Stephanie Brown’s theory that we are genetically programmed for altruistic behavior makes sense – but I don’t like it very much.
For one thing, you could interpret it to mean that we should get little or no credit for any heroic or self-sacrificing act. So if I throw myself in front of a truck to save a toddler, people might only shrug and say, “well, he was genetically programmed to do that.”
On the other hand, blaming evolution may make it easier to desert my sick wife and go party all night. I could say, “well, you can’t blame me; the programming in my particular genome gave me stronger selfish genes than unselfish ones.”
Or, as Marlene Dietrich used to sing, “I can’t help it.”
To me, any theory about genetically programmed human behavior is fascinating for this reason: It is a new version of the age-old argument as to whether man has free will. First theologians argued about whether salvation was predestined, or whether we could achieve it by having the right faith or doing the right amount of good works.
Later, social scientists fought over whether we have any choice in what we do, and if so, how much. Karl Marx argued that the triumph of Communism was predetermined by the iron laws of history. Later Marxists thought you could jump-start history a bit. Last time I looked, their classes had been canceled, but the debate goes on.
I am no expert on psychological theory, but I have read and been impressed by some of the work done by Stephanie Brown and her father Michael, also a psychology professor. The worst part of their work is that they seem to have borrowed most of their terminology from investment bankers.
They call what they are talking about a “selective investment theory,” and say that what our genes are trying to do is “address the problem of costly long-term investment.”
Frankly, I wish my genes had been programmed better to do just that with my pension fund. But what they really are saying is that a certain amount of selflessness is genetically useful, something that really should seem obvious. After all, if you don’t protect your children, your genetic line stands in grave danger of dying out.
One of the aspects of their theory that I find most appealing actually has been tested and pretty much proven true. According to the Browns, acts of unselfishness, and doing things for others ought to have a powerful positive impact on the giver, if we are in fact programmed to do them.
Three years ago, Psychology Today published a study of elderly married couples. They found that those who provided emotional or practical support to their spouses or friends and relatives reduced the caregivers’ chances of dying by 40 to 60 percent.
Interestingly, those who were being doted on by their loved ones lived about as long as they would have otherwise. So the next time my spouse gets sick, maybe I won’t go out partying after all.
Life is designed by some sort of intelligence, God created life
Posted by: anya | October 10, 2007 at 11:00 PM