Altruism in Everyday Life

There are a lot of people needing help at the event and they do not think they are responsible for helping, they spread responsibility because they expect other people at the event to help I guess. As the number of people in the field increases, responsibility is dispersed to people in the field, so the responsibility of each individual is reduced. That is why there may be meetings of people who need help, and the surrounding people will look around and plan action accordingly.

However, when Wilson did not notice the evolutionary model, it introduced its important fix. In "Altruism in Daily Life" he figured out the spatial distribution of Binghamton's sociocity score above. The high score in a certain area and the low score in other areas are definitely together. Spatial structure defines the possibility of interaction. Schelling's research shows the results of separation even though they prefer only "similar" neighbors (Schelling 1971; Schelling 1978). With this spatially structured interaction, pure altruists can survive and certainly prosper (Ohtsuki et al., 2006). Multi-level selection is unnecessary, personal level selection is enough

Tom Morton: Now, you may ask, how about it? What is the relationship between this fairly strange discussion about personal choice and group selection and burning issues in everyday life? If we are thinking that altruism exists, or if there is truly selfishness under our warm, ambiguous sentiment, what is really important? Robert Frank: If people in the experimental game environment tell you that your partner deceives you, you will find common cheating accordingly. And people do not even think they are doing something bad. Therefore, I believe that other people take opportunistic behavior. I think this is a way to deceive everyone's opportunistic behavior. We have done a few experiments, Tom Gilovic and Dennis Regan and I, we discovered that people who experienced economics are more likely to cheat on these games than those who are not economics Did.

This is an attractive controversial seed. In fact, Trivers (1971) and Dawkins (1976) themselves were also tempted. But do not be convinced. The important thing to keep in mind is that bio attractions can not be made equal to altruism in the daily regional sense. Bioartitism is defined by fitness results, not incentives. Most "creatures" do not have "real" altruism or "real" selfishness when "real" altruism refers to consciously useful altruism. For example, ants and termites may not have the intention of consciousness, so their actions can not be aimed at promoting their own interests and others' interests. Therefore, the above argument of evolution shows that essentially altruism is obvious.