• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Survival of the fittest has evolved. Try Survival of the Kindest

Good point @1ForAll . Thanks for getting me back on track. I guess sometimes being female, means l may draw to myself more predatory type behaviors then if l was male. Maybe that statement works in context identified.
@lovely_darlingprettybaby post resonated with me. The most successful CEO's are the ones that can be completely ruthless. If l live with kindness, l find l don't do well. People want me to be cold and calculating, l don't like that either.
The ruthless CEOs do better than non ruthless ones when faced with external competition, they say, rather than internal things.

"Corporate psychopaths' malicious traits outweigh their positive ones. They often bully others, create conflict, discourage subordinates' ideas, behave unethically, and even urge others to do the same.

  • While some psychopathic traits can be useful to leaders and their companies, evidence suggests that corporate psychopaths often make workplaces more hostile, less productive, and ultimately less profitable.
  • A full-blown corporate psychopath in a key position of power likely will be disastrous for the company."
https://bigthink.com/leadership/corporate-psychopath-ceo/

Productive narcissists have the audacity to push through the massive transformations that society periodically undertakes.

It’s easy to see why narcissistic leadership doesn’t always mean successful leadership.

While Freud recognized that there are an almost infinite variety of personalities, he identified three main types: erotic, obsessive, and narcissistic. Most of us have elements of all three. We are all, for example, somewhat narcissistic. If that were not so, we would not be able to survive or assert our needs. The point is, one of the dynamic tendencies usually dominates the others, making each of us react differently to success and failure.


Freud’s definitions of personality types differed over time. When talking about the erotic personality type, however, Freud generally did not mean a sexual personality but rather one for whom loving and above all being loved is most important. This type of individual is dependent on those people they fear will stop loving them. Many erotics are teachers, nurses, and social workers. At their most productive, they are developers of the young as well as enablers and helpers at work. As managers, they are caring and supportive, but they avoid conflict and make people dependent on them. They are, according to Freud, outer-directed people.


Obsessives, in contrast, are inner-directed. They are self-reliant and conscientious. They create and maintain order and make the most effective operational managers. They look constantly for ways to help people listen better, resolve conflict, and find win-win opportunities. They buy self-improvement books such as Stephen Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Obsessives are also ruled by a strict conscience—they like to focus on continuous improvement at work because it fits in with their sense of moral improvement. As entrepreneurs, obsessives start businesses that express their values, but they lack the vision, daring, and charisma it takes to turn a good idea into a great one. The best obsessives set high standards and communicate very effectively. They make sure that instructions are followed and costs are kept within budget. The most productive are great mentors and team players. The unproductive and the uncooperative become narrow experts and rule-bound bureaucrats.


Narcissists, the third type, are independent and not easily impressed. They are innovators, driven in business to gain power and glory. Productive narcissists are experts in their industries, but they go beyond it. They also pose the critical questions. They want to learn everything about everything that affects the company and its products. Unlike erotics, they want to be admired, not loved. And unlike obsessives, they are not troubled by a punishing superego, so they are able to aggressively pursue their goals. Of all the personality types, narcissists run the greatest risk of isolating themselves at the moment of success. And because of their independence and aggressiveness, they are constantly looking out for enemies, sometimes degenerating into paranoia when they are under extreme stress.

https://hbr.org/2004/01/narcissistic-leaders-the-incredible-pros-the-inevitable-cons
 
Last edited:
On Freud's last page of his notes, he made room for anxiety driven personalities which has developed as consumerism is constantly being programmed, along with rising personal debt, and feelings of stress and emptiness as we navigate the disintegration of social civility, ability to provide long-term for our family. Or maybe he didn't but l proposed this new personality. Lol
 
I can't get to the article linked in the OP, so I read the wikipedia page on Edward O. Wilson instead (he was an expert in ants, among other things).

I'm sure there are lessons for humans in the behavior of eusocial insects, but not direct ones.
There are certainly genetic arguments for e.g. worker bees being altruistic, but that's because (a) they're all genetically very similar, and (b) they're sterile - individual workers don't contribute to the evolution of their species.

Human altruism makes sense at the group/tribal level. If everyone in the tribe helps each other out as needed, it's a virtuous cycle. All individuals and the group are more efficient, so there's a "reproductive payback" for the individuals and for the group.

It could well be an evolved behavior. And if it is, it could (and probably did) come from before modern humans (we're 200K to 300K old, and breed quite slowly - a very new species in evolutionary terms).
 
Last edited:
The first property I lived on at Dundee belonged to an old neighbour, he bought it as an investment and rarely visited it. There was a small shed that only had 3 walls, some chairs and a table, and some 44 gallon drums for storing water. That was it. No electricity, no modern conveniences.

I really enjoyed the solitude but it was a very hard life. After I’d been there for about a month I decided to go to the pub and have a few beers, a 12 Km walk from where I was staying. There I started talking to people and someone mentioned a computer problem, which I managed to sort in a few minutes for them.

Then an older man with serious health problems mentioned how much difficulty he was having digging a pipe trench so that he could have running water in his shed, to me it was just instinctive and natural to offer to help and I spent 2 days with a mattock digging a trench and I helped with the plumbing afterwards.

It was a very poor area, no one lived in what most of you would call a house, they lived in whatever they could manage to build for themselves. Locals started getting curious about me and taking notice of me and even by their standards how I was living was pretty poor. The fact that I was willing to pitch in and help others while asking for nothing for myself impressed them.

Someone started taking me in to the city with them to do a bit of shopping every few weeks and I was able to put some variety in my diet. Someone gave me a 1000 litre plastic pod for storing water in to make my life easier. Someone gave me some old solar panels that they were throwing out, they were still generating a little bit of power and I was able to run a small fridge, that greatly improved my quality of life.

Then someone gave me a dog and I trained her up so that I didn’t have to do my own hunting any more. After 18 months the owner of that property decided to start charging me rent, the locals were disgusted by that to the point of being offended and one of them added an extra room to his shed and said “Come and live at my place.”.

Simply having a genuinely friendly and helpful nature is one of the reasons I’m still alive.
Excellent example of how 'kindness' can have a major boost to survival by creating communities, skill sharing, resource management and sharing, etc etc. It's hardly rocket science to work out that most of our technical advances have come about wither directly or indirectly through cooperation. Cooperation requires helping others thus keeping the members fit and healthy so they can help you when needed. Sharing work lets skills be shared, so as society develops more skills (technologies) all members of the community can benefit. This probably has the biggest impact in small communities, and has been the reason they gained enough stability, security, health and productivity to become much larger societies. It's just a shame we start to fail at an evolutionary level at that point, and unless or until people start using their brains again, that's only going to continue, because genetic evolution won't help us over a matter of a few hundred years.
 
I can't get to the article linked in the OP, so I read the wikipedia page on Edward O. Wilson instead (he was an expert in ants, among other things).

I'm sure there are lessons for humans in the behavior of eusocial insects, but not direct ones.
There are certainly genetic arguments for e.g. worker bees being altruistic, but that's because (a) they're all genetically very similar, and (b) they're sterile - individual workers don't contribute to the evolution of their species.
Could it be they in fact do contribute to evolution of the species, but from a genetic viewpoint, it's indirect. Evolution of the queen's genes can result in changes to the drones, and those changes can effect the next generation of queens and drones, no?
 
I suppose it depends, even while surviving we can take care of each other, queue to get our water like deer i stead of pushing each other in, or even save them.
I honestly don't know, but could the water hole queuing thing be also about providing look outs while others are vulnerable? Another altruistic effect?
Also, possibly some part of queuing could be to do with social hierarchies?
 
It's just a shame we start to fail at an evolutionary level at that point, and unless or until people start using their brains again, that's only going to continue, because genetic evolution won't help us over a matter of a few hundred years.
I love a mention of this in a Terry Pratchet novel. He was talking about bees.

The bee has such a simplistic brain that it can rightly be considered to be more of a machine than an animal, yet when you look at the hive as a whole it demonstrates all the characteristics of high intellect.

Interesting to note that humans are exactly the opposite.
 
I can't get to the article linked in the OP
By Christopher Kukk
We’ve often heard that if you want to succeed in life, you need to subscribe to the idea of “survival of the fittest.” Success, we are commonly told, has to be grabbed; it has to be taken or someone else will get it.
When I initially presented some of my ideas about the power of compassion in success and achievement, my critics pointed out that Darwinism made my argument weak: It was, in their way of thinking, the Jenga piece that would crash my faulty tower of compassion. I quickly acquired as many of Charles Darwin’s works as possible and carefully read through them searching for the Jenga pieces that could take down my argument.

Instead, I found that most of Charles Darwin’s work, especially “The Descent of Man,” not only supports the general argument of this book; it doesn’t support the idea of what most call Darwinism. Darwin’s research shows that “survival of the kindest” is more correct for explaining which species climb the evolutionary ladder efficiently and effectively.
According to biologists from Darwin to E. O. Wilson, cooperation has been more important than competition in humanity’s evolutionary success. Compassion is the reason for both the human race’s survival and its ability to continue to thrive as a species.



Science says nice guys have more sex

Feb. 21, 201700:48

Charles Darwin not only did not coin the phrase “survival of the fittest” (the phrase was invented by Herbert Spencer), but he argued against it. In “On the Origin of Species,” he wrote: “it hardly seems probable that the number of men gifted with such virtues [as bravery and sympathy] ... could be increased through natural selection, that is, by the survival of the fittest.”

Darwin was very clear about the weakness of the survival-of-the-fittest argument and the strength of his “sympathy hypothesis” when he wrote: “Those communities which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best and rear the greatest number of offspring.” What Darwin called “sympathy,” in the words of Paul Ekman, “today would be termed empathy, altruism, or compassion.”

Darwin goes so far in his compassion argument as to tie the success of human evolution (and even “lower animals”) to the evolution of compassion. He writes that as the human race evolved from “small tribes” into large civilizations, concern about the well-being of others extended to include not just strangers but “all sentient beings.”

He even calls compassion “the almost ever-present instinct” when a fellow human witnesses the suffering of another. In other words, Darwin believed that compassion was a natural instinct that we all share. The bumper-sticker way of teaching and labeling Darwin’s ideas as exclusively focused on the “survival of the fittest” is not only misleading; it completely misses his idea that humanity’s success hinges on its level of compassion or sympathy.

Since Darwin’s fieldwork and writings, researchers from various fields have supported his perspective. Biologist and theorist Edward O. Wilson, who is known for his studies of ants and bees that have yielded insights into human existence, has shown that our evolution from tribal into a global society increasingly favors compassionate and cooperative over callous and competitive approaches to human interaction.

Wilson calls our “selfish activity” in interpersonal relations “the Paleolithic curse” that “hampers” success at all levels where groups of humans interact. Although selfishness may have been an advantage during the Paleolithic Era, when Homo sapiens lived more independently of each other, Wilson contends that it is “innately dysfunctional” in our highly interconnected societies and world.


One of the main reasons that compassion helps people succeed is called “group selection” in science or “teamwork” in sports and business. David Sloan Wilson and Edward O. Wilson (no relation) have recently doubled down on Darwin’s argument, stating that “our ability to function as team players in coordinated groups enabled our species to achieve worldwide dominance, replacing other types of hominid and a range of other species along the way.”

The Wilsons are not saying that selfishness, ruthlessness, and meanness play no part in evolution or reality; instead, they contend that compassion, altruism, generosity, and cooperation play greater roles. If you overlay their logic onto sports teams, local communities and nations, both Darwin and the Wilsons are arguing that groups made up self-interested people will fail more than they succeed. In contrast, groups consisting of mainly “survival of the kindest,” compassionate people will succeed more than they fail.

Why? The members of the selfish group are looking out only for themselves, and if others in their group fall, they see it as strengthening their own survival within it: One less competitor to worry about. Over time, as Darwin noted, their membership dwindles relative to the compassionate group. As E. O. Wilson writes in “The Meaning of Human Existence”: “Within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals.”

Selfish people and even bullies may win a couple of rounds or sets in the game of life, but they rarely win the match or game; it is the compassionate people who win.

Adapted from The Compassionate Achiever: How Helping Others Fuels Success by Christopher L. Kukk, Ph.D. Copyright ©2017 by Christopher L. Kukk, Ph.D., published by HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.
 
I love a mention of this in a Terry Pratchet novel. He was talking about bees.

The bee has such a simplistic brain that it can rightly be considered to be more of a machine than an animal, yet when you look at the hive as a whole it demonstrates all the characteristics of high intellect.

Interesting to note that humans are exactly the opposite.
The ants are known as being amongst the top intelligent species of animals. Very interesting for such a small creature that doesn't seem to have a brain or be mammals, like we're used to, to possess so many smarts.

And "bird brain" gets a new meaning when parrots are so smart.
 
I love a mention of this in a Terry Pratchet novel. He was talking about bees.

The bee has such a simplistic brain that it can rightly be considered to be more of a machine than an animal, yet when you look at the hive as a whole it demonstrates all the characteristics of high intellect.

Interesting to note that humans are exactly the opposite.
Actually, very perceptive - it seems that hives can indeed have some sort of hive mind, however that actually works. But it seems to me, no more unreasonable that a genetic evolutionary change, could be one that affects the behaviour of a collection, rather than an individual. It may seem unintuitive because we don't perceive this happening so easily, where individual changes are easier to detect and measure? Maybe it's even an emergent property, though I know little about that side of evolution (if there even is a side like that! :wink:)
 
The ants are known as being amongst the top intelligent species of animals. Very interesting for such a small creature that doesn't seem to have a brain or be mammals, like we're used to, to possess so many smarts.

And "bird brain" gets a new meaning when parrots are so smart.
Not only parrots. ironically, pigeons are quite bright, and can be taught to do things like pick out defective products on a conveyer belt, with exceptional accuracy! Bird brained? I don't think so! Maybe 'Human brained' would be more accurate term for irrational behaviour? :smirk:
 
Could it be they in fact do contribute to evolution of the species, but from a genetic viewpoint, it's indirect. Evolution of the queen's genes can result in changes to the drones, and those changes can effect the next generation of queens and drones, no?
This isn't wrong, but I don't think it's a good way to describe the process.
I prefer to see it as either the queens evolving, or the hive evolving.

The problem with imprecise descriptions of evolution is that it can tempt people to see it as a directed process.
This is a convenient way to think of evolution when looking at the past, but not useful if you're looking forward.

IMO it's more useful to look at viruses. Different strains come about via random mutations (evolve) , but there isn't really anything like an individual comparable to a single human or even a worker bee.
 
Last edited:
@All-Rounder

Thanks for copying in the article.

TBH I'm skeptical, and some of it seems wrong. I actually have a copy of "On the Origin of the Species" - maybe I'll check it out.

A couple of comments though:

I made a short post earlier that included "group selection". That seems likely to be valid for humans (though I don't know for sure).

I didn't see anything about the strongest kinds of evolutionary pressure, which are causes of death, not causes of life. For example disease, famines, wars (which are also very hard on civilians), etc.

Breeding advantages are definitely real too of course. But AFAIK evolutionary psychology, which looks at that kind of thing, doesn't put altruism and cooperation on top of the list. OTOH it seems that historically there's been a lot of breeding by high-status "rich" men with multiple wives, who coexisted with "poor" men who didn't breed at all.

The "compassion" stuff isn't necessarily wrong, but the description doesn't hold up.

In order to make a case for "compassion" other that that which is natural for small groups, you'd need to demonstrate changes in the last 15 000 years. A period in which there has been very little, if any evolution among humans - and arguably none based in altruism (I'm confident that's not how Genghis Khan left so many descendants :)

It's nowhere near enough generations for humans to evolve significantly for city life.
 
Last edited:
@All-Rounder

Thanks for copying in the article.

TBH I'm skeptical, and some of it seems wrong. I actually have a copy of "On the Origin of the Species" - maybe I'll check it out.

A couple of comments though:

I made a short post that included "group selection" for humans. That seems likely to be valid in humans (though I don't know for sure).

I didn't see anything about the strongest kinds of evolutionary pressure, which are causes of death, not causes of life. For example disease, famines, wars (which are also very hard on civilians), etc.

Breeding advantages are definitely real too of course, AFAIK evolutionary psychology, which looks at that, doesn't put altruism and cooperation on top of the list. OTOH it seems there's been a lot of breeding by high-status "rich" men with multiple wives, who coexisted with "poor" men who didn't breed at all.

The "compassion" stuff isn't necessarily wrong, but the description doesn't hold up.

In order to make a case for "compassion" other that that which is natural for small groups, you'd need to demonstrate changes in the last 15 000 years. A period in which there has been very little, if any evolution among humans - and arguably none based in altruism (I'm confident that's not how Genghis Khan left so many descendants :)

It's nowhere near enough generations for humans to evolve significantly for city life.
Honestly one of the only books in the world I'm interested in, but not enough because I thought it's more so fact-based than teaching how to critical think or Nietzchecian which I wish to start my first reading with just because my interest would be high enough to make up for the dread of reading books.

However it seems now more interesting than I first thought. Don't judge a book by its cover. I've liked darwin's views without knowing much about them, maybe it's worth giving him more thought.
 
Last edited:
Honestly one of the only books in the world I'm interested in, but not enough because I thought it's more so fact-based than teaching how to critical think or Nietzchecian which I wish to start my first reading with just because my interest woud be high enough to make up for the dread of reading books.
I read a great excerpt from one of his diaries, from when he was in Africa. A beetle had crawled inside his ear and it was driving him mad, not knowing what else to do he poked around inside his ear with a stick and managed to crush the beetle. It's carcass rotted in there and part of his inner ear had rotted with it.

"There is not a man in the camp that can keep a straight face when I blow my nose for the whistling sound that comes out of my ear."
 
This isn't wrong, but I don't think it's a good way to describe the process.
I prefer to see it as either the queens evolving, or the hive evolving.

The problem with imprecise descriptions of evolution is that it can tempt people to see it as a directed process.
This is a convenient way to think of evolution when looking at the past, but not useful if you're looking forward.

IMO it's more useful to look at viruses. Different strains come about via random mutations (evolve) , but there isn't really anything like an individual comparable to a single human or even a worker bee.
To be honest, I disagree about the precision of description, in that I personally find your suggested version to be no more (in fact less, as I have the context to my own comments, even if I've not made them clear to others) clear than mine. I think this is really a case of context and common understanding, which in this world seems to be something we are discouraged to do big-time! (sorry, but I have a major bug-bear with lack of common understanding and definitions - ever more so when people deliberately use it to obfuscate (in trw, that is, I don't mean here!).

That's not to say I think you're wrong, I'm only commenting on comms and language use in this msg, not evolution - but, I'd best not continue as I do tend to digress a thread in short measure, not to mention inadvertently insult people when just trying to have fun with words! :rolleyes:;)
 

New Threads

Top Bottom