But it did a dominant trait. It just has different windows of expressing itself — you know much like a flu outbreak. It is consistent in our actions.
Because psychopaths would use force or deception to get their needs met, I'm not so sure that they would be favored by natural selection, for it is only a matter of time before a stronger, smarter rival would take notice and put a cap on it.
Not when they have dominated the realm. Also, the cat vs dog antithesis pretty much explains your narrative. They offer something to be able to continue with this kind of behavior. Nature does not care "what". It works with humans, we have a symbiotic relationship in other words, because we are emotional beings.
I've seen a few studies over the years that show that selfish behavior is not favored by natural selection. Some scientists have tried to justify selfish behavior with the Prisoners Dilemna game, but historically, that tactic assumed no communication between the prisoners, thus no cooperation.
This narrative does not hold. We are all selfish. Even when animals demonstrate altruistic behavior they do it so they can benefit themselves. Now, we can examine behavior such as reciprocal altruism found in bats but still there is a selfish element going. If they don't feed the babies of others bats, their die.
Recent studies used the Prisoners Dilemna with a twist: they allowed communication and cooperation between the prisoners. When the prisoners cooperated, better outcomes for each ensued.
Social and psychological studies do not measure as "scientific" to me because there is rarely objective replicability of the outcomes.
In each of the examples you offered here, I found myself trying to find a biological basis for such behavior in terms of reproductive success. I confess that I am at a loss to see the benefit of psychopathy in the animal kingdom.
The benefit is clearly group survival by propagating fitness.
In this particular respect, I am in agreement with you and Ayn Rand. There is no such thing as true altruism. There is always a selfish aspect to it.
But I can think of numerous groups of people whose aim is to direct that selfish act towards the group as well, In those groups, "when I help myself, I help my brother". In that context, purely selfish action is not favored by the group, thus reducing the influence of the selfish actor.
I'm still not in complete agreement with you in your assessment about propogating fitness. Actions that incite the ire of anothre species will lead eventually to adapations that work against the actor species. I'd say that in almost all of life, we see some sort of symbiosis, cooperation.
While writing my response, I was remined of the movie, "I am - The Movie". That movie clearly showed the sybiosis and even democracies in animal culture. One example that I remember clearly is how a flock of birds will "vote" on which way to fly. I encourage you watch that movie just to see the examples provided.
Given the amount of interdependence almost all of life has on each other, I don't think that selfishness is favored by natural selection.
One final point that I think should be addressed. If you believe that social and psychological studies cannot be replicated as in the Scientific Method, I wonder if you might provide such an example.
all small groups aim towards self preservation. Again, an evolutionary mechanism. As resources get scarce and gene variation is ensured among large populations then fitness starts getting hardcore.
not always. A leopard can develop sharper claws while a gazelle can run faster. Evolutionary mechanisms are random based on given variations in the ecosystem.
I would have to check this one out
any. bring me any study from sociology and psychology and I will debunk it.
Sure. Try this one.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3193