to? with the wall?
The main point of my words (and you are welcome to read again): ***As soon as the company itself stores information/technology, etc.***
and passes it on from generation to generation, after all this technology and this information (the memes)
Mostly helps the survival of individuals in society (most of them can also express themselves only in society)
Therefore, the survival of society as a structure that stores technological information can become important for the survival of the individual
Almost like biological genetic traits and sometimes much more. – This is relevant because this is what happened to the animal
Nice named "Adam".
In any case, you are welcome to describe how you think memes affect innate traits in your opinion
I would love to learn where the mistake in my words is in your opinion
Good Day
Mushon:
Maybe now you're talking about evolution of memes but that's not what you were talking about before and don't try to rewrite history.
Hands is a meme? Brain is a meme? These are the examples you gave and it is about body parts.
The whole discussion started from jealousy which is not a meme but an innate trait.
And in general - even though memes have an effect on innate traits (in very interesting ways) you are still far from the way in which they influence as far as east from west.
It is clear that memes affect survival, but this does not necessarily link them to any innate trait.
After all, our brain (which, as I recall, is an organ in our body and not a meme) allows everyone (whatever their characteristics may be) to adopt memes that have proven to contribute to survival.
If you admit that you are now talking about something different from what we talked about at the beginning of things, and if you realize that the way you imagine the effect of memes on innate traits does not work - I can begin to take seriously the next step in the explanation and describe to you how memes can still (in very unusual cases) affect traits Birthplaces and how group evolution can still (exceptionally) occur, but this is a section for the advanced. First of all, you have to understand that this is not the rule but the exception.
To Michael
I'm talking exactly about the evolution of memes (with some modifications)
I just don't understand why you claim she doesn't have one
Effect on evolution of innate traits.
Doesn't information improve survivability?
of the details in a significant way?
Is the ability to update information thousands of times faster
from biological development does not improve survival
and can be critical for transferring biological traits that were not there
survive if not.
That is, I am asking: Is the discovery of fire for example (and passing it on to future generations)
did not critically improve the chances of survival of these individuals to any extent
Such that traits that were extinct survived because of this discovery?
If this is what you claim, then you really won't convince me...
Good Day
Mushon:
We talked about the evolution of innate traits - remember?
You are now talking about two unrelated things.
One is that animal societies sometimes become extinct - this has nothing to do with evolution at all.
That is - it affects the evolution of the other animals, but the extinct societies do not improve as a result.
The second is the evolution of memes (and I've talked about that a lot on this site). This also does not belong, of course, to the evolution of innate traits.
I wrote "a last attempt to explain to you" because I am convinced without a doubt that what you said expressed a basic lack of understanding of evolution and your repetition of things after the explanation I gave shows an unwillingness to be convinced regardless of the explanations. It's not patronizing. This is a statement of intent.
To Michael:
You are trying to find a one-to-one analogy for biological evolution and there is no need
Society, unlike living production, has the possibility to change a feature in the living "organism" itself
Something that biological production does not have, which is "stuck" with its properties.
Some societies may become extinct and all their culture (characteristics) will be lost, some will pass
Change and become new companies and retain features of the original company, some of them
will go through a dramatic upheaval that will change a large part of their features
They will also pass on their qualities to companies through commercial/cultural ties, etc
Others... In addition, groups must be differentiated from large companies, and this is because each
A large society also contains within it smaller groups, the "extinction" of the society
There is still no extinction of the small groups that can pass on the
Their attributes to the next company they created…
In other words, in societies there are not exactly life cycles and there are no "replicators" and there is not exactly death
Despite this there are traits, there is change and traits that are harmful to society will not survive in the long term
The long...this evolution, by the way, is thousands of times faster than normal evolution
And you can easily examine it in the mirror of history, it is happening even now
in front of our eyes.
In conclusion: you don't need to agree with me, but patronizing sentences in the style of
"Last attempt to explain to you" is inappropriate in my opinion.
Good Day
Mushon:
One last attempt to explain the matter of replicators to you.
You said that "a company that has a harmful current will break up".
We won't mince words about the concept of "stream" which you didn't really define, but the point is - as I said, that since a society does not leave behind several variations of itself (as a gene, organism or any other replicator does) - it will really become extinct if it has a harmful trait.
It will become extinct and will not improve because there is nothing to improve it.
Even in the evolution of normal replicators - the replicators with the unsuitable traits become extinct (and do not improve), but since their "parents" left behind many variations of themselves, some of the variations will survive and some will be even more suitable than the parents.
This multiplicity is one of the most important elements in evolution and without it it simply does not exist.
To Isaac
I don't know what is helpful and what is harmful, but a company that has a harmful current
Disintegrate, the question is whether it threatens the survival of society.
Let's put it this way: a society that systematically sacrifices its children (human sacrifices)
not survive…
Each stream (or feature of a society) like any genetic feature is relatively effective or harmful
For the environment, both internal and external, there are no absolutes here...
A feature that is not useful to talk will fade (sound familiar?), it still doesn't mean
that it has not been useful in the past…
Good Day
Michael:
(a bit of a late ignition though) - I didn't mean that this is the reason why jealousy exists, I just mentioned a positive thing that jealousy creates.
I also didn't quite understand from the article the connection between the mechanism of natural selection and the advantages of jealousy (or any other trait), but I didn't want to just start a discussion on the subject.
By the way, a social mutation is when someone comes up with a new idea
Only that unlike evolution
Here the new stream can be of no use
Or beneficial to everyone like the atheist current
That's right, response 6 is what I meant.
Beyond that, it seems to me that morality can be defined philosophically
As the optimal balance point between the company and the individual...
I'm sorry that you choose not to address my answer about the "replicator"
But no problem, we'll finish here.
By the way, by tidying up, I didn't mean to imply disorder on your part
Forgive me if I hurt you
Good Day
By the way, Mushon:
The "re-feeding" you speak of is exactly what is described in my 6th response
https://www.hayadan.org.il/wedding-vindictiveness-and-jealousy-0510099/#comment-251876
Mushon:
I don't need any "tidying up".
The things I presented are completely arranged and also correct, but let's stop here.
Michael will be ordered:
Regarding the main point you raised - a new trait of an individual is created by mutation
A feature of a company - no! Although it is also affected by the characteristics of the individuals in it.
What's more, a company can expand expressions of genetic traits that will not be expressed
in a single detail (like social skills for example).
A genetic mutation does occur in a single individual, but its transmission depends on no
A little in the social structure and the characteristics of the society itself (and here the connection between genetic traits
to company features as a mutual influence)
This mutual influence means that a society that does not encourage the transmission of a particular gene
Cause its extinction and a certain gene (if it is common enough) can prevent
From a particular feature…
The last line - I'm not sure what you mean by advantage... and that's why...
It is possible that a certain trait will be an advantage in a given social structure and a disadvantage in survival
Individually, do you think this is a beneficial or harmful feature?
The value of the term "replicator" for evolution is that in a given organism the genome is fixed
and immutable, in order to allow mutations and change, a "replicator" is necessary...
A company, on the other hand, has a stable enough structure to recognize features in it
And sufficiently dynamic and changing so that there is no need for a replicator to create a process
Evolutionary - this is enough in my opinion to consider a society as a unit
undergoing evolution. Of course, it is also possible to refer to the change of leadership
In the company as a "replication" if you are terribly insistent, but as I mentioned, there is no such thing
need…
Regarding the link you gave (thanks) - I personally do not agree with the main claim
of "group evolution"...it is clear that for a society to survive it has to be useful
for its details (otherwise there is no chance of it being created), but you have to remember that here
A process of feedback, a beneficial trait for society can be a beneficial trait
To detail ***as an individual in the company*** and this is exactly the perspective that is missing here! there is
Here is a game of balance between the individual and society...
The concept of a useful feature needs to be clarified, because what is useful for an individual in society is not necessarily so
It is useful to detail individually and sometimes there is a contradiction between them.
It is also necessary to differentiate between groups (bands/families/etc.) and a capable company
Acquiring information and passing it on...
Social evolution I'm talking about will only be significant in societies that accumulate information
Good Day
Mushon:
And to complete the picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection
Mushon:
You don't understand the main point I was talking about.
New traits are created by mutation.
Mutation occurs in a single individual and not in society.
Therefore a mutation that does not give an advantage to an individual will not be cleared by natural selection even if it is beneficial to society.
Evolution talks about a term called "replicator".
It is something that replicates many copies of itself with not too many random changes.
When there are many copies, natural selection works and selects the most suitable ones.
In this sense - a society is not "replicating" and the whole idea of evolution does not apply to it.
A garden does reproduce and a living creature also reproduces, but an entire society - no!
In my opinion - an elementary part of the discussion culture is to read their things and you respond.
Last time you didn't and that's why I got angry.
To Michael,
Reporter:
1: "Mutation occurs in a single individual and not in a whole group."
2: "If it does not give an advantage to the individual, it does not become common property."
3: "That a maladjusted individual will survive better in society than alone - this is both incorrect and irrelevant." (and then you gave an example)
1.-Very true in regards to the biological features of the individual.
2.-Approximately true, but it should be noted that in society, selection is added to natural selection
A society that actually produces new "good and bad qualities" in relation to society itself.
3.- I would be happy to discuss with you the advantages of groups/bands/companies over individual individuals
But nature does it better than me...a large part of the animals are in groups/herds
/companies if it didn't have survival value they wouldn't exist!
And at the top of the pyramid stands the human race, which also has a chance to colonize other stars
And thus being able to survive beyond the lifetime of our planet... if that is not an advantage
Evolutionarily significant I'm a flip flop!
***But that's not the issue I wanted to focus on***
What I'm trying to say is that in my opinion society itself is a kind of "organism"
(or can be) in that it maintains properties of its own (not of its details)
Accumulating information, technology, beliefs, social structures, culture, etc.
And that the companies themselves develop evolutionary!
For me, the questions are simple - does society not have its own characteristics (beyond the biological characteristics of its individuals)?, are they not inherited in society?, do they change? Do these features of the company have no value for the survival of the company as a company? - If the answer is yes, then there is an evolutionary system of companies as well! It is also understood that there is a connection between the details of a company and the company itself, and perhaps such a dual reference to two perspectives (evolution of the individuals in the company versus the evolution of the company itself) can give an interesting perspective on many issues social.
I really have no idea what agenda you are talking about,
If it's something to do with New Age religion, I promise you that you can sleep peacefully...
If you want to comment, comment, if not don't...but please keep some kind
A certain level of cultural conversation that would be fun to talk about...
Good Day
Yair Shimron:
Although not learned!
There are many things in a person that are not learned that you will not find in a baby his age.
How about beard hair?
A little boy who has a brother starts to get jealous even before he has seen jealousy from his day.
As mentioned - animals are also jealous.
Audio.
I don't think there is any point in continuing the debate.
I also do not agree with the rest of the things written in your response, but since you do not even accept basic things that are accepted by all evolution researchers today, there is no chance that we will find a common language in a reasonable time.
Michael,
Didn't you learn? Is there jealousy in a one-year-old baby? Is there any knowledge that is not learned? and even falling in love. Yes, with all the difficulty of showing it, all those thoughts called emotions are the result of building layer upon layer the basis of knowledge accumulated in the brain, which shapes the basis of the soul of each individual, and when both a person and a dog express what is called an emotion, the meaning of this expression is a reaction to a collision between information The basis of man and incompatible reality. Jealousy is an expression of indignation at the invasion of a reality that does not correspond to a basic assumption that we are equal to another - or that something undoubtedly belongs to us. A person knows how to moderate the expression of jealousy, when he has no effective behavioral choice. It's called forgiveness. Any of the behaviors considered to be evolutionary products may lead to a series of possible actions that are actually carried out, ranging from loss of life to complete renunciation of an act of reaction. If these behaviors were indeed the products of evolution, we should expect a fixed type of response, as a certain shield is coated with a certain series of proteins and not another. If indeed there was a (genetic?) system of jealousy in the primitive (reptilian?) brain, the human brain is so complex and multipotent that it regulates and actually turns every emotional expression into a cultural act.
Year:
I'm hanging on the first sentence you said and hope that the mistake you're making will pass.
Beyond all the disparaging and incorrect graphical descriptions, you simply ignore the facts.
If you read the article you will find that there is a feature here that exists in all animals.
The fact that the brain can do this is a tautology because the whole discussion starts with the fact that the brain does this and the question is why.
In fact, the question is how is it that a mind that in principle can be jealous just as it can not be jealous - actually jealous.
You will soon tell us that falling in love or hunger are just like riding a bicycle and of course by doing so you will again ignore the fact that these are not learned things.
Roy, Michael, Moshon,
A mistake never passes. Regarding that minority of people in Israel and the USA who think that there was and is evolution, this word-theory has become a kind of crystal ball, tarot cards, coffee grounds, through which you see the world. You should re-read Steven Gold's old article "Biological Potential vs. Biological Determinism " (Since Darwin, 1977). There he criticizes sociobiology as guesswork. From then until today, no evidence has been found for the ever-increasing claims that social behaviors such as jealousy are the products of evolution. It is not at all enough to show that dogs and monkeys are also endowed with the ability to envy. Obviously brain Developed to a certain extent, serving animals in certain societies allows for behaviors such as jealousy to be expressed. To prove the product of an evolutionary process, it is not enough to conduct abstract calculations of advantage and procreation probabilities from which other conclusions can easily be drawn. For example, in Michael's calculations about those with hands in a society without hands To assume that the man with hands got rid of all the handsless ones and conquered all the handsless females and gave birth to half of the manual offspring that added to and overpowered all the others. Jealousy is a cognitive process, to the best of my judgment quite rational, as long as it is accompanied by excitement, just as the opening article demonstrates. Evolution has equipped man with a complex brain and versatile. The brain is the evolutionary product. Thoughts of all kinds - even emotion is a type of thought - are an expression of the brain's abilities. Does anyone think that cycling is an evolutionary trait? Like jealousy.
Mushon:
It doesn't seem to me that you tried to understand my words and I am not at all surprised by that in light of the fact that even what they said many decades ago is not familiar to you.
The fact that a maladapted individual will survive better in society than alone is neither true nor relevant.
This is not true because if we take - for example - an individual who does not know how to stand up for himself - then in society - every nut he finds will be taken from him and he will starve to death, while alone he will survive.
This is irrelevant - because even if life in society is better for this individual - this does not mean that he will be able to thrive in it.
Describe to you, for example, a situation where your hands would really only be used for a handshake (and let's say that the handshake was an important thing).
If you were born as a single individual with hands in a society of people without hands - you would not be able to shake hands with anyone and the hands would only be a burden.
Your chances of leaving offspring would decrease.
In general - the only benefits that a certain feature can give to individuals specifically in the company and not outside the company are benefits that arise from the reciprocity of using the feature.
When a single individual is created with the attribute - reciprocity is not possible and the attribute becomes, for the most part, a burden.
See - I don't see any point in going over your long-winded response because you haven't read my words or what was said decades ago and you probably haven't addressed any of these.
The examples you gave also betray - as I said - an agenda that is not the ascertainment of the truth.
Therefore I will end at this point.
To Michael
A little thing:
You talked about the brain and creating a trap...we'll take the example to clarify
What I'm saying versus "group selection"
There is a chance that there really will be an individual who will have the thought of a trap
And for the individual to survive, it now has to survive long enough to reproduce
and raise in his mind the idea of educating the offspring to make traps
(Hopefully the offspring will inherit the father's brain traits and survive)
It's possible, but the chances of it happening include transferring both concepts
of trap and education require a language that is unlikely to develop to a degree
It is enough for individual details that do not have a single advantage for creating a complex language...
Luckily we evolved within a society (as far as I know primates are mostly
social creatures)...and that's what makes all the difference.
But think about it another way - the trait I claim is passing is not
The brain (not only), but the trap - the information about a trap, the information about education
The language - and these are, in my opinion, the "genetic" features of society that pass from generation to generation...
So that contrary to the claim of "group selection" that mutation in particular
Changing society, I argue that society creates by virtue of its existence
New non-biological features such as information/social structure/language/culture/technology/ideology/beliefs
And they are actually the traits that make up the "genome" of society (and not the genome of the individual whose importance is gradually decreasing!)
The features of the company actually undergo "mutations", change, are added
degenerate and affect the natural selection process of society (not of individuals)
So, in my opinion, the evolutionary benefit of morality should not be sought in relation to the survival of the individual
The individual benefits in advance from a higher chance of survival as a member of society for its many advantages...
The utility of morality should be found in the survival of society, meaning that societies are immoral
did not survive (the meaning is not that its details disappeared, but that the social structure was destroyed and the information disappeared)
Hope that was clear enough this time
To Michael
I don't know exactly what they suggested in the past, but here is what I say:
1. The initial and most immediate evolutionary advantage of a society (from the point of survival of the individual)
It is that society gives the possibility of passing on neutral or bad traits!
An individual not adapted to the environment has higher chances of surviving within a society than
as a single individual.
2. This new margin (which becomes significant the larger the company) allows
Not only the time to develop a biological adaptation to the environment but also a technological adaptation
to the environment (information is also a type of technology for me).
3. At the point that the company itself is established and grows, the importance of the company increases in cases
certain biological properties of the individuals, and the power of a society exceeds their sum
As details - this is expressed especially in the field of information, in a company where they are also not adjusted
Survivors can turn out to be virtuous individuals with qualities that would not manifest as individual individuals.
For example, the protection given to old individuals allows a broader vision and the accumulation of experience
in individual details that were privileged to reach extreme age and thus contribute to an exponential increase in the amount of information
Beneficial to the group's smallness.
4. At this point the information accumulated in society, its details and their properties (biological and social)
And the social structure of the society begins to be features of the society - so not only
The characteristics of the individuals as individuals determine the strength of the company, but also general characteristics such as
Governance method, beliefs, information, technology/information, etc. which are not found in the details themselves.
5. Beyond that, the amount of information that a company can keep is astronomical compared to the amount of information
that individual details can be saved, because in the company there are links between the different pieces of information.
Various attempts add up to a larger idea, something that is impossible to maintain as an individual.
In fact, the individuals in society function in terms of information as a kind of brain, in which each individual has information
Another that creates a bigger picture.
6 And finally - the quality of the information that helps the survival of the group depends on the social/ideological/governmental structure of a company
which is inherited between the generations, changes and adapts itself to the environment...a society that has not learned how to adapt
Its structure in the face of environmental challenges is extinct and with it often disappears and the information is lost.
(In our time, human society as a whole already constitutes more or less one "brain"...
There are features here, there is inheritance here, there is a correlation between the survival of the society and between its features and there is
Here there are even "random" (or semi-random) mutations that result from the actions of individual individuals
(or groups in society) which cause changes in the social structure and there is a natural choice whether
in resources and in the environment itself and whether in other competing companies.
Good Day
Correction: the verse is "Love is fierce as death, jealousy is as hard as hell"...
Michael I'm not talking about romantic jealousy at all, in which case I would bring the verse "Hard as death is love, as hard as jealousy".
I'm talking about the normal jealousy, which can be explained as arising from the jealous person's fear that his friend will steal potential partners from him, because they are attracted to those who have more.
You will never envy the ugliness of someone ugly, but the beauty of someone beautiful.
Mushon:
The idea of "group selection" was already raised years ago and most scientists reject it because it is simply wrong.
A mutation occurs in a single individual and not in a whole group.
If it does not give an advantage to the individual, it does not become common property.
It seems to me that in your eagerness to promote the idea of choosing the groups you also committed a considerable concealment of the truth.
Have you ever checked what you do with your hands when no one is around?
Don't you think they have many uses?
And what about the brain?
Do you really think he doesn't help you better plan your actions (like, for example, laying a trap for prey)?
Almost all the characteristics of all animals are the result of selection that favors them and their offspring as individuals.
There are very limited scenarios that allow group selection to operate, but it seems to me that it would not be right to talk about them right now because you first have to understand that it is a bad idea and only then will it be possible - with an open mind - to see what are the very limited cases in which group selection can occur.
In my opinion, nothing in evolution says that every feature that survived is good for the organism
what do I mean:
Man as a single animal is a "bad" organism and has worthless physiological properties
Absolutely - there is no point in free hands if you run slowly and there is no point in a developed mind
If every organism (man) has to reinvent the wheel (think of the possibility that details
Humans living separately will each in one lifetime discover the fire...).
The free hands and brain become relevant only in a social structure in which generations follow
Generations accumulate information ("technology") that can be applied with the help of free hands...
From that point where a company/band/tribe helps the survival of its individuals (and it's easy to show how)
The space of negative/neutral traits that an organism can preserve, develop and pass on
Size in a significant way and various details complement each other as one complete organism
Perhaps, contrary to Dawkins' "selfish garden" method, we should move to the side of the description of utility
The properties of the organism itself add another angle to the description of social systems as an organism
In itself which undergoes evolution and has beneficial/harmful properties...
And I think it can link more clearly the formation of morality in an evolutionary way
as a balance system between the good of the individual and the good of the common good.
And one more final thought/reflection: isn't a person himself in the end a "society"
of single-celled creatures with different traits that together create an evolutionary advantage over individual traits?
Isn't human society already such a super organism?
Good Day
It seems to me that in order to get to the bottom of the matter, a short recursive calculation should be performed, which amounts to calculating the equivalent weight (sorry for the use of a battered term). Any result that differs from the balance is due to a lack of understanding by one of the parties.
I'm not a mathematician, and I can't formalize the calculation, but let's talk about bid and offer.
The offeror *knows* two things: he depends on the consent of the offeree, and that the offeree is aware of this.
If so, it is true that the bidder has the ability to offer any amount, but it is not that he has already "won" and he can throw one or another crumb to the offeree and may be happy to agree to any crumb greater than zero. In fact both parties have to "do work" of agreement between them in order to succeed and win the prize.
The essence of work is consent. Well, if you were offered to participate in such a job in which it is clear that your share is 50%, you would expect a reward very close to 50%.
Suppose you were to accept an offer of 20% - your refusal would cause you a loss of 20%, but the bidder would incur a loss of 80%...
It seems to me that the offerer's hatred of loss (and the offeree's awareness of it) pulls the result towards the 50-50 balance
white blood:
That's true, but evolution doesn't exactly care if we're in a cave, a nest, or a tooth tower.
Therefore this is not the reason why there is jealousy.
In addition, envy also encourages competitiveness, and from competitiveness comes development.
If we were indifferent to those around us without wanting to equal him or have an advantage over him, we would now be having this discussion in some cave.
Envy has a few more pluses besides the above.
Oh, I forgot: congratulations 🙂
You can look at the matter in a broader perspective. If the rich collect unjustly/fairly large incomes for themselves, the mob will force them down.
The idea that the fear of jealousy increases solidarity is absolutely beautiful.
The tenth commandment: "You shall not covet" should have been the other way around... "Do not make your neighbor's eyes go out of their sockets".
Richard:
True - and I talked about it here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/vitamin-b12-13020810/#comment-37676
Also read the comments later in the thread
In the past, experiments were conducted in which two computer programs play a game similar to the prisoner's dilemma against each other (see, for example, "The Selfish Garden"). It turns out that one of the most successful strategies is "measure against measure" - a strategy that plays fairly (punishes betrayal and rewards cooperation). Apparently, according to the prisoner's dilemma, it is always worthwhile to cooperate (in a sense similar to agreeing on an unfair distribution).
What we learn from these experiments is that a sense of fairness (I think "fairness" is more appropriate than "jealousy") creates a fairly successful strategy, which can certainly explain its existence in nature.
I would also phrase things differently.
In the article it was stated that the explanation for the issue of jealousy is the need to preserve justice, but, since the activity of evolution is not driven by morality and justice but by natural selection - I would go into a little more detail and explain the connection between the two.
The connection seems pretty clear to me.
Individuals who did not stand up for "theirs" became extinct due to lack of resources.
Therefore, each detail tends to stand on its own.
Individuals who did not know how to compromise faced the anger of all the other individuals and as we have seen many times here as well - anger leads to violence. They were exterminated by others.
Therefore a certain equilibrium developed between the two impulses and this equilibrium is our sense of justice.
point:
You are talking about a different kind of jealousy. Not the one Roy was talking about.
The romantic jealousy you are talking about does exist and it is a shame that it is described by the same word.
Because culture is so important - this jealousy is immeasurably strong and it also, many times, prevails over any sense of justice that exists in us in other contexts (that is - it may lead us to unjust acts even in cases where we would not be willing to do so in any other kind of jealousy)
Friends:
There was a mistake in the name of the author.
The author is really Roy Cezana.
The error has been fixed in the meantime.
Michael Rothschild is Roy Cezana...? They are not similar at all!… What is this?…
I'm pretty sure the author is Roy Tsenza.
http://www.tapuz.co.il/blog/ViewEntry.asp?EntryId=1560666
One can also imagine that in a natural and normal world (without law), an offer of one penny out of 10 shekels would have ended in murder.
Michael, it seems to me that jealousy is basically a symptom of an ancient fear of alienating potential partners to the other.
It is also worth noting the saying from ancestors:
"Jealousy, lust, and honor take a person out of the world"