John said:
rather than "apparent altruistic"
Why are they apparently altruistic when you know about the selfish gene theory? Do you refer to a speeding Buick as "soft" because it has leather seats? I agree with spurious that we've got a failure of definition here.
We can pretty confidently assert that propagation of your genetic material is of benefit to you. Since inclusive fitness theorizes that helping your offspring and their offspring and so on, we can consider the propagation of your offspring's genetic material to be of benefit to you, and hence aiding this is not altruistic. Much as Dr. Lou says, it is not even apparently altruistic because everyone else knows exactly what you're doing.
A truly altruistic action would then be one that
1) Did not improve your personal fitness
2) Did not preferentially aid the transmission of your genetic material
In the sense of (2), an allele that coded for a truly altruistic would never become fixed in a population.
Examples of truly altruistic behaviour:
A) Suicide - since the increase in individual fitness for all of your conspecifics will be about equal, a suicidal gene that does not have some other inherent act (such as defending the hive) could be considered truly altruistic since it does not specifically aid your relatives.
B) Pathological behaviour caused by parasites - some parasites, such as everyone's favourite Leucochloridium snail parasite, can change the behaviour of their host. In the case of the aforementioned snail fluke, they make the snail seek out sunny places so that they can be eaten by birds. Now, this is a case where the parasite has evolved to take advantage of a weakness in the snail's physiology, but the snail's behaviour can still be considered altruistic by the criteria of (1) and (2).