Science and ‘Survival of the Kindest’

Those who know me, know that I am not a worshipper at the altar of science. It has its place as an interpreter of reality, as an extender of our mental boundaries, but for at least the past 200 years it has functioned as if it could tell us the most important things: who we are, what we are here for, what the purpose of life and the universe is.

It can’t do those things, but the atrophy of religions in our day and the failure (finally!)  of beliefs in social, economic, and/or political utopias (ideologies, in a word) left a vacuum, which  scientists were as eager to fill as they were unqualified to fill it.

Nonetheless, when I find a report from scientists that confirms what I already believe, I’m happy to pass it along, with the caveat that the results of a study are no more than the results of a study. If another study tomorrow disproves this one, are we supposed to jump hoops to re-form our beliefs to meet the newer study? Apparently many scientists think so. I wish them well, but I’d rather anchor my beliefs in something a little more permanent, a little more solid, than this new variant of “the latest thing.”

This is from Science Daily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208155309.htm

Social Scientists Build Case for ‘Survival of the Kindest’

Science Daily (Dec. 9, 2009) — Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, are challenging long-held beliefs that human beings are wired to be selfish. In a wide range of studies, social scientists are amassing a growing body of evidence to show we are evolving to become more compassionate and collaborative in our quest to survive and thrive.


In contrast to “every man for himself” interpretations of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, Dacher Keltner, a UC Berkeley psychologist and author of “Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life,” and his fellow social scientists are building the case that humans are successful as a species precisely because of our nurturing, altruistic and compassionate traits.

They call it “survival of the kindest.”

“Because of our very vulnerable offspring, the fundamental task for human survival and gene replication is to take care of others,” said Keltner, co-director of UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center. “Human beings have survived as a species because we have evolved the capacities to care for those in need and to cooperate. As Darwin long ago surmised, sympathy is our strongest instinct.”

Empathy in our genes

Keltner’s team is looking into how the human capacity to care and cooperate is wired into particular regions of the brain and nervous system. One recent study found compelling evidence that many of us are genetically predisposed to be empathetic.

The study, led by UC Berkeley graduate student Laura Saslow and Sarina Rodrigues of Oregon State University, found that people with a particular variation of the oxytocin gene receptor are more adept at reading the emotional state of others, and get less stressed out under tense circumstances.

Informally known as the “cuddle hormone,” oxytocin is secreted into the bloodstream and the brain, where it promotes social interaction, nurturing and romantic love, among other functions.

“The tendency to be more empathetic may be influenced by a single gene,” Rodrigues said.

The more you give, the more respect you get

While studies show that bonding and making social connections can make for a healthier, more meaningful life, the larger question some UC Berkeley researchers are asking is, “How do these traits ensure our survival and raise our status among our peers?”

One answer, according to UC Berkeley social psychologist and sociologist Robb Willer is that the more generous we are, the more respect and influence we wield. In one recent study, Willer and his team gave participants each a modest amount of cash and directed them to play games of varying complexity that would benefit the “public good.” The results, published in the journal American Sociological Review, showed that participants who acted more generously received more gifts, respect and cooperation from their peers and wielded more influence over them.

“The findings suggest that anyone who acts only in his or her narrow self-interest will be shunned, disrespected, even hated,” Willer said. “But those who behave generously with others are held in high esteem by their peers and thus rise in status.”

“Given how much is to be gained through generosity, social scientists increasingly wonder less why people are ever generous and more why they are ever selfish,” he added.

Cultivating the greater good

Such results validate the findings of such “positive psychology” pioneers as Martin Seligman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania whose research in the early 1990s shifted away from mental illness and dysfunction, delving instead into the mysteries of human resilience and optimism.

While much of the positive psychology being studied around the nation is focused on personal fulfillment and happiness, UC Berkeley researchers have narrowed their investigation into how it contributes to the greater societal good.

One outcome is the campus’s Greater Good Science Center, a West Coast magnet for research on gratitude, compassion, altruism, awe and positive parenting, whose benefactors include the Metanexus Institute, Tom and Ruth Ann Hornaday and the Quality of Life Foundation.

Christine Carter, executive director of the Greater Good Science Center, is creator of the “Science for Raising Happy Kids” Web site, whose goal, among other things, is to assist in and promote the rearing of “emotionally literate” children. Carter translates rigorous research into practical parenting advice. She says many parents are turning away from materialistic or competitive activities, and rethinking what will bring their families true happiness and well-being.

“I’ve found that parents who start consciously cultivating gratitude and generosity in their children quickly see how much happier and more resilient their children become,” said Carter, author of “Raising Happiness: 10 Simple Steps for More Joyful Kids and Happier Parents” which will be in bookstores in February 2010. “What is often surprising to parents is how much happier they themselves also become.”

The sympathetic touch

As for college-goers, UC Berkeley psychologist Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton has found that cross-racial and cross-ethnic friendships can improve the social and academic experience on campuses. In one set of findings, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, he found that the cortisol levels of both white and Latino students dropped as they got to know each over a series of one-on-one get-togethers. Cortisol is a hormone triggered by stress and anxiety.

Meanwhile, in their investigation of the neurobiological roots of positive emotions, Keltner and his team are zeroing in on the aforementioned oxytocin as well as the vagus nerve, a uniquely mammalian system that connects to all the body’s organs and regulates heart rate and breathing.

Both the vagus nerve and oxytocin play a role in communicating and calming. In one UC Berkeley study, for example, two people separated by a barrier took turns trying to communicate emotions to one another by touching one other through a hole in the barrier. For the most part, participants were able to successfully communicate sympathy, love and gratitude and even assuage major anxiety.

Researchers were able to see from activity in the threat response region of the brain that many of the female participants grew anxious as they waited to be touched. However, as soon as they felt a sympathetic touch, the vagus nerve was activated and oxytocin was released, calming them immediately.

“Sympathy is indeed wired into our brains and bodies; and it spreads from one person to another through touch,” Keltner said.

The same goes for smaller mammals. UC Berkeley psychologist Darlene Francis and Michael Meaney, a professor of biological psychiatry and neurology at McGill University, found that rat pups whose mothers licked, groomed and generally nurtured them showed reduced levels of stress hormones, including cortisol, and had generally more robust immune systems.

Overall, these and other findings at UC Berkeley challenge the assumption that nice guys finish last, and instead support the hypothesis that humans, if adequately nurtured and supported, tend to err on the side of compassion.

“This new science of altruism and the physiological underpinnings of compassion is finally catching up with Darwin’s observations nearly 130 years ago, that sympathy is our strongest instinct,” Keltner said.

7 thoughts on “Science and ‘Survival of the Kindest’

  1. After reading the entire article I was still struck with the line, “Human beings have survived as a species because we have evolved the capacities to care for those in need and to cooperate”. The key word here is “cooperate”. Far too many times in our need to “care for” we use coercion to force our fellow man into some form of altruism for the “greater good”. The result is a backlash of resentment and rebellion. “The road to Hell is paved…”

  2. True enough. But even when we overdo it, it’s important to remember that those good intentions *are* good intentions. I think of watching my daughter and son-in-law with their seven-month-old first baby. Sure, they’re probably going to make mistakes — I only say “probably” instead of “definitely” because, after all, she *is* my daughter 🙂 — but the mistakes aren’t nearly as important as the love and caring. And if my granddaughter grows up resenting her parents’ mistakes, at some point she will mature enough to realize that they meant well and were doing their best. Isn’t that true of us all?

  3. We recently added Social and Emotional Learning as one of our school district’s goals. It’s hard to teach, and even harder to measure, but we’re seeing some rewards, eg improved conflict resolution skills.

    BTW, PBS just last night started a three-day series “This Emotional Life” talking a lot about empathy, bonding and social connections, and what happens to us when we don’t have that.

  4. Frank,

    Susanne would be interested to know, and perhaps others would too, that Howard Gardner’s multi-intelligence theory (MI) posits 2 kinds of intelligence (of the 8 intelligences now in his pantheon) under-girding social/emotional experience, of which “kind” is one dominant expression.

    Breaking that out, we have “Kind” to other Selves as the inter-personal intelligence at work, and “Kind” to one’s Self as the intra-personal at work. A precursor to Gardner is Dr. John W. Weilgart (of IQ Word matching surveys fame) who sees the “feeling” quadrant of Jung’s famous Compass of Consciousness (sense/think/feel/intuit) as two intrinsicate forces: one toward “life” (Gardner’s social I), and one toward “emotion” (Gardner’s emotional I). Given these overlapping confirmations, it’s easy to see that this very real “intelligence of the heart”, a term coined by Schwaller de Lubicz in his study of ancient Egyptian spirituality, is actually two complementary psychic forces within the Self. It is remarkable that these two forces, or tendencies of people to extrovert or introvert as Jung would say, have become subjects in the modern school system, though they are now called social intelligence and emotional intelligence. Is this not “Progress”?

    Though I have yet to read a book that gathers all the hard science to prove that we are hard-wired to be Kind or to have compassion, the book “The Spiritual Anatomy of Emotion” is a good start. In any case, survival of the fittest or survival of the kindest are still, in my book, rather simplistic takes on how we’ve made it thus far. And in my book, unfinished and unpublished, we made it thus far because, in the words of Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche, humans who are equally strong, clear, kind, and awake are always favored by chance, or necessity, or design to evolve more successfully than humans who are not.

    Clay Moldenhauer
    Charlottesville,Va.

    1. Clay, if you’d like to write a post on any aspect of this subject — particularly but not necessarily on the work of Schwaller de Lubicz — send it to me and I’ll post it on this blog or on The Context blog, depending on the center of gravity of the piece.

  5. Hi Frank,

    The most common vibration/pathway I use to crack the energy field of a clients is to fall in love. Not love, not a spiritual theoretical unconditional love, but to fall in love – interest, compassion, falling in love. This is something spirit has encouraged. Every part of my being vibrating at I love you, and I’m in.

    To connect and work with spirit I’ve been taught, by spirit, to use the middle/calm emotions/states – surprise, gratitude, peace, forgiveness, joy. To feel emotion is the greatest gift of all. We are the vines that nurture our children and the future.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *