Today I Found Out…

[Secular Sanity]

What do you guys think about the "we got tired of taking your shit" hypothesis?

One possible narrative begins about 2.5 million years ago, when the last common ancestor of bonobos and chimpanzees lived both north and south of the Zaire River, as did gorillas, their ecological rivals. A massive drought drove gorillas from the south, and they never returned. That last common ancestor suddenly had the southern jungles to themselves.

As a result, competition for resources wouldn’t be as fierce as before. Aggression, such a costly habit, wouldn’t have been so necessary. And whereas a resource-limited environment likely made female alliances rare, as they are in modern chimpanzees, reduced competition would have allowed females to become friends. No longer would males intimidate them and force them into sex. Once reproduction was no longer traumatic, they could afford to be fertile more often, which in turn reduced competition between males.

“If females don’t let you beat them up, why should a male bonobo try to be dominant over all the other males?” said Hare. “In male chimps, it’s very costly to be on top. Often in primate hierarchies, you don’t stay on top very long. Everyone is gunning for you. You’re getting in a lot of fights. If you don’t have to do that, it’s better for everybody.” Chimpanzees had been caught in what Hare called “this terrible cycle, and bonobos have been able to break this cycle.” In doing so, they rose to primate supremacy in a region roughly the size of the United States east of the Mississippi River, and reigned unchallenged until Homo sapiens came along.

All this, at least, is the hypothesis: It’s important to note that it’s a proposed rather than certain scenario. It’s at least conceivable, if highly unlikely, that bonobos started out peaceful and chimpanzees became more aggressive. Conclusive proof would require a time machine. Still, the evidence is suggestive and the scenario plausible. source

[Secular Sanity]

It is learned. It's not innate.

Children wouldn't have to "develop empathy" if out-group empathy were innate.

Syne is probably right.  I mean, who wouldn’t fight over a Cadbury Wispa?  Resources may be the cause of in-group bias, but having diverse social experiences are effective in mitigating such biases.

Rat Status

[Magical Realist]

"The capacity for empathy seems to be innate, and is evident even in other species — the adult elephant that tried to rescue a baby rhino stuck in the mud despite being charged by its mother, as recounted by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy in “When Elephants Weep” (Delacorte Press, 1995).

Manifestations of empathy often show up early in life, as when a toddler brings a favorite toy or blanket to another child who is injured or in distress. Some experts maintain that infants display empathy when they whimper or cry upon hearing another baby cry.

Children may enter the world with different capacities for empathy, a result of neural connections in the brain. The capacity for empathy may be partly or wholly lacking in disorders like autism and schizophrenia, in which the mind is focused inward.

But in otherwise normal children, the environment in which they are reared can make a big difference in whether empathy is fostered or suppressed. Healthy self-esteem is essential to empathy, so anything that helps children feel good about themselves will also help them recognize and respond effectively to the feelings of others."===http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/health...ml?mcubz=0

[Secular Sanity]

"The capacity for empathy seems to be innate, and is evident even in other species. 

You’re born with the capacity for language, too.

[confused2]

http://cdn2.ubergizmo.com/wp-content/upl...untain.jpg
I empathised.

[Syne]

What do you guys think about the "we got tired of taking your shit" hypothesis?

One possible narrative begins about 2.5 million years ago, when the last common ancestor of bonobos and chimpanzees lived both north and south of the Zaire River, as did gorillas, their ecological rivals. A massive drought drove gorillas from the south, and they never returned. That last common ancestor suddenly had the southern jungles to themselves.

As a result, competition for resources wouldn’t be as fierce as before. Aggression, such a costly habit, wouldn’t have been so necessary. And whereas a resource-limited environment likely made female alliances rare, as they are in modern chimpanzees, reduced competition would have allowed females to become friends. No longer would males intimidate them and force them into sex. Once reproduction was no longer traumatic, they could afford to be fertile more often, which in turn reduced competition between males.

“If females don’t let you beat them up, why should a male bonobo try to be dominant over all the other males?” said Hare. “In male chimps, it’s very costly to be on top. Often in primate hierarchies, you don’t stay on top very long. Everyone is gunning for you. You’re getting in a lot of fights. If you don’t have to do that, it’s better for everybody.” Chimpanzees had been caught in what Hare called “this terrible cycle, and bonobos have been able to break this cycle.” In doing so, they rose to primate supremacy in a region roughly the size of the United States east of the Mississippi River, and reigned unchallenged until Homo sapiens came along.

All this, at least, is the hypothesis: It’s important to note that it’s a proposed rather than certain scenario. It’s at least conceivable, if highly unlikely, that bonobos started out peaceful and chimpanzees became more aggressive. Conclusive proof would require a time machine. Still, the evidence is suggestive and the scenario plausible. source

Seems this hypothesis may asserted out of ignorance.

Their male-dominated close relatives the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) are known to be violently aggressive both to chimps from other colonies and in the way they hunt monkeys for food.

Until now bonobos were thought to be very different, living largely peaceful lives and restricting their meat consumption to small forest antelopes, squirrels and rodents.

But the new research has shown that, like the common chimpanzee, bonobos are not above pursuing, killing and eating their primate cousins.

Scientists made the discovery while investigating a bonobo population living in LuiKotale, part of Salonga National Park in the DRC.

On three separate occasions bonobos were seen to organise hunting parties which resulted in monkeys being captured and eaten. Two other hunts ended in failure.

Notably, females actively engaged in the pursuit of prey - something that is never seen in common chimpanzees.
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/...-love.html

If you like the bonobo-human comparisons, that would seem to imply that bisexual promiscuity and a lack of lifelong pair-bonding may simply make females more bloodthirsty.

---

"The capacity for empathy seems to be innate, and is evident even in other species — the adult elephant that tried to rescue a baby rhino stuck in the mud despite being charged by its mother, as recounted by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy in “When Elephants Weep” (Delacorte Press, 1995).

Manifestations of empathy often show up early in life, as when a toddler brings a favorite toy or blanket to another child who is injured or in distress.

As you said, "That is a learned preference. Children are exposed very early to..."

Some experts maintain that infants display empathy when they whimper or cry upon hearing another baby cry.

Experts also say that infants may simply be responding to a cue that means their own discomfort.

Children may enter the world with different capacities for empathy, a result of neural connections in the brain. The capacity for empathy may be partly or wholly lacking in disorders like autism and schizophrenia, in which the mind is focused inward.

But in otherwise normal children, the environment in which they are reared can make a big difference in whether empathy is fostered or suppressed. Healthy self-esteem is essential to empathy, so anything that helps children feel good about themselves will also help them recognize and respond effectively to the feelings of others."===http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/health...ml?mcubz=0

Is this another straw man? Who ever disputed that empathy couldn't be fostered or suppressed? O_o
And what does this red herring have to do with your claim that out-group empathy is innate? O_o

[Magical Realist]

Is this another straw man? Who ever disputed that empathy couldn't be fostered or suppressed? O_o
And what does this red herring have to do with your claim that out-group empathy is innate? O_o

"The capacity for empathy seems to be innate, and is evident even in other species — the adult elephant that tried to rescue a baby rhino stuck in the mud despite being charged by its mother, as recounted by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy in “When Elephants Weep”

[Syne]

Is this another straw man? Who ever disputed that empathy couldn't be fostered or suppressed? O_o
And what does this red herring have to do with your claim that out-group empathy is innate? O_o

"The capacity for empathy seems to be innate, and is evident even in other species — the adult elephant that tried to rescue a baby rhino stuck in the mud despite being charged by its mother, as recounted by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy in “When Elephants Weep”

It's sad that this must be asked, but why are you citing an adult elephant as an example of innate, i.e. unlearned, behavior? O_o

[Magical Realist]

If empathy is learned, then how is it that sociopaths don't learn it? The only way that could happen is if they lack the inborn ability to empathize.

"It’s official, babies are born with empathy. It’s not an add-on. Paul Bloom of Yale University in Connecticut, after carrying out a series of studies of babies, argues that a sense of morality is hard-wired, although it can subsequently be either enhanced or degraded according to experience.

This is not new information, it has been shown before, and it makes absolute sense, how could it not be so? Primitive humans depended on empathy – the ability to imagine another’s feelings and desire to help them – because man or woman could not survive alone in the wild (although it’s easier now, what with Facebook and everything). Back in those days we needed to help each other in order to carry on living, and those who didn’t keep to the reciprocal rules died out, along with their genes.

Primitive peoples did not have the time to teach their children kindness, empathy and moral values, they were too busy trying not to die. Plus they didn’t know they had to."---https://stephaniedaviesarai.com/empathy-is-innate/

[Syne]

Someone obviously can't keep up with the discussion.

In-group empathy is innate, because it accounts for things like imprinting and familial cooperation. Out-group empathy must be taught.

Asking why some people do not learn certain things is ridiculously stupid. It's equivalent to asking, "If reading is learned, then how is it that illiterates don't learn it?" Yes, some illiteracy is due to an inherent inability, but even dyslexics can learn to read. Sociopaths likely learn better than anyone what mannerisms and responses are necessary to emulate empathy...which is why they often seem very "normal".


EDIT: Or just consider this. Were you taught to share? Why did you have to be taught that?