LR Bible: Page 262 # 2

[kristinaroz93]

1.) "Meerkat "sentinels," so called because they watch for predators while other Meerkat group members forage..."

I apologize for all the posts, it is just sometimes the explanations of the book confuse me a bit and I feel my understanding is not precise.

So, the book explains this whole cause and effect chain:

Altruism--> watchful behavior--> self protection and protection of others.

But then it goes on to give this explanation of why C is correct: "The author interprets the sentinels bark as a form of altruism, because it serves to alert other meerkats to the presence of danger. This is a mistake, because we cannot infer solely from the beneficial effect produced by an action that the purpose of the action is to produce that effect".

Bark--> alert for danger , but how does this fit in with the cause and effect chain above?

(At the point where my head is spinning =/)

Thanks in advance!

[Steve Stein]

Hey Kristina,

That's a good question; in that one, the author provides that meerkat sentinels' watchful behavior (guarding/barking) must be motivated at least partly by altruism, since their behavior results in benefit for others.

The author's claim is that the sentinels' watchful behavior, which benefits both the sentinels and others, must be caused in part by altruism:

Altruism Watchful Behavior benefit self and others

What is the problem with this line of reasoning? The fact that their behavior happens to benefit others doesn't necessarily mean the sentinels actually intend to be helpful. Those noises might result from fear, or instinct, or other factors that have nothing to do with altruism or helpful intent.

That is what correct answer choice (C) provides: We can't infer that the sentinels' purpose is to help others simply based on the fact that other meerkats happen to benefit from their watchful behavior.

We cannot infer, based on the benefits that result from the sentinels' behavior, that the sentinels stand guard and bark with altruistic purposes in mind.

Tough question! I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[kristinaroz93]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your response! Just to clarify, is this what you mean:

That we take this chain and drop the first part (altruism)
Altruism-->Watchful Behavior --> benefit self and others

So then we just primarily focus on
Watchful Behavior-->benefit self and others

Which in the terms you said is equivalent to: (since guarding/barking=watchful behavior)
guarding/barking-->benefit others

Which allows what you wrote here "What is the problem with this line of reasoning? The fact that their behavior happens to benefit others doesn't necessarily mean the sentinels actually intend to be helpful. Those noises might result from fear, or instinct, or other factors that have nothing to do with altruism or helpful intent." to make perfect sense.

Otherwise it seemed their were too many elements and things got confusing. Was it wrong to overlook some parts and shave things down this way so as to really break the problem down and make it clearer or is this actually what you meant all along?

[Steve Stein]

Hi Kristina,

Thanks for your response. I'd be hesitant to dismiss or overlook elements of the stimulus unless it's clear that they are not relevant to the analysis. To be clear, in this case, we know that the sentinels' barking results in beneficial warnings for the others:

Bark/guard/wachful behavior benefit for others

Based on those beneficial effects for others, the author concludes that the sentinels' behavior is motivated in part by altruism...

altruism bark/guard/watchful behavior benefit of others

...but, as the right answer provides, we can't conclude a selfless intent or purpose based merely on a beneficial effect.

Again, such behavior could have been caused by somthing other than altruism, and still led to the benefit of others:

fear bark/guard/watchful behavior benefit of others


I hope that's helpful--please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

Steve

[kristinaroz93]

Hi Steve,

I get it now, thank you so much! You have connected all of the elements/pieces of the puzzle for me! It all makes sense=)

-kristina

[Steve Stein]

Hey Kristina,

Thanks for your response--glad to hear that was helpful!

Steve

[avengingangel]

Hello! My head kinda exploded (too much?) when I read the answer choice explanation. I then began to try to understand the thread above, but I might be getting more confused... Anyway, below is my thought process on this question. Any help in addressing this would be appreciated:

I had "behavior" as the effect of altruism, since the author says "animal behavior is motivated at least in part by altruism." The earlier chapter said there are specific terms that giveaway cause and effect reasoning, (vs. conditional reasoning etc.,) such as chronology, so, I thought this terminology was indicating the altruistic thoughts occurred first (Cause), which was what motivated the animal behavior of the loud bark (Effect).

So I didn't choose (C) because I didn't see it as the purpose of the altruism was to produce the behavior (it was simply that the sentinel was altruistic, and, the loud bark behavior happened to occur as a result of that).

Does that all make sense? I of course see that I veered off the correct path at the beginning, choosing a different cause & effect.. but I still don't wholly understand why it would not be that way...

Separately --> What Type of causal problem is this?? What is the 'name' of it? It clearly has multiple effects... I feel like this hasn't been covered in the bible up to this point?!

Thanks!

[avengingangel]

Ah, and ONE more thing to add, regarding the explanation of the incorrect answer choice (E) here. I think the explanation might be a little of...

I think the Bible's explanation for this incorrect answer is not complete. I think that the test makers put this in here, and made this answer attractive because it is referring to the false claim that sentinel's behavior is entirely self-interested. This answer ultimately is incorrect because the author does not say that claim is false based on insufficient evidence, but rather that they think that there are additional motivators.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Angel,

Thanks for your question. I don't think you misunderstood the causal element in the conclusion; as Steve pointed out above, this is precisely what the conclusion posits: the sentinels' behavior is motivated in part by altruism (altruism behavior). Indeed, the author believes that altruism is the cause for the barking behavior.

The problem is, there could have been many other causes for the observed behavior (fear, for instance). I believe Steve clarified this line of reasoning in the earlier posts, which you should probably review again:

That is what correct answer choice (C) provides: We can't infer that the sentinels' purpose is to help others simply based on the fact that other meerkats happen to benefit from their watchful behavior.

We cannot infer, based on the benefits that result from the sentinels' behavior, that the sentinels stand guard and bark with altruistic purposes in mind.

This is a classic error in causal reasoning, where a cause is presumed to occur (altruism) because a possible effect of that cause has been found to occur (watchful behavior). The author is simply ignoring the possibility that other causes could have led to the same effect. This issue is discussed extensively in the Causal Reasoning chapter of the LR Bible.

Hope this clears things up!

Thanks,