*In a simple experiment, researchers at the University of Chicago sought to find out whether a rat would release a fellow rat from an unpleasantly restrictive ca
ge if it could. The answer was yes.
The free rat, occasionally hearing distress calls from its compatriot, learned to open the cage and did so with greater efficiency over time. It would release the other animal even if there wasn’t the payoff of a reunion with it. Astonishingly, if given access to a small hoard of chocolate chips, the free rat would usually save at least one treat for the captive— which is a lot to expect of a rat.
The researchers came to the unavoidable conclusion that what they were seeing was empathy— and apparently selfless behavior driven by that mental state.*
I find this really interesting and for some reason I feel like it should make me feel hopeful, but the part about the free rat saving food for the captive rat makes me want to die a little bit. What the hell is wrong with me?
I find it interesting that one of the researches says, “There is a common misconception that sharing and helping is a cultural occurrence. But this is not a cultural event. It is part of our biological inheritance,” but also says “There is nothing in it for them except for whatever feeling they get from helping another individual.” What makes her think there are “feelings” involved? Why can’t it be that rats (or humans, for that matter) help a fallen soldier because they’re hard-wired to?
I read it a while ago, yes, so cool! Here is an article I posted on the SDMB just yesterday, by a philosopher discussing the empathy (or morality, as he calls it). I think he makes some good points: we tend to easily dismiss animals being kind as being anthropomorphism on our part, when we may have no realistic basis to decide wether it’s one or the other.
ETA: MeanOldLady - I don’t think “feelings” necessarily means “not hardwired”, if you see what I mean? You might say they are hardwired to respond certain “feelings”. After all, aren’t feelings just chemicals in the brain?
Well, in the case of humans we know there are feelings involved because, in most cases such as this, people actually feel them. I see no particular reason to think rats wold not feel something too.
Anyway, whether or not there is anything cultural involved for the rats (and I do not see that the experiment proves there is not something rudimentarily cultural going on here - he is just assuming they have no culture because they are rats), the scientist is talking through his ass if he thinks this shows that there are no cultural aspects to the analogous sorts of behavior in human. At most the experiment suggests (not proves) that there are biologically innate aspects to altruism towards conspecifics (in some species). It does not even suggest that there are no cultural aspects or determinants of human altruistic behavior (which would most certainly be false).
I see what you’re saying, and fair enough. It’s fair to say that animals are hard-wired to have feelings, or that they’re hard-wired to respond in certain ways to those feelings. But I also reckon some things are fairly reflexive and feelings or thoughts don’t go into it at all. I’m not entirely discounting the idea that rats feel empathy, but I’m not sure that observing rats help fellow rats for no ostensible reward necessarily means they must have done so for an emotional payoff. I am not a neurobiologist (duh), so I’m just talking.
Right.
Right. This may just be some sort of preserve the tribe auto-response.
Yes, but the standard Dawkins-style line that dominates evolutionary theory these days is that evolution, and genes, don’t give a damn about species survival. Selection happens at the level of genes, or maybe of individual organisms, not of species. This result does look like a challenge to that.
People do help each other, and sometimes act selflessly, too, you know, not that infrequently, and rats can certainly be pretty nasty to each other on occasion.
Saw this on Nova ScienceNow. It was a nifty experiment, and of course made me feel all warm and fuzzy and love the wonderful critters we share our planet with a little bit more. The OP doesn’t mention that the rat would actually prioritize freeing the other ratty before going for the treat.
They did similar experiments with a pair of chimps. Also with the host trapped in a box in Times Square.
Rats are really cool critters. I had a couple of them as class pets back in the '80s- they are very friendly, intelligent and affectionate. They are almost dog-like in behavior towards their owners compared to the other caged rodent type pets. That one would help out another doesn’t surprise me in the least.
They do seem to hate mice- my rat escaped his cage one night and let himself into the cage with two mice. He killed them by biting their skulls and returned to his cage. He seemed very proud of himself when I came in the next morning.
Since it sounds like drugs or mental illness probably were a major factor in that incident, I wouldn’t take that to mean that humans as a whole are so bad.
I have pet rats, and this doesn’t surprise me at all. One of mine got injured slightly a long time ago, and was feeling woozy afterwards (a dog tried to eat her, but missed). When I put her back in the cage, the other two rats made a little nest for her out of toilet paper and brought her food, and just generally cared for her until she was feeling well. Now they are all pretty old, and they look after each other still. It’s very touching to see. I know it’s common to ascribe human emotions to animals, but honestly, after watching them, I have no doubt that they feel love for one another and care for each other out of empathy and consideration. It seems fairly obvious to me.
Mental illness kept all the people on the platform from trying to help, or even getting close enough to appear in the photograph, for the entire 22 seconds before the guy was hit? Mental illness made the paper publish that shot?
I take it for granted that cooperation (hence kindness and doing well by each other etc) are hard-wired behaviors.
Consider this as an interesting bias: competitive, aggressive behaviors are treated as inevitably part of our nature (or the nature of other critters); but cooperative, kind behaviors are treated as some kind of thin weak veneer we attempt to paste over the former, and this is used to argue that any attempt to live with each other based on cooperation and sharing and freedom will inevitably fail because we’re hard-wired to want our jackboots on someone else’s neck.
Individuals will attend to their own survival and will often kill others of their own kind as need be to ensure it. That’s evolutionary. But individuals will also attend to each other and thus contribute to group survival, and will sometimes sacrifice themselves to accomplish that contribution. That’s also evolutionary. Your genes are more likely to get passed along if other members of your species or herd or family are inclined to help you out altruistically.
We have attitudes towards the “warm” aspects, kindness and charitability and so forth, that regard them as NOT part of the laws that govern behaviors and outcomes but instead as exceptions to those laws, pitiful and ineffectual attempts on our part to be nice in the face of a pitiless adversarial world that runs on pitiless and adversarial laws and principles. And that’s simply not true.
