The subject was given things of no value and we don't know if it expected a reward.
How do they know the animal wasn't just making the only move it had out of boredom, or that it expected reciprocity but didn't get it?
The parrots only exchanged tokens when it would actually help the other parrot, meaning the subject understood the other parrot's test and wasn't acting randomly.
> or that it expected reciprocity but didn't get it?
Ultimately, all generosity is predicated on an expectation of reciprocity ("Do unto others..."). The difference is how long the subject is willing to wait for it. The subject was in a situation where immediate reciprocity wasn't possible.
Not really, a billionaire donating his fortune doesn't expect to have that given back to him. The richest in the world would never have a hope of reciprocity
Also there is the self satisfaction that will always prevent any deed from being truly selfless.
Exactly. Don't look to billionaires to inform yourself about how generosity works; they live in a completely different world.
My argument was about RECIPROCITY, which in the billionaire example is not possible regardless of their motives. Even if some are just buying things, there's absolutely no way that every single large donation was given to buy something like a name on a building. There are countless examples of anonymous donors.
Because the idea that all generosity has expected reciprocity is silly and completely unprovable. You would have to change the definition of reciprocity to include any feeling or personal satisfaction, which is completely unknowable. You could never actually prove what that donors intentions were or how they felt after, even if you think you know. And even if you could that would be a huge stretch of an argument for " expected reciprocity" and not what I was implying by the billionaire example.