Content deleted Content added
Glenwspiteri (talk | contribs) Expanded introduction, enhanced bibliography. |
Glenwspiteri (talk | contribs) Evolutionary theory section, split into three sub-sections. |
||
Line 29:
== Evolutionary
A study by academics at [[Harvard University]] and the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] suggested that the human tendency to be altruistically ineffective can be explained through [[evolution]] and [[evolutionary game theory]].<ref name=":1" /> The article proposes that previously held views of a human incapacity to calculate impact are not generalizable. In one of their studies, they discovered that their subjects were perfectly capable to calculate impact when given the opportunity to multiply an endowment to save money for their future selves. On the other hand, when asked to do the same calculation when donating money to charity, there was no effect. The authors suggest that people respond to efficacy when giving to themselves, but less so when donating to charity.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last=Jaeger |first=Bastian |last2=van Vugt |first2=Mark |date=April 2022 |title=Psychological barriers to effective altruism: An evolutionary perspective |url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.09.008 |journal=Current Opinion in Psychology |volume=44 |pages=130-134 |via=Elsevier Science Direct}}</ref>
=== Parochialism ===
Similarly, people are sensitive to effectiveness when their [[Kin selection|kin]] is at stake,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Nowak |first=M. A. |date=2006 |title=Five rules for the evolution of cooperation |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1133755 |journal=Science |volume=314 |issue=5805 |pages=1560-1563 |via=Science}}</ref> but not so much when confronted with a needy stranger.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hamilton |first=W. D. |date=September 1963 |title=The Evolution of Altruistic Behavior |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/497114 |journal=The American Naturalist |language=en |volume=97 |issue=896 |pages=354–356 |doi=10.1086/497114 |issn=0003-0147 |via=The University of Chicago Press Journals}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Darwin |first=C. |title=On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life |publisher=P. F. Collier & Son |year=1859}}</ref> Throughout human evolutionary history, residing in small, tightly-knit groups has given rise to prosocial emotions and intentions towards kin and ingroup members, rather than universally extending to those outside the group boundaries.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Aktipis |first=Athena |last2=Cronk |first2=Lee |last3=Alcock |first3=Joe |last4=Ayers |first4=Jessica D. |last5=Baciu |first5=Cristina |last6=Balliet |first6=Daniel |last7=Boddy |first7=Amy M. |last8=Curry |first8=Oliver Scott |last9=Krems |first9=Jaimie Arona |last10=Muñoz |first10=Andrés |last11=Sullivan |first11=Daniel |last12=Sznycer |first12=Daniel |last13=Wilkinson |first13=Gerald S. |last14=Winfrey |first14=Pamela |date=July 2018 |title=Understanding cooperation through fitness interdependence |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0378-4 |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |language=en |volume=2 |issue=7 |pages=429–431 |doi=10.1038/s41562-018-0378-4 |issn=2397-3374}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Greene |first=Joshua |title=Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them |publisher=Penguin Press |year=2013 |isbn=978-0-14-312605-8 |location=New York, NY |language=en}}</ref> Humans tend to exhibit [[Parochialism|parochial]] tendencies, showing concern for their [[In-group favoritism|in-groups]], but not [[In-group and out-group|out-groups]].<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":1" />
This parochial inclination can hinder effective altruism, especially as a significant portion of human suffering occurs in distant regions.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Singer |first=Peter |title=The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty |publisher=Random House |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-4000-6710-7 |edition=1st |location=United States |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bloom |first=Paul |date=2017-01 |title=Empathy and Its Discontents |url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.004 |journal=Trends in Cognitive Sciences |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=24–31 |doi=10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.004 |issn=1364-6613}}</ref>
Despite the potential impact of donations abroad, individuals in affluent societies often display less empathy for the suffering of distant others [15], viewing assistance as less obligatory than helping those in close proximity [14,27,28]. Contrary to a global perspective, many individuals adhere to the notion that 'charity begins at home,' preferring local donations and contributions to organizations with personal connections [2,7]. For instance, an Italian study found increased donations to earthquake victims when participants felt a stronger connection to the affected area, such as central Italy [13]. Similarly, participants were more inclined to contribute to a child in need if described as residing in their neighborhood rather than the same city or country [13].
Additionally, parochialism introduces biases into cost-benefit evaluations relevant to effective giving. Research by Burum et al. [6] indicates that ineffective giving does not stem from a general failure to comprehend effectiveness information. Participants were willing to sacrifice more income to save five family members rather than one, yet this willingness did not differ when helping strangers, regardless of whether it would save five or one. These findings suggest that individuals can discern the impact of altruistic actions but choose not to consider it when beneficiaries are distant rather than close. Thus, parochialism limits the efficacy of altruistic acts by prioritizing close over distant others and reducing consideration of potential impacts on altruistic actions directed towards the latter.
=== Status ===
=== Conformity ===
== References ==
| |||