I’d argue we develop under conditions of social cognition, right from the start, in the mother-infant coupling. We always seem to forget this perspective (perhaps because philosophy has only recently become the domain of women too?). We developmentally individuate, we are not grown-from or born-into independent existence. We develop into it. Yes, we extend and grow-in increased capability for more loosely-coupled “social” empathy as spindle neurons increase in number; hormonal bonds (oxytocin) are reinforced and then generalise to other activities, to relationships which have the distal status you discuss. Perhaps social cognition is already there, at the start, and we learn to individuate from it, and generalise it, rather than it being a secondary process. So perhaps what you discuss is a function of a continuum? That altruistic behaviours are instances of the development and extension of the same reciprocity-driven process but applied to very loosely coupled interactions along this continuum, as we individuate and become a physically and emotionally and normatively co-dependent on others? Perhaps it’s a natural extension of the natural state of reciprocity we develop under, and from which we learn what matters to us as individuals? I’m thinking of the social neuroscience discovery of the two “selfhood” loops - the internal “this matters to me/is about me”, and the external “this matters to me and is about me” which activate the same prefrontal cortex region. I’m just riffing here …
That’s such a good take, Margeret — almost a mirror inversion of mine. I was thinking of altruism as something that emerges once we have the machinery to model other minds. But you’re right — maybe that modeling is there from the start, in the mother–infant loop.
Individuation would then be a kind of loosening of that original coupling, not the beginning of connection. And what I’m calling altruism could just be that same reciprocity re-extending outward, once cognition gets strong enough to carry it past the immediate bond.
I’ll leave room for that possibility. My angle’s more on the cognitive side — the machinery and thresholds — whereas yours points to the relational, developmental side of the same loop. Two ways of describing how self and other first entangle.
Really appreciate your comment — it got me thinking.
I’d argue we develop under conditions of social cognition, right from the start, in the mother-infant coupling. We always seem to forget this perspective (perhaps because philosophy has only recently become the domain of women too?). We developmentally individuate, we are not grown-from or born-into independent existence. We develop into it. Yes, we extend and grow-in increased capability for more loosely-coupled “social” empathy as spindle neurons increase in number; hormonal bonds (oxytocin) are reinforced and then generalise to other activities, to relationships which have the distal status you discuss. Perhaps social cognition is already there, at the start, and we learn to individuate from it, and generalise it, rather than it being a secondary process. So perhaps what you discuss is a function of a continuum? That altruistic behaviours are instances of the development and extension of the same reciprocity-driven process but applied to very loosely coupled interactions along this continuum, as we individuate and become a physically and emotionally and normatively co-dependent on others? Perhaps it’s a natural extension of the natural state of reciprocity we develop under, and from which we learn what matters to us as individuals? I’m thinking of the social neuroscience discovery of the two “selfhood” loops - the internal “this matters to me/is about me”, and the external “this matters to me and is about me” which activate the same prefrontal cortex region. I’m just riffing here …
Interesting argument. Thank you.
That’s such a good take, Margeret — almost a mirror inversion of mine. I was thinking of altruism as something that emerges once we have the machinery to model other minds. But you’re right — maybe that modeling is there from the start, in the mother–infant loop.
Individuation would then be a kind of loosening of that original coupling, not the beginning of connection. And what I’m calling altruism could just be that same reciprocity re-extending outward, once cognition gets strong enough to carry it past the immediate bond.
I’ll leave room for that possibility. My angle’s more on the cognitive side — the machinery and thresholds — whereas yours points to the relational, developmental side of the same loop. Two ways of describing how self and other first entangle.
Really appreciate your comment — it got me thinking.