And it's altruism now ....

In my post Cooperation and Intelligence I mentioned this eagerness of (some) scientists to draw wild, fanciful and far-reaching conclusions about human behavior from a few miniscule observations.

Another example is this story from AP about babies being innately wired for altruism, based on behavioral studies.

Briefly, this is what was done. The researcher performed certain tasks in view of the subjects (18 month old toddlers). The researcher periodically made deliberate mistakes. The subjects saw the mistakes and attempted to help. They did not help if it appeared that the researcher made the same move on purpose -- only if it looked like a genuine mistake.

Now the researcher calls this "pro-social motivation" which sounds like a reasonable explanation. However, the article goes on to refer to the behavior as "altruistic" several times. It is not clear if the word comes from the researcher or from sloppy reporting. However, the article reports that anthropologist Joan Silk (presumably someone with scientific credentials) wrote in the accompanying review that the babies were motivated by "empathy".

There is a big stretch between "pro-social motivation" and "altruism", or even "empathy". According to Merriam Webster:

Altruism

1. unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2. behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

The first is a complex concept that requires language and an analytical mind to understand. These toddlers were pre-verbal; clearly they were not capable of such analysis. The second definition is simplistic and when applied to this case.

Defining a behavior as "not beneficial to" the subject assumes that you know exactly and completely what is beneficial to the subject.

The simpler and sparser explanation is that the behavior is directed towards gaining acceptance in the social group - perhaps by evoking appreciation and benevolence from others. Babies are somewhat helpless, and tend to rely on care from adults. In the same way that their disproportionately huge eyes look cute to adults, such behavior also evokes positive feelings from the social group. In other words, it is a survival trait for a social animal. There is nothing altruistic about it.

I can see how someone might call this "pro-social motivation." Calling it "altruism", on the other hand, makes absolutely no sense.