Why Gossip and Fashion really are Matters of Life and Death.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by adriaanb

These anthropological type of explanations where everybody shares with everybody can mean only one thing. That anthropologists are nicer people than average, assuming other people to be nice too.

And your flippant dismissal of their research, without providing any research or evidence in support your own "theory", also means only one thing.

Or at least you shouldn't assume that just to make an argument work. You should assume they think much like we think because we share 100.00% dna.

You shouldn't assume anything. If you have anything to back up your theory, please provide it, otherwise your "theory" is not going to be taken seriously.

[adriaanb]

Everybody shares with everybody.. except you, except me, and just about everyone else.

It just isn't true. You can use some exotic anthropological research as an argument for and against anything. If you take all the things you can find in anthropological research there is very little one sided direction about anything.

If you want to know how the Kikuyu or the Yoruba do it, ask an anthropologist. If you want to know how humans in general may have done it, you are better off taken the present as a basis.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by adriaanb

Everybody shares with everybody.. except you, except me, and just about everyone else.

It just isn't true. If you take all the things you can find in anthropological research there is very little one sided direction about anything. So you are better off taken the present as a basis.

You are better off refuting the study provided, or providing evidence or links to research that supports your argument. Otherwise you are not going to be taken seriously.

[Overdog]

Here's some more stuff to refute...

Chimpanzees have now shown they can help strangers at personal cost without apparent expectation of personal gain, a level of selfless behavior often claimed as unique to humans.

These new findings could shed light on the evolution of such altruism, researchers said.

Scientists think altruism evolved to help either kin or those willing and able of returning the favor—to help either one's genetic heritage or oneself. Humans, on the other hand, occasionally help strangers without apparent benefit for themselves, sometimes at great cost.

Selfless Chimps Shed Light on Evolution of Altruism | LiveScience

[adriaanb]

How selfish genes can develop basic altruism is pretty easy to see. You help yourself and your kin because there is a direct benefit to your genes. You help 'friends' because there is an insurance element, they can help you when you need it. You 'help' strangers when there is a direct trade.

The kind of altruism where you see people giving money away to someone who will never be able to return the favour looks odd in the present environment.

But when looked at in the stone age environment the likelihood that it would go unnoticed is very small. You know everyone and everyone knows you. The memory will stick somewhere and may gain you trust, make you look like you have more than you need etc.

You can evolve to like giving resources to someone needy without any of the selfish reasoning above. But the selfish effects make it possible for the behaviour to last. And you shouldn't make too much of people 'giving a dollar to a beggar'. That beggar wouldn't survive if it wasn't for the large number of people passing by. Try giving a day's pay, that isn't that common at all.

(Oh, and I am sure some extensive reasoning can override your basic instinct.. But it isn't a decision you take like in a reflex)

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by adriaanb

The kind of altruism where you see people giving money away to someone who will never be able to return the favour looks odd in the present environment... You can evolve to like giving resources to someone needy without any of the selfish reasoning above. But the selfish effects make it possible for the behaviour to last. And you shouldn't make too much of people 'giving a dollar to a beggar'. Try giving a day's pay, that isn't that common at all.

Really?

Total giving to charitable organizations increased to $306 billion in 2007 (2.2 percent of GDP). This is an increase of 1 percent from 2006 (when adjusted for inflation).

The majority of that giving came from individuals, $229 billion (74.8%). Giving by individuals dropped by 0.1 percent (when adjusted for inflation).

Giving by bequest was $23.2 billion (up 4 percent from 2006), foundations gave $38.5 billion (up 7.3 percent), and corporations donated $15.7 billion (down 0.9 percent).

Religious organizations received the most support--$102.3 billion. Much of these contributions can be attributed to people giving to their local place of worship. The next largest sector was education ($43.3 billion).

International charities reported the largest increase in donations. These groups received $13.2 billion (up 12.9 percent), a large percentage of that money received from donors retained after their initial donations in response to Hurricane Katrina and the December 2004 tsunamis.

All categories of charities saw increases in contributions: giving to environmental organizations increased 7.7 percent (when adjusted for inflation), giving to human services groups increased 5.4 percent, giving to arts, culture and humanities organizations increased 4.8 percent, and giving to health charities increased by 2.4 percent.

Charity Navigator - Giving Statistics

Philanthropy is the act of donating money, goods, time or effort to support a charitable cause, usually over an extended period of time and in regard to a defined objective. In a more fundamental sense, philanthropy may encompass any altruistic activity which is intended to promote good or improve human quality of life. Someone who is well known for practicing philanthropy may sometimes be called a philanthropist. Although such individuals are often very wealthy, people may nevertheless perform philanthropic acts without possessing great wealth.

Philanthropy is a major source of income for artistic, musical, religious, and humanitarian causes, as well as educational institutions ranging from schools to universities (see patronage).

During the past few years, philanthropy has become more mainstream in terms of press coverage, owing to the high profile of rock star Bono's campaign to alleviate Third World debt to developed nations; the Gates Foundation's massive resources and ambitions, such as its campaigns to eradicate malaria and river blindness; and billionaire investor and Berkshire Hathaway Chair Warren Buffett's donation in 2006 of $30 billion to the Gates Foundation.

Philanthropy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you are missing the point. I am providing support for what I am saying. You are providing nothing.

Is there anything to support your theory, or is it just your personal opinion?

[adriaanb]

Only problem is you make it look like I said somewhere that people don't give money in today's world.. I never said that.

All I said was that I think it is very unlikely that in a stone age world everyone shares whatever they find to eat. This is a world where everyone is on their toes about getting enough food to secure their children's future.

And you come with 'facts' that should prove the opposite out of a world where one person can earn a million times more than a less fortunate one. That is what I mean with 'anthropological' arguments. You can find 'facts' to support life on the other side of the moon if you want to.

There is no direct evidence about the idea of a gatherer needing to look 'up to date' other than plain and simple logic. Proving it is a next step..

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by adriaanb

...There is no direct evidence about the idea of a gatherer needing to look 'up to date' other than plain and simple logic. Proving it is a next step..

No problem.

I look forward to further discussion, when you have had time to build support for your theory.

[Overdog]

Oh, and let me say I thank you for the discussion. I hope you will join us in some of our other discussions here, I think you are a very thoughtful person and have much to contribute

[vonellekv]

I would like to submit to this discussion (and I arrive unarmed with any facts) that gossip and fashion are ways to show strength and belonging. The animals in the middle of the herd are the least likely to become prey. The animals that look healthiest/strongest and perceived to be so regardless of their actual physical state.

I would think that being involved in gossip is less about sharing or gathering than it is about making sure you are in the center of the herd where it is safe. Showy clothes/sports cars etc. would seem to be about a show of strength/potential capabilities...

maybe...