Selfish traits not favoured by evolution, study shows

[LAGC]

Evolution does not favour selfish people, according to new research.

This challenges a previous theory which suggested it was preferable to put yourself first.

Instead, it pays to be co-operative, shown in a model of "the prisoner's dilemma", a scenario of game theory - the study of strategic decision-making.

Published in Nature Communications, the team says their work shows that exhibiting only selfish traits would have made us go extinct.
..
..
(more)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529849

Pretty interesting study. I've always called bullshit on that "prisoner's dilemma" approach:

A team from Michigan State University used a model of the prisoner's dilemma game, where two suspects who are interrogated in separate prison cells must decide whether or not to inform on each other.

In the model, each person is offered a deal for freedom if they inform on the other, putting their opponent in jail for six months. However, this scenario will only be played out if the opponent chooses not to inform.

If both "prisoners" choose to inform (defection) they will both get three months in prison, but if they both stay silent (co-operation) they will both only get a jail term of one month.

The eminent mathematician John Nash showed that the optimum strategy was not to co-operate in the prisoner's dilemma game.

Bullshit. If both prisoners keep their fucking mouths shut, they both walk free.

But if even one person rats on the other, not only does the person being ratted on get screwed, but often times so does the informant!

It doesn't pay to try to "save one's own skin" by defecting, it just gets you both in worse trouble.

"Loose lips sink ships."

[NAPOTS]

where is the part about getting shanked for being a snitch?

[ltorlo64]

It shows another problem with the theory of evolution as humans are selfish by nature. We can put others first, but it takes discipline and self-control, neither of which is a natural human trait.

[Krupski]

Bullshit. If both prisoners keep their fucking mouths shut, they both walk free.

If they are "prisoners" then it means they already talked to someone and therefore the point is moot.

[LAGC]

If they are "prisoners" then it means they already talked to someone and therefore the point is moot.

Yeah, I know, that's kind of bad wording. What they clearly meant though is: arrested and in custody, being grilled by detectives.

Bottom line: detectives are NOT your friends. They are there to extract info in order to screw you in any way they can, that is their only goal. This includes lying to you, claiming that the other person said this or said that. But you gain nothing by talking to them, no matter how nice or how good of a "good cop, bad cop" routine they try to pull on you.

Keep your trap shut and lawyer up.

The Fifth Amendment exists for a reason.

[Krupski]

Yeah, I know, that's kind of bad wording. What they clearly meant though is: arrested and in custody, being grilled by detectives.

Bottom line: detectives are NOT your friends. They are there to extract info in order to screw you in any way they can, that is their only goal. This includes lying to you, claiming that the other person said this or said that. But you gain nothing by talking to them, no matter how nice or how good of a "good cop, bad cop" routine they try to pull on you.

Keep your trap shut and lawyer up.

The Fifth Amendment exists for a reason.

Before you are arrested, the only thing to say is "Am I under arrest, or am I free to go?"

After you are arrested, the only thing to say is "nothing".

When the detectives grill you, sit back comfortably, be sure to keep a poker face, avoid "nervous" body postures and SAY NOTHING, ANSWER NOTHING.

Pretend they are speaking a foreign language.

[was_peacemaker]

Wouldn't this be at odds with Dawkins "selfish gene" theory?

[LAGC]

Wouldn't this be at odds with Dawkins "selfish gene" theory?

Actually, no. I haven't read that book yet, but from all the reviews I've read, it sounds like the whole point Dawkins was making is that although genes themselves are "selfish" (e.g., wanting to propagate themselves) one of the best ways to do that is by fostering cooperative behavior at the macro level. People helping each other out so that each of their respective genes has a better chance for survival.

I think Dawkins would approve of this latest study.

Good question though. I was a bit put off by that title when I first heard of it as well.

[alismith]

Altruism is favored by many species that live together, socially (it enhances their chances of passing along their genes to future generations). Only animals that lead a solitary life are favored by being selfish. In essence, the OP statement depends on the animal species being discussed.

(Just finished an animal behavior class at the university and this was one of the topics we covered.)

[btcave]

As an example, no one can ever convince me rape isn't an evolutionary trait with degrees of tendency for the males of our species. Quite a selfish of a trait IMO. Our species is way more dynamic than political/sociological inspired junk science want's to admit to.

That said, our social behaviors are selfish and not, depending on genetics, environment, culture, experience and a whole host of other factors.