So Good It Hurts
From The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Altruism: Gene-culture Coevolution, and the Internalization of Norms: Herbert Gintis
An internal norm is a pattern of behavior enforced in part by internal sanctions, such as shame, guilt and loss of self-esteem, as opposed to purely external sanctions, such as material rewards and punishment. The ability to internalize norms is widespread among humans, although in some so-called ‘‘sociopaths’’, this capacity is diminished or lacking. Suppose
there is one genetic locus that controls the capacity to internalize norms. This model shows that if an internal norm is fitness enhancing, then for plausible patterns of socialization, the allele for internalization of norms is evolutionarily stable. This framework can be used to
model Herbert Simon’s (1990) explanation of altruism, showing that altruistic norms can ‘‘hitchhike’’ on the general tendency of internal norms to be personally fitness-enhancing. A multi-level selection, gene-culture coevolution argument then explains why individually fitness-reducing internal norms are likely to be prosocial as opposed to socially harmful.
In a mailing list discussion Gintis replied to this Steven D'Aprano statement:
The widespread existance of grossly irrational and false, yet somehow plausible, beliefs is an important phenomenum that requires explanation.
Gintis replies, based on his
Hitchhiker’s Guide work:
First, two basic cultural transmission mechanism lead humans to
accept statements that they do not personally subject to scrutiny for
factual validity. One is conformist transmission, whereby people see what
the majority are doing, and copy it (Boyd and Richerson, 1985, Henrich and
Boyd 2001). When there is much to learn and the cost of testing is high,
this is a fitness enhancing strategy for a large fraction of the
population, especially when the costs and benefits of different behaviors
do not change rapidly over time. The other is the transmission by
socialization, through which new members of society are induced to accept
norms and values that they choose to follow. Norms and values cannot be
scrutinized for truth value, since they have none. But, people can
generally believe that those who subscribe to the norms and values of their
society have higher fitness and well being than those who violate these
norms. Moreover, this believe that "those who do good will do well" is
generally true in most societies, so this belief can be personally validated.
Second, there is no guarantee that these two cultural transmission
mechanisms will produce fitness enhancing beliefs. People can conform to
grossly inaccurate and harmful practices (e.g., blame sickness on an enemy
who invoked a hostile spirit to harm you), and they can have beliefs that
lead to the very demise of a society. See, for instance, Robert B.
Edgerton, Sick Societies (New York: The Free Press, 1992). Norms and values
can similarly be deeply fitness reducing for a society---a grim example
being the way values have led many nations to respond suboptimally to the
AIDS epidemic.
Third, these two cultural transmission mechanisms lead human
societies to have a very low within-group variance of behavior, thus
enhancing the power of between-group selection. Specifically, groups that
have fitness-enhancing cultural forms are likely to expand (through war,
imitation, and population growth) at the expense of those that do not. It
is this between group selection process that leads cultural forms to be
fitness enhancing.
One beautiful example of this is the tendency for the world's
great religions (as measured by number of adherents) to embrace prosocial
values (e.g., love Thy neighbor, honesty will open the doors of heaven to
you) as opposed to the myriad of religions and cults found in small-scale
societies, many of which have deeply fitness-reducing aspects).
Fitness enhancing, however, does not always mean true in the
scientific sense. Thus, many untrue beliefs have proliferated in even the
most advanced societies.
Fourth, advanced intellectual sophistication is not a
counterweight to any of the above assertions. Think of our own society,
where the most educated classes have believed such things as (a) autism is
cause by poor mothering, (b) fat is bad for you and carbohydrates are good
for you, (c) colds are caught by sitting in a draft, (d) second hand smoke
is so bad for non-smokers that smokers have absolutely no right to smoke in
public. And so on. Not to mention whole ideologies, such as Freudian
psychology and Marxian political theory.
Fifth, humans, like all other animals, do not maximize fitness,
but rather an objective function (which may be called a preference
function) based on immediate costs and benefits, that has evolved to
correspond to fitness enhancement. For this reason, a mutant human who does
not believe the dominant myths and does not accept the dominant norms and
values of society need not prosper, unless he can accurately distinguish
which among the cultural forms he faces in fact enhances his personal
fitness, and which do not. But agents do not choose to maximize fitness,
but rather utility, as prescribed by their preference function. There is no
way to achieve accuracy in assessing fitness effects , in part because
humans (like other animals, although much less so) tend to have preference
functions that are excessively present-oriented, and so undervalue
behaviors with long-term payoffs (Google Ainslie, Laibson, and Loewenstein
for documentation). Cultural beliefs and values that counter this tendency
(e.g., be slow to anger, invest in good hunting skills) are fitness
enhancing but will be judged to be welfare reducing by the sociopath who
assesses them according to his own preference function.
It follows that the widespread existence of false beliefs and personally
harmful values, despite producing major maladaptions in many cases,
nevertheless contributes to the success of Homo sapiens. In particular, the
above-outlined mechanism allow for the evolutionary stability of altruistic
cooperation and punishment, which are the basic underpinnings of social
cooperation in humans
I've always wondered about that. I was behind the door when that allele was passed out and still have trouble believing fashionable nonsense though I know it can be a social good. Perhaps a little grit helps the machine too, helps the rings and valves seat or something. It's hard on the grit though.