[holyOrIonsBelt]

The title does not infer contrast between fitness and kindness, it infers that (were one to write a fitness function that was made up of a conglomerate of every human personality trait) kindness is the prime mover in what separates the fittest from the least fit.

I also think you might misunderstand what the word kindness means, as you refer to cruelty and strength as some measure of adequate relation to what would be deemed fit in some similar function.

I think it's a fairly cogent statement, as great and influential persons are, by and large, incredibly kind. Of course, if one thinks that power equates with influence, or that fitness is best represented by wealth, I would posit that there is a huge correlation between wealth, kindness, and authority. For instance, President Obama is quite obviously an incredibly kind man. William Gates, Jr., a philanthropist (read: about as far away from unkind as you can get), Her Majesty the Queen of England, the titular head of an Empire, leads a family that donates a huge amount of their wealth to the citizenry of the United Kingdom, and is as sunny as anyone in her position could possibly be (have you ever once seen her upset in public, because I haven't), these instances alone give clear indication that kindness is, indeed, perhaps an indisputable barometer of what is meant by being fit for survival.

By contrast, who do you know who is sought by society for capital punishment? The unkind, that's who. Those who are cruel are brought up before magistrates, tribunals, and high courts and told in no uncertain terms that their survival is undesirable by the masses.

Fitness in a world of more than a few is entirely dependent on symbiotic, cohesive, gentile (in the French sense, though Christ is an inordinately germane example of kindness too) behavior.

[matt4077]

> The title does not infer contrast between fitness and kindness

The titel "Forget X, it's Y that matters" is pretty close to the definition of a contrast.

Regarding your other thoughts: it'd be great if it were that easy, and I even agree that the sort of kindness Bill Gates and Barack Obama exhibit is probably a useful trait.

But the causality isn't quite clear. My impression is that these success stories are the result of combining (a) extreme intelligence and (b) extreme happiness, and that kindness is the natural result if, for example, they have absolute confidence in themselves and no longer feel any kind of threat from competition.

But I'd say the "Big 5" model provides a more complete set of traits that have become more and more relevant over time:

- Openness to experience - Conscientiousness - Extraversion - Agreeableness - (Lack of) Neuroticism

There's also absolutely no doubt that aggression, the desire to punish wrongdoing by others and other violent traits have at some point been important for survival of the individual and the group, and probably still are, at a diminished level.

> Fitness in a world of more than a few is entirely dependent on symbiotic, cohesive, gentile...

Let's not forget the immune system. It's one of many "magic" inventions that made larger societies possible.

[holyOrIonsBelt]

The title is inferring that in modern society, the more successful are those who are kind instead of those who are ostensibly (like, say, a pro athlete) faster/stronger/more dexterous. In other words, if you socialize better, you're more likely to find a partner. That's essentially the gist. The contrast, if you wanna characterize it as that, is to give credence to the people who do well by helping society thrive instead of browbeating it into submission.

The Big 5 model is incredibly limiting and is only successful _because_ of its brevity, not because it is sufficiently explanatory of the kaleidoscope of human traits. Its reductionism at it's most hubristic, and let's keep it real here, no five personality traits are adequate enough to span the dynamism of human emotive.

I believe in a thing called cosmic consciousness, and that is (albeit somewhat challenging to explain) what drives my defense of why kindness is such a pivotal factor in human social interaction. There is a line in Gladiator "what we do in life echoes in infinity" and because that resonance exists, the kindness we exhibit is important enough to outweigh other traits, and actually points to a larger issue of whether or not our judgmental, rather vindictive mindset of late is ultimately counterproductive to the existential state of civilization. In other words, when we are kind to one another, we facilitate a happier, healthier world, thus insuring the survival of those who promote that non-violent, what I would call, state of Grace.

[trhway]

>Fitness in a world of more than a few is entirely dependent on symbiotic, cohesive, gentile (in the French sense, though Christ is an inordinately germane example of kindness too) behavior.

There are at least 2 levels of fitness/survival - an individual inside its group/society and a group/society among other groups/societies. While the "symbiotic, cohesive, gentile" may do well inside its own society, would the society consisting of only such individuals do well when pitted against another society? Or would having some amount of the non-"symbiotic, cohesive, gentile" individuals in the mix help the survival of that society?

[geggam]

* President Obama is quite obviously an incredibly kind man *

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/12/reflecting-o...