'Doing Good' Isn't In Your Genes, Study Says

What makes people help others? Evolutionary scientists have long debated whether our genes have anything to do with behaviors that make us help strangers at possible risk to ourselves. Now, new research featured in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says that altruism has more to do with nurture than nature.

Researcher Adrian Bell of the University of California Davis and his colleagues "used a mathematical equation, called the Price equation, that describes the conditions for altruism to evolve," a recent article by the National Science Foundation explained. The researchers compared the genetic and the cultural differentiation between neighboring social groups and found that the role of culture had much more to do with our pro-social behavior than genetics.

That means that all those altruistic urges we feel, from serving as soldiers for our country to donating blood a few times a year is the result of people around us encouraging our behavior, rather than an innate sense to do good.

Bell is currently in Tonga doing additional research about the impact of culture versus evolution on pro-social behavior. In a short slideshow on the NSF's site, he says that he hopes "that in Tonga, through ethnography, I hope to estimate what kind of social learning preferences people may have and how does that affect the distribution of cultural beliefs?"

To do so, Bell is developing a survey instrument that will help capture people's cultural beliefs and measure the effect of migration on the similarities and differences between populations.

So how do you make more people make nice in your community? A lot of kindness starts with kids. To hear about an experiment in altruism in one kindergarten teacher's classroom, check out This American Life's podcast on The Cruelty of Children. In Act III, MacArthur Genius Grant recipient Vivian Paley tells the story of an experiment she conducted in her classroom to make children less cruel to each other.

Paley gave the children a rule: "You can't say you can't play."

"In other words, if two children are playing, and a third child comes over and wants to join them, they can't tell him or her to get lost. They can't reject him or her," This American Life describes.

Paley's effort to end one of the most common heartbreaks in classrooms and playgrounds turned out to be "a remarkable and immediate success." Her segment is at 46:50 of the Podcast.

Shall we try the same thing? How about a rule: No negative comments on this post. Can an online community work as well as the playground? Let's find out.

Comments

[MerrieWay]

Payley "You can't say you can't play." Clear boundary, what's the consequence? Can't is a trigger word for children, as well as for adults. The 'why' is important - because it hurts feelings and makes someone feel rejected or left out. Clearly Payley explained the underlying tenets of inclusion.
Teaching compassion, empathy, and conflict resolution skills helps kids to express themselves with kind intentions. MerrieWay Community's "Morph America" curriculum teaches skills to help students learn the value of social differences and inclusion. Helping others starts by modeling - agreed it is culturized. Parents, teachers, programs like Girl/Boy Scouts give youth a head start to participate in a positive way. Community service learning is vital in school curriculum to learn a lifelong practice of positive citizenry.
RE: Negative comments? Angry naysayers to shock-busters wanting attention to every put down in between is what the media has modeled. Bleeps are almost antiquated. Resolution at its base includes: Ignore it, answer it, report it, or let HP deem it is mean-spirited.
Tolerance is an art form for living a life of kindness and kind deeds.

[peterg76]

"Evolutionary scientists have long debated whether our genes have anything to do..."

You have got to be kidding.

The "nature vs nurture" issue is not a zero-sum either-or proposition, especially for *social* animals like humans, where neither preprogrammed nor learned behaviours can be adaptive by themselves.

[xzonia]

I found this article interesting, though not surprising. What society considers "altruistic" changes over time, so our specific actions should be dictated by society rather than instinct. I think there's a biological imperative hardwired into people to protect babies and small children for procreational reasons, but that wouldn't extend to donating blood or helping old ladies cross the street. What behavior one society deems polite, friendly, or otherwise desirable may be spurned by a different societal group, so it really isn't something that could be passed down genetically. What is probably passed down genetically is the desire to conform to the society with which you are a member.

So, if the members of your community hold bake sales and read to the blind, youl probably will too. If, instead, they gang up and rob convenience stores, you may perform those activities. Such groups don't exist in a vacuum though. Conflicting pressures from other peripheral groups you belong to (school, church, family, etc) may deter you from thuggery, whereas the bake sale group might get subverted by the local pothead kids who encourage you to "waste" your time goofing off instead of helping others. That's why studies like this one had to be conducted, because society is complex and many factors can alter what one might expect to be a straightforward conclusion about a person's expected behavior.

I wish more sites would propose a "no negative comment" rule. I might post to more of them if they did. ;)

[paulacvdw]

It is a pity that there is a dearth of comments. But you know, there are some of us who do give and do. We don't do to "help" or to "fix" we do because it needs to be done, to extend help to the helpless.

Those helpless could be us if conditions for us had fallen this way. The giving from us comes from somewhere deep. I don't think it is genetics, I think it is a matter of exposure to open eyes and soul that allows us to give, and give and give.

It is so obvious, that even the givers who may be in a tough place themselves, can see that there are other people in even tougher places. If we the givers can help, even a little? We alleviate pain.

To be selfish, is there a Divine that may let us, the givers, avoid that same pain by giving even if it hurts? I don't have that answer.

[CosmicChaos]

If you help someone for nothing and just ask them to help others in the future if they want to do something for you, then you have helped make a better society.

I have seen much of my assistance to young people get paid forward this way over the last two decades.

There is no greater reward for me than seeing someone I mentored, mentor another person.

[hypnotoad72]

(Conclusion)

Even with sexuality. Anybody can teach "this part goes into this part". Anybody can say "don't do it until". But neither of those sides really goes into the core MEANING. Lose the meaning and the game is over. Though it's not a game... at least until the meaning is dropped.

(replace the word "sexuality" with almost any other concept in our society. It is no different.)

In short, it takes a village. And the first people who need to understand that are the village idiots.

If anybody has any better ideas or allusions as to how to turn the world around, post them so we can read them. After all, I've talked about reinstating school uniforms, discipline, and other concepts in the past and get spat on. Well, it's your turn, folks. What are your solutions. And we'll see who spits this time.

[hypnotoad72]

I wholly agree. It is nurture.

With the rise in crime, unwanted pregnancies, violence, and easily prevented diseases -- all we need do is look at our ambient environment and what it says. Then, and this is the hard part because this bit isn't so obvious, we need to look at ourselves.

Or, to counter the "free speech" folks who will undoubtedly accuse me of being a dictator-wannabe, our environment needs to remind people that what passes as entertainment should not be indicative of a culture and what it values most. It is not a matter of some fascist state only showing saccharine fluff on television. It is about the people of society raising their young to value certain things, to discipline when they do wrong, what wrong is. Television has become a nanny in our purported "modern, sophisticated times". Not that it has done much of any good, if what certain people tell me about what's going on in our educational system is true. (There was a time when chewing gum was punishment, met with being hit with a ruler. 50 years later, one can chew gum, tobacco, or anything else and the so-called principals, who obviously lack principles, whine "There's nothing we can do". Okay, WHY can't they do anything? What are the repercussions? Do they really care? )

(to be continued)

[ChelleAgain]

No negative comments isn't really a healthy goal. Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a book called Bright-sided about the harmful nature of the heavy-handed trend in this society to always be positive. A better goal would be not to engage in insults, but there is much good in debate and civil disagreement.

As to the study, I can't say it holds true in my life -- doesn't mean that I'm not a fluke. :)

[Bozwellian]

A hedge bet for even the MOST selfishly inclined--that old golden rule "do unto others as would have done unto you'...Treat another as you want to be treated and mere survival mode mentality refined thru experience that better to gather together and assist one another helps promote survival of all or at the very least some or most and etc....Mere common sense and begs the question is that why have the ability to LEARN even from failures so as to very least NOT keep repeating ?

[ConstitutionCrusader]

thank you, captain obvious! You've saved the day!

[hypnotoad72]

Well, the author of this article has clearly done a lot more than you currently have.

What are your solutions to the problems of today?

[racetoinfinity]

It's not in the genes; (except so far as) it's 'in' Spirit.

[nefariouschafe]

Should we be concerned that the call for no negative comments has resulted in no comments whatsoever?

[racetoinfinity]

lol

[706makeupgirl]

Thats funny that you say that, because there is a derth of comments!

[stjam8]

No negative comments doesn't go far enoough. When a politican is speaking, Wouldn't it be great if they all could say was the truth. Not the cutsy way some have taking things out context to make it seem it something its not. Or quoting studies that have been done by the company being regulated. Well that won't happen. But Jon Stewart pointed out it would be great if the journalists did their jobs and challenged untrue statments, instead saying "that all we have time for". Recently Rachael Maddow did a follow up on Americans for Prosperity, a company that insists it's a "Grass Roots" organization. Then you see their advertisement on MSNBC. So, even on this channel, money trumps truth.