Kin Selection & Altruism

Hi Mr. Jack:How are you defining altruism? As a student many years ago I had a course during which we spent the entire semester "debating" altruism and one thing I noticed was that those that where in favor of altruism would switch/alter definitions when it suited their needs. It's been a while, but my current understanding of altruism is not that which is given as a definition in the link you provided to explain kin selection.Altruism, as I remember it, is defined as a behavior on the part of a donor that results in a decrease of direct fitness for the donor while “imparting” a gain in direct fitness for the recipient of the behavior. And then one has to decide if we’re talking about lifetime direct fitness (I say yes) or “seasonal direct fitness” (I think not). Personally, I think the term “altruism” is used far too often in situations where it does not apply, if the preceding definition is used.So not to be a stick in the mud (I LOVE debating altruism), but how are you defining altruism in this discussion?

Hello again Mr. Jack: Fair enough. I'll simply contend that what we are actually discussing is more along the lines of commensalism and/or receprocity, but most certainly is not altruism.Nonetheless, I guess I agree with Omnivorous that perhaps the desire to aid strangers (or non-kin in general) is a carry over from days gone past. True altruistic behaviour is indeed hard to explain, therefore it seems logical that we should see it only in species that have an ability to place some sort or arbitrary value on life (I hesitate to say a "moral code" but perhaps that is the best fit).

I don't think that the maintaining group cohesiveness, in and of itself, can explain altruistic behaviors. Most often, in those cases, some sort of reciprocity is "expected" and therefore the intitial behavior was not altruistic.

It doesn't have to, and as far as I'm concerned, altruism is not needed to explain the behavior(s), so I guess I agree with you. However, people historically used relatedness to explain why some individuals would behave in such a manner which would result in a loss of their direct fitness (1/2 of altruism). How, it is asked, could such a behavior be selected for? The explanation is to show that only those that are closely related (and hence had a higher probability of sharing more genes, including of course the “altruistic” gene) are the beneficiaries of such behaviors.So relatedness must play a role in some manner because how often do we see such behaviors in individuals that are not related? It is those later examples that are, to me, the more difficult and interesting ones to address. What possible explanation is there for someone sacrificing their fitness for the benefit of an unrelated individual? Does it ever happen in non-human species?

What sort(s) of behaviors are we talking about here? By using the words "punish bon-contributors" aren't we really disucssing something other than an altruistic behavior?If we use the definition discussed by Mr. Jack why would such a behavior be so unusual? You do something and "expect" somthing in return...eventually. What's the big deal?

But that was not an altruistic behavior.I'm more interested in addressing situations of altruism between unrelated individuals. How often do we see this occur?

Well, I think we should be careful here. I'm not claiming to know all, but again, my understanding is that very few examples of this behavior truly exist. More times than not, when presented with an opportunity to mate, these "altruistic" individuals will seize that chance. Their prior lack of mating is NOT something they are doing for the good of the pack, but rather it is "forced" upon them by the dominant male or female of the pack. The link your provided in an interesting read. However, I am by know means a math wiz (I like to say that my brother got the math brains at the cost of not getting any common sense, where as I went the other way), so I am reading it again and again to sort it all out. Thanks though, for providing it. I completely agree. I was not trying to make this claim for all instances of supposed altruism, but instead what I meant, or intended to imply, was that often times, when altruism is invoked, it can more easily be explained by reciprocity.
Indeed, it is the cases where reciprocity does not explain the behavior that I am most interested in exploring.

I seem to recall studies which have shown that those individuals that help at the nest have higher lifetime fitness than those that attempt to breed during the first season. Learning how to care for the young is a very important aspect that cannot be over looked.
Additionally, some studies have shown that those that hang around may very well "inherit" the territory in the event that one parent or the other dies.
So helping at the nest may very well be a selfish behavior, not an altruistic one. But in how many species? I would guess that it's relatively few (humans...maybe apes, and chimps but I'm not even sure about those last two). Even the link provided by RAZD in message 25 looks only at humans.

And at no reproductive cost either = not altruism. I guess my main problem IS the definition(s) being used. It seems that the term "altruism" has been defined in more than one way, simply to allow its use in situations that do not fit the classic definition. I'm against that sort of thing. We have a definition (I gave it earlier)...if the behavior being studied doesn't fit, then it's not altruism. Call it something else if need be, but why redefine the term? Personally (and this is only my humble opinion), I think this sort of thing only makes biologists look bad. It’s somewhat similar to creationists changing their tune as needed.

Well, this wouldn't really matter. Since they are helping, their lifetime fitness (direct + indirect) would be higher than individuals that did not help (assuming that these first year breeder failed of course). I'm not sure what you're asking here?I'm going to have to do some research and try to find the papers we discussed in class. It was some time ago and I'm sure I still have them, plus I'm reasonably sure that more work has been done since then. However, this may take a while, as I'm a little busy right now.Nonetheless, let me recall what I can.There are two choices for a first year male. First, you could return the following year and help. Or second you could return the following year and attempt to establish a territory, attract a mate, and breed on your own.
Now, as I remember it, in many instances those that returned and helped benefited in more than just an increase in indirect fitness. They "learned" how to raise chicks. Many first year breeders are unsuccessful and may be unsuccessful the following year as well. Those that helped, learned a few things and then when they did breed, they had higher direct fitness than those that did not help.Now, remember, this was almost 13 years ago and I could be basically pulling most of this right out of my ass (aka: PIDOOMA) . I’ll see what I can find . but it may take a day or two.

Yikes...it was almost 13 years ago that I had the class. I'll see if I can find those studies...plus anything new. On this we agree. My mistake, selfishness was not the term I should have used. Helping at the nest would more properly be described as a mutualistic behavior I believe. I'm not so sure that this would be an issue. If we assume that both helpers and non-helpers live the same number of years, then helpers would have to pass the direct fitness levels of non-helpers in their first one or two breeding seasons. Beyond that time, I would imagine that they both have relatively equal seasonal reproductive success, so it would be a wash. I think not. Helpers at the nest are always male (as I remember it). I agree. But yet we do see this behavior. I always use the example from years ago when the jet crashed into the Potomac River. The one gentleman (I think they finally identified him...but I cannot remember who he was) that insisted on helping all the others, rather than be rescued himself (he eventually slipped under and died) to me fits the classic definition of an altruist.

Holy Crap! What an absolutely incredible story...honestly.The question that comes to my mind is how someone else would have acted. We now know that you acted as an altruist (and failed...you survived), but how would I have acted...or RAZD...or randman...or Holmes...True altruistic behavior it what intrestes me the most. As you said, most other "variations" have some sort of logical, selfish, mutualistic explanation.I did glance through a couple of papers by Harry Power dealing with Mountain Bluebirds, but have not had time to look at them in any detatil. Perhaps tonight.

Oh no...you're one of "those" people
Actually, I'm not the one redefining anything. Altruism is all about direct fitness.I once read a paper that claimed that tadpoles that died, and were eaten by their cohorts, were altruists. Death is an altruistic behavior...really? You have to look at the effects the behavior has on direct fitness of both (donor and recipient) participants, otherwise anything I do outside of having unprotected sex with a fertile female could be considered an altruistic behavior.
I mean, hey, if that's the case and since altruists are so often talked about in such high regards, then why does the Catholic Church frown so much on masturbation? You'd think they be all about celebrating those of us who engage so often in such an altruistic behavior! You are correct...they could indeed engage in this behavior. Somehow I doubt that this is all that common though. I'd bet that most returning first year males that do not help at the nest instead try quite vigorously to establish a territory, attract a mate, and attempt to rear young. I don't see how there could be any selective value to simply returning and doing nothing. (This does assume of course, that learning is an important aspect of successful breeding...and I'm not an ornithologist so again, PIDOOMA comes into play here.) This may sound like a dodge...but in all honesty, I cannot. However, I have talked to an ornithologist about helpers at the nest and he has loaned me a book about the Florida Scrub Jay. He also told me about Harry Power, a relatively famous ornithologist that looked quite a bit at altruism in Mountain Bluebirds. I'm in the process of reading some of this material in my spare time.

RAZD.I'm not really sure how to link these papers so I'll just supply the citations. Neither deal with helpers at the nest (I'm still perusing that stuff) but are quite interesting nonetheless. I especially like the second one. It almost brings a tear to my eye...thinking bout those poor baby gulls floating away, or being abandoned, or beat up and "pirated" by unrelated males (hmmmm...pirates...spaghetti monster...decline related to global warming...perhaps this study should be repeated to see if gull pirate numbers have also decreased as global warming has increased...), but then memories of gull interactions come back to me and I don't feel so bad anymore.Power, H.W.III. 1975. Mountain Bluebirds: experimental evidence against altruism. Science 189: 142-143.Peirotti, R. 1980. Spite and altruism in gulls. American Naturalist 115:290-300.

Let me see if I have your argument correct. Those birds that return and do nothing (ie: do not attempt to breed or help) do so in "hopes" of increasing their health so that next year, they will be bigger and stronger, and more likely to successfully breed? If that's the case, then the behavior is still not altruistic.I've read some of Woolfenden and Fitzparerick's book on the Florida Scrub Jay (The Florida Scrub Jay: Demography of a Cooperative-Breeding Bird. Glen E. Woolfenden and John W. Fitzpatrick, Princeton University Press. 1984.) and I have to admit; thus far the results are a bit surprising. First off, as it turns out, almost all scrub jays help at least one year prior to attempting to breed on their own, so the comparisons are made between those that helped only one year and those that helped two or more years. On average, any increase in reproductive success (birds that fledge) will occur between the 1st and 4th years of breeding. That is to say, after the 4th year, there will be no increase in the number of chicks fledged. Ok, so for those birds that helped only one year, their increase was from 1.4 fledglings for the first year, up to 2.6 by their fourth year, while those that helped two or more years showed a success rate of 2.0 fledglings their first year with an increase to 2.8 by their forth year. Not too bad.Now here's the kicker. Those that help only one year...well guess what...they show a significantly higher survival rate than those that help two or more years. The hypothesis is (was?) that perhaps those that help more than one year are in some manner less healthy than those that start breeding in their second year.Also, as it turns out, females are often helpers. However, the ratio is skewed towards males and becomes even more skewed as the number of seasons an individual remains a helper increases. Hey, maybe you guys set some parameters, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. Not to be an asshole (as I am so often accused of being), but altruism already has a definition, so changing it to fit certain circumstances is not unlike a creationist moving the goal posts (a common complaint here) whenever they want/need to.Sorry, but the gorilla that helped the child was in no way acting as an altruist. As I said in my earlier post, if you think that the gorilla was acting as an altruist then what behavior(s) would you consider as non-altruistic? Is helping an old lady cross the street an altruistic behavior...even if she's beyond reproductive age? Is placing you coat over a puddle so your wife can walk across it without getting her shoes wet and altruistic behavior? Yes they can...but the paper was very interesting to read.My wife studies cormorants on the Great Lakes and when she has to visit a breeding colony to count, band, or place transmitters on the birds, the gulls wait for our arrival and when the cormorants fly off (they flee at the drop of a hat) the gulls go nuts...grabbing up as many chicks as they can. She actually designates a "gull chaser" whose job it is to chase away as many gull as possible.