= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Luke_A_Somers comments on Open thread, 30 June 2014- 6 July 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (246)
Regular old natural selection? Behaving socially benefitted the individual. Doing things for other people didn't just help them - it got their help in return.
The argument the article made was that empathy reduces free riding. Engaging in free riding almost per definition doesn't produce disadvantages for the individual who engages in free riding.
It does if others have adaptations for punishing free-riders, or for rewarding non-free-riders.
Punishing free-riders isn't what I would consider under empathy. I would think that highly dominate people with a lot of testosterone will rather engage in punishing free-riders than empathic people.
I didn't mean that an empathic person would be more likely to punish free-riders. I meant that an empathic person would be less likely to free ride, and thus be less likely to be punished (or more likely to be rewarded).
I dunno, I hear that oxytocin makes you nicer towards your in-group but less nice towards your out-group.
Would you predict that whites produce less oxytocin than blacks?
I have no idea.