Nice conversation! Many arguments about selfishness have this problem of goalpost moving. Inclusive fitness gets pinned as a form of selfishness. One-off cooperation in prisoner's dilemma-like situations get called "misfires of inclusive fitness." But the sheer quantity of these "misfires" is ridiculous. The strength of social desirability bias hinges on a desire for cooperation even when punishment for defectors is weak or nonexistent. Are enlightened people "selfish"? It seems they have both a more expansive view of self as well as a more expansive view of what is good. At some point, the word selfish seems to become a useless descriptor.
If we cooperate and help each other, and generally have natural prosocial tendencies, then it’s valid to say — whatever the underlying reasons — that we’re not naturally selfish. Our feeling good when we engage in that behavior does not weaken but strengthens this view.
There’s no doubt that we can also be utterly self-interested and selfish. However, that’s not what defines human nature. Without a high degree of prosociality, we simply couldn’t be a social species. In theory, we could be cooperative deliberately and consciously purely out of self-interest (or purely from instinct, as must be the case in ants, bees, and termites), but in species such as ours, evolution sees to it that any behavior that increases our fitness (e.g., cooperation) is reinforced by a feeling of contentment when practiced, thus we can be genuinely unselfish.
Greg wants a definition of Tabula Rasa, so I asked ChatGTP:
what is tabula rasa?
Tabula rasa is a Latin term that means "blank slate" in English. It refers to the idea that individuals are born without any innate knowledge, ideas, or beliefs. Instead, they are like a blank slate, waiting to be filled with knowledge and experiences as they grow and develop.
The concept of tabula rasa has been influential in philosophy, psychology, and education, among other fields. It suggests that individuals are shaped primarily by their experiences and environment, rather than by their innate characteristics or nature. This idea has implications for debates about nature vs. nurture, free will vs. determinism, and the role of education in shaping individuals.
This was the prevailing view in psychology during the 20th century, and totally in line with Rand´s novels, especially ¨Atlas Shrugged¨ and ¨The Fountainhead¨. I don´t recall any mention in her novels of DNA, or IQ, or heritability of psychological traits.
If selfishness means "maximizing inclusive genetic fitness" then most people are not even approximately selfish. I don't know a single person, not even one, who is even coming close to maximizing their number of viable offspring. Honestly I'm trying to think of any living people who have behaved in this way, and the only ones that come to mind as even vaguely plausible are Kadyrov and Ari Nagel. It's not as though people don't know that their number of descendants depends in a direct way on the number of children they have, so ignorance can't be the answer here. And if it's something about instincts misfiring, this seems like an important enough exception that it invalidates the rule.
Nice conversation! Many arguments about selfishness have this problem of goalpost moving. Inclusive fitness gets pinned as a form of selfishness. One-off cooperation in prisoner's dilemma-like situations get called "misfires of inclusive fitness." But the sheer quantity of these "misfires" is ridiculous. The strength of social desirability bias hinges on a desire for cooperation even when punishment for defectors is weak or nonexistent. Are enlightened people "selfish"? It seems they have both a more expansive view of self as well as a more expansive view of what is good. At some point, the word selfish seems to become a useless descriptor.
This looks great. Discovering and internalizing evolutionary psychology really changed my life. "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright is the best, IMO.
If we cooperate and help each other, and generally have natural prosocial tendencies, then it’s valid to say — whatever the underlying reasons — that we’re not naturally selfish. Our feeling good when we engage in that behavior does not weaken but strengthens this view.
There’s no doubt that we can also be utterly self-interested and selfish. However, that’s not what defines human nature. Without a high degree of prosociality, we simply couldn’t be a social species. In theory, we could be cooperative deliberately and consciously purely out of self-interest (or purely from instinct, as must be the case in ants, bees, and termites), but in species such as ours, evolution sees to it that any behavior that increases our fitness (e.g., cooperation) is reinforced by a feeling of contentment when practiced, thus we can be genuinely unselfish.
I’ve written a bit more about this here: https://medium.com/@cdelosada/selfish-genes-and-humans-9783ff6eb8e. It offers what I think are valid counterpoints to Bryan Caplan’s position.
Greg wants a definition of Tabula Rasa, so I asked ChatGTP:
what is tabula rasa?
Tabula rasa is a Latin term that means "blank slate" in English. It refers to the idea that individuals are born without any innate knowledge, ideas, or beliefs. Instead, they are like a blank slate, waiting to be filled with knowledge and experiences as they grow and develop.
The concept of tabula rasa has been influential in philosophy, psychology, and education, among other fields. It suggests that individuals are shaped primarily by their experiences and environment, rather than by their innate characteristics or nature. This idea has implications for debates about nature vs. nurture, free will vs. determinism, and the role of education in shaping individuals.
This was the prevailing view in psychology during the 20th century, and totally in line with Rand´s novels, especially ¨Atlas Shrugged¨ and ¨The Fountainhead¨. I don´t recall any mention in her novels of DNA, or IQ, or heritability of psychological traits.
If selfishness means "maximizing inclusive genetic fitness" then most people are not even approximately selfish. I don't know a single person, not even one, who is even coming close to maximizing their number of viable offspring. Honestly I'm trying to think of any living people who have behaved in this way, and the only ones that come to mind as even vaguely plausible are Kadyrov and Ari Nagel. It's not as though people don't know that their number of descendants depends in a direct way on the number of children they have, so ignorance can't be the answer here. And if it's something about instincts misfiring, this seems like an important enough exception that it invalidates the rule.
Was this published as a podcast somewhere?