Even babies understand it, but the paradox of why we give to others is still unresolved.
Wanganui food bank, photo Stuart Munro
“Behold the stinging bee, the toilsome ant, the nurturing sterile mole rat,” wrote the author of The Price of Altruism, Oren Harman, in the Scientist magazine recently. “Consider the social amoeba, Dictyostelium discoideum, in which altruistic stalk cells give their lives so their brothers can climb them to the tip of the co-operative spire and be carried away to better fortunes by a felicitous wind.”
Quite. And now that we have officially entered the season for giving, you might be wondering, why bother? You will not be alone. The paradox of altruism has attracted the attentions of biologists, mathematicians, neuroscientists, philosophers and psychologists for decades; what is the point of altruism when there are no obvious or guaranteed benefits, and it may even come at a cost?
Many argue altruism doesn’t actually exist; we’re nice to the family, but that doesn’t count as it’s tending to our own gene pool. We might be kind to non-relatives, but only in the expectation that if we give, so we will receive. Some argue that giving promotes co-operation that benefits the whole group, and therefore the individual. Others argue altruism is a “maladaptation” inherited from another epoch, which was useful when humans moved in small kin groups and had to look out for each other, but is irrelevant in the modern world in which most encounters are with strangers.
No doubt researchers will continue to discuss the matter, but so far decades of research seem to lead to the anticlimactic conclusion that, well, not all aspects of human nature make biological sense. Still, if the definitive explanation on the role and origins of kindness remains elusive, the search for it has produced some curious insights.
It’s in the DNA: Various studies show those who have variants of a gene called AVPR1a are more altruistic than those who don’t, and greater acts of altruism are exhibited among those in whom a key section of the gene, its promoter, is longer. This gene codes for the production of a receptor that enables a hormone, arginine vasopressin – which is implicated in social bonding – to act on brain cells. AVPR1a is also found in voles.
We learn early: Babies have a natural sense of fairness and show signs of altruistic behaviour as early as 15 months. That’s according to a test in which psychologists analysed the reactions of babies after they watched films of two people being given crackers and milk. Centring around the “violation of expectancy” (that young children pay more attention to things that surprise them), the study showed that children were surprised when one person got more crackers or milk than the other. Interestingly, the babies who were most surprised were also more inclined to share their toys. That babies would be surprised to learn life isn’t fair perhaps shouldn’t be that startling, given it’s an aspect of life that confounds many well into adulthood.
It’s in the personality: In a study involving almost 1000 participants, researchers at the University of Kent found that 52% of people with a prosocial personality gave money, compared with 42% of people with an individualistic personality and only 21% of people with a competitive personality. The authors said the results should be useful for charities interested in developing marketing strategies aimed at getting competitive types to give a little.
It’s in the anterior cortex: According to MRI scans, giving and receiving lead to heightened activity in the anterior prefrontal cortex, a part of the mid-brain involved in primal desires, such as food and sex. So although the “joy of giving” has an anatomical basis in the brain, it’s governed by an area that also mediates selfish longings and the drive for rewards.
It’s an antidepressant: Helping others can be as good as drugs, counselling, diet and exercise at lifting the spirits, according to a paper by the American Psychological Association. The authors argue “service to others” delivers a “helper’s high” that improves physical and mental health, and may even extend our life span. This, cautioned the authors, is a matter of degree – too much giving will lead to “caretaker burnout”.
It’s sexy: Women, it seems, are more likely to fall for the altruistically inclined, although both sexes consider altruistic traits when choosing a mate. Researchers have put this down to the cost of kids; with the length of time it takes to raise children, it would have been wise for our ancestors to choose mates who make good long-term parents, and altruism would have been a good indicator.
Or maybe kindness has just become one of those things that make humans human, and some people more human, and more attractive, than others.
TO MUM WITH LOVE
Photo Carolyn Robertson/NZH
Researchers at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City have shown mice fetuses promote their own survival by giving up stem cells to repair their mother’s damaged cardiac tissue. Researchers said this may explain why half the women who develop heart weakness during or just after pregnancy recover -spontaneously.
TEETHING PROBLEMS
Modern orthodontic problems, such as with wisdom teeth, could be the result of a soft modern diet. Researchers at the University of Kent examined museum specimens of skulls from 11 human populations around the world, five of which had lifestyles based on hunting, gathering or fishing, while the other six relied on agriculture. The hunter-gatherer groups generally had longer and narrower lower jaws, allowing room for teeth to grow, while the agriculturalists’ jaws were shorter and broader, increasing the chance of dental crowding.
DON’T TELL ME ABOUT IT
The less people know about important complex issues such as the economy, energy consumption and the environment, the less they want to know. That’s according to a paper published online in the APA’s Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which drew on five studies involving more than 500 adults in the US and Canada. The researchers described a chain reaction in which people’s ignorance about a subject led to dependence on and trust in the government to deal with it, which led to more reluctance to learn about an issue because it could shatter -people’s faith in the government.