Thatcher was Wrong
August 2, 2013 7:19 AM Subscribe
Selfish traits not favoured by evolution, study shows "Evolution does not favour selfish people, according to new research.
This challenges a previous theory which suggested it was preferable to put yourself first.
Instead, it pays to be co-operative, shown in a model of "the prisoner's dilemma", a scenario of game theory - the study of strategic decision-making.
Published in Nature Communications, the team says their work shows that exhibiting only selfish traits would have made us become extinct. "
"What we modelled in the computer were very general things, namely decisions between two different behaviours. We call them co-operation and defection. But in the animal world there are all kinds of behaviours that are binary, for example to flee or to fight," Dr Adami told BBC News.
In other words, making mathematical models of human behavior (that are not affected by the assumptions of the mathematicians) is really really hard and interpreting the results of the studies are even harder. Fortunately, screwing people over by misapplying overly ambitious and overly confident studies is really easy for policy-makers.
Oh, wait, the opposite of fortunately.....
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:27 AM on August 2, 2013 [6 favorites]
In other words, making mathematical models of human behavior (that are not affected by the assumptions of the mathematicians) is really really hard and interpreting the results of the studies are even harder. Fortunately, screwing people over by misapplying overly ambitious and overly confident studies is really easy for policy-makers.
Oh, wait, the opposite of fortunately.....
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:27 AM on August 2, 2013 [6 favorites]
Naval tradition touted the wisdom of using one hand for yourself, one for the ship. Obviously this evolved from common sense in the sailing era, but metaphorically it well suits the marriage of capitalism and socialism (though the latter often need reminding that benefits need benefactors),
posted by Brian B. at 7:28 AM on August 2, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by Brian B. at 7:28 AM on August 2, 2013 [5 favorites]
Man, I would like to believe this is true. Screw it, I think I will, damn the torpedoes.
There's a time to help folks and a time to help yourself. Figuring out those times is the secret to winning the game of life.
Do you ever stop and think you might be doing wrong? (Or is this some reference to the silly game of Life I don't get?) ;)
posted by nowhere man at 7:37 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
There's a time to help folks and a time to help yourself. Figuring out those times is the secret to winning the game of life.
Do you ever stop and think you might be doing wrong? (Or is this some reference to the silly game of Life I don't get?) ;)
posted by nowhere man at 7:37 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
Not especially news. We know that a dazzling number of strategies for competition and cooperation have evolved at various points in time throughout evolutionary history. The mistake is in treating evolution as a prescriptive theory of moral behavior (a mistake usually committed by religious apologists) because those theories only describe how cooperation and competition influence gene frequencies. Saying we should adopt a specific reproductive strategy because of evolution, is like saying that we should maximize our body weight because of gravity.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 7:38 AM on August 2, 2013 [19 favorites]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 7:38 AM on August 2, 2013 [19 favorites]
What a shame that nobody figured this out before! Like, say, A HUNDRED AND ELEVEN FUCKING YEARS AGO.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:38 AM on August 2, 2013 [19 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:38 AM on August 2, 2013 [19 favorites]
I'm always a bit disapointed when I see posts at the blue who, basead in one study, say "science shows X".
posted by huguini at 7:40 AM on August 2, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by huguini at 7:40 AM on August 2, 2013 [8 favorites]
Old news, yes. Nonetheless I think the point bears repeating.
posted by nowhere man at 7:42 AM on August 2, 2013
posted by nowhere man at 7:42 AM on August 2, 2013
We all die.
posted by srboisvert at 7:43 AM on August 2, 2013
posted by srboisvert at 7:43 AM on August 2, 2013
There's a time to help folks and a time to help yourself. Figuring out those times is the secret to winning the game of life.
Totally not snark and perhaps just semantics, but I personally am a few degrees to the side of this statement. I believe that it's always time to help others, it's just that sometimes the best way I can be helpful to you is to first attend to myself.
For example, burning myself out attending to someone's every need does them no good in the long term. In order to remain helpful, I need to indulge some of my own "selfish" needs. If I'm happy, I'm more able to be kind, considerate, patient and loving. This means having hobbies and interests which may or may not involve "productive" social behavior, provided it causes no social harm.
I think we are evolutionarily hardwired to be helpful, and to view helping as pleasurable. I remember a study which showed just watching videos of people helping others lit the pleasure centers in the brain, and released pleasure inducing chemicals.
The challenge, however, is in not expecting anything in return. This is why, whenever possible, when I do something admirable and other-centered, I tell no one unless it serves some specific purpose. In letting someone in my personal life know that I helped someone change a flat, or removed dangerous debris from the road, etc., I am seeking approval or accolades, which in my opinion, "cheapens" the altruism.
posted by Debaser626 at 7:43 AM on August 2, 2013 [6 favorites]
Totally not snark and perhaps just semantics, but I personally am a few degrees to the side of this statement. I believe that it's always time to help others, it's just that sometimes the best way I can be helpful to you is to first attend to myself.
For example, burning myself out attending to someone's every need does them no good in the long term. In order to remain helpful, I need to indulge some of my own "selfish" needs. If I'm happy, I'm more able to be kind, considerate, patient and loving. This means having hobbies and interests which may or may not involve "productive" social behavior, provided it causes no social harm.
I think we are evolutionarily hardwired to be helpful, and to view helping as pleasurable. I remember a study which showed just watching videos of people helping others lit the pleasure centers in the brain, and released pleasure inducing chemicals.
The challenge, however, is in not expecting anything in return. This is why, whenever possible, when I do something admirable and other-centered, I tell no one unless it serves some specific purpose. In letting someone in my personal life know that I helped someone change a flat, or removed dangerous debris from the road, etc., I am seeking approval or accolades, which in my opinion, "cheapens" the altruism.
posted by Debaser626 at 7:43 AM on August 2, 2013 [6 favorites]
"I'm always a bit disapointed when I see posts at the blue who, basead in one study, say "science shows X.""
So make a better one then.
posted by marienbad at 7:43 AM on August 2, 2013
So make a better one then.
posted by marienbad at 7:43 AM on August 2, 2013
So make a better one then.
The point is that consensus is reached not by one study, but by many different studies over a period of time by many different scientists in many different contexts repeating the results of the original study.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:45 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
The point is that consensus is reached not by one study, but by many different studies over a period of time by many different scientists in many different contexts repeating the results of the original study.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:45 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
There's a time to help folks and a time to help yourself. Figuring out those times is the secret to winning the game of life.
Is that where you get 2 blue pegs, and 2 pink pegs to fit in your station wagon and a job as a lawyer, but end up dying at age 45 of a massive heart attack?
I'm not sure one can "win" at life. you can certainly find multiple ways of losing though.
I'm always a bit disapointed when I see posts at the blue who, basead in one study, say "science shows X".
er... doesn't this post wholly says "this study says..." and not "science says"?
posted by edgeways at 7:45 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
Is that where you get 2 blue pegs, and 2 pink pegs to fit in your station wagon and a job as a lawyer, but end up dying at age 45 of a massive heart attack?
I'm not sure one can "win" at life. you can certainly find multiple ways of losing though.
I'm always a bit disapointed when I see posts at the blue who, basead in one study, say "science shows X".
er... doesn't this post wholly says "this study says..." and not "science says"?
posted by edgeways at 7:45 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
There is no game of life. Stop worrying about winning and learn to enjoy the goddamn ride.
posted by grubi at 7:47 AM on August 2, 2013 [11 favorites]
posted by grubi at 7:47 AM on August 2, 2013 [11 favorites]
er... doesn't this post wholly says "this study says..." and not "science says"?
Eh, the BBC's phrasing is laughably poor. "Evolution does not favour selfish people, according to new research. This challenges a previous theory which suggested it was preferable to put yourself first." This is such a simplistic summary of a complicated topic. What are we, six years old?
These are our two choices in life, be selfish or selfless, and a study now shows which one is better?
posted by leopard at 7:53 AM on August 2, 2013 [6 favorites]
Eh, the BBC's phrasing is laughably poor. "Evolution does not favour selfish people, according to new research. This challenges a previous theory which suggested it was preferable to put yourself first." This is such a simplistic summary of a complicated topic. What are we, six years old?
These are our two choices in life, be selfish or selfless, and a study now shows which one is better?
posted by leopard at 7:53 AM on August 2, 2013 [6 favorites]
We all die.
Certainly, all the selfish people, barring those born in the last century or so have died. I think this is an important data point.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:56 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
Certainly, all the selfish people, barring those born in the last century or so have died. I think this is an important data point.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:56 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
There's a time to help folks and a time to help yourself.
Absolutely. "If you are traveling with children, make sure that your own oxygen mask is on first before helping your children."
posted by Longtime Listener at 8:00 AM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
Absolutely. "If you are traveling with children, make sure that your own oxygen mask is on first before helping your children."
posted by Longtime Listener at 8:00 AM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
The challenge, however, is in not expecting anything in return. This is why, whenever possible, when I do something admirable and other-centered, I tell no one unless it serves some specific purpose. In letting someone in my personal life know that I helped someone change a flat, or removed dangerous debris from the road, etc., I am seeking approval or accolades, which in my opinion, "cheapens" the altruism.
Well, there is a balance. If you constantly find yourself doing things for others who could do something for you in return, but never do, then you are in an unhealthy relationship. It's not about tooting your horn or expecting repayment, but about not getting exploited.
posted by emjaybee at 8:02 AM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, there is a balance. If you constantly find yourself doing things for others who could do something for you in return, but never do, then you are in an unhealthy relationship. It's not about tooting your horn or expecting repayment, but about not getting exploited.
posted by emjaybee at 8:02 AM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
If you are traveling with children, make sure that your own oxygen mask is on before stowing your children in the overhead compartment.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 8:02 AM on August 2, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 8:02 AM on August 2, 2013 [8 favorites]
It drives me crazy when evolutionists (to be distinguished from scientists and lay persons who are knowledgeable about evolutionary theory) claim that behaving in socially reprehensible and destructive ways are expressing behavior that ensures "fitness" for them and their progeny. It's a backwards view of evolution and one that is rooted in a failure to understand that organisms do not evolve in isolation but in ecosystems.
Deeply selfish individuals and groups often exist at great cost to their own species and interactant species. These individuals and groups are better understood as parasites or diseases.
Cooperation, mutuality, and reciprocity are the foundations of thriving, burgeoning ecosystems and behaviors such as generosity, altruism, and empathy reinforce and promote the welfare of humans and the ecosystems in which we are embedded. Short term gains for individuals and smaller groups come at the expense of biological networks and, as the FPP'ed study suggests, communication ensures such participants will eventually be gamed around if the selfish behaviors do not themselves force the selfish individuals into extinction.
If it is true that all organisms live in a ecological networks that gain advantages through ensuring long-term survival, people's rationalizations for selfish behavior can have nothing to do with what's best for the evolutionary fitness of themselves or their descendants.
tl;dr: "Selfish genes" therefore benefit from having co-operative organisms. (from TFA)
posted by mistersquid at 8:06 AM on August 2, 2013 [17 favorites]
Deeply selfish individuals and groups often exist at great cost to their own species and interactant species. These individuals and groups are better understood as parasites or diseases.
Cooperation, mutuality, and reciprocity are the foundations of thriving, burgeoning ecosystems and behaviors such as generosity, altruism, and empathy reinforce and promote the welfare of humans and the ecosystems in which we are embedded. Short term gains for individuals and smaller groups come at the expense of biological networks and, as the FPP'ed study suggests, communication ensures such participants will eventually be gamed around if the selfish behaviors do not themselves force the selfish individuals into extinction.
If it is true that all organisms live in a ecological networks that gain advantages through ensuring long-term survival, people's rationalizations for selfish behavior can have nothing to do with what's best for the evolutionary fitness of themselves or their descendants.
tl;dr: "Selfish genes" therefore benefit from having co-operative organisms. (from TFA)
posted by mistersquid at 8:06 AM on August 2, 2013 [17 favorites]
We don't require any studies to confirm that Thatcher was wrong. Not about this, necessarily, but about anything and everything.
posted by devious truculent and unreliable at 8:10 AM on August 2, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by devious truculent and unreliable at 8:10 AM on August 2, 2013 [5 favorites]
It should also be pointed out that the "study" in question is not actually an empirical review of how evolution does not favor selfish people, but rather a pure mathematical modeling exercise.
posted by leopard at 8:11 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by leopard at 8:11 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
The challenge, however, is in not expecting anything in return. This is why, whenever possible, when I do something admirable and other-centered, I tell no one unless it serves some specific purpose. In letting someone in my personal life know that I helped someone change a flat, or removed dangerous debris from the road, etc., I am seeking approval or accolades, which in my opinion, "cheapens" the altruism.
this all makes sense, however the counter to that is we, collectively, do need to hear the stories of altruism and selflessness, or else we tend to believe the myth that everyone everywhere is selfish. And really at it's base, what is wrong with a certain amount of getting acclaim for your positive action? One can relate things in a non bragging manner.
So, I guess sin essence, I think it can very well serve a specific purpose.
posted by edgeways at 8:14 AM on August 2, 2013 [3 favorites]
this all makes sense, however the counter to that is we, collectively, do need to hear the stories of altruism and selflessness, or else we tend to believe the myth that everyone everywhere is selfish. And really at it's base, what is wrong with a certain amount of getting acclaim for your positive action? One can relate things in a non bragging manner.
So, I guess sin essence, I think it can very well serve a specific purpose.
posted by edgeways at 8:14 AM on August 2, 2013 [3 favorites]
Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin, presente!
posted by jammy at 8:16 AM on August 2, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by jammy at 8:16 AM on August 2, 2013 [4 favorites]
-edgweays
I do see your point, it is important to let people know about good deeds.
I guess I often do end up talking about them at some point, but only when and if it comes up naturally.
What I mean is, for example, if I helped someone change a flat tire in the rain, I wouldn't begin tooting my own horn like I used to (through facebook status updates, calling a buddy to let him know, etc.) but if it made me late to an appointment, if someone asked me why I was wet, or even what I had done that evening I would likely let them know without feeling like I was resorting to the humblebrag.
posted by Debaser626 at 8:22 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
I do see your point, it is important to let people know about good deeds.
I guess I often do end up talking about them at some point, but only when and if it comes up naturally.
What I mean is, for example, if I helped someone change a flat tire in the rain, I wouldn't begin tooting my own horn like I used to (through facebook status updates, calling a buddy to let him know, etc.) but if it made me late to an appointment, if someone asked me why I was wet, or even what I had done that evening I would likely let them know without feeling like I was resorting to the humblebrag.
posted by Debaser626 at 8:22 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
Evolution does not favour selfish people, according to new research. This challenges a previous theory which suggested it was preferable to put yourself first.
No, it challenges a previous theory which suggested that evolution does favor selfish people.
"Natural selection favors organisms with X trait" does not equal "X trait is preferable".
posted by escape from the potato planet at 8:25 AM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
No, it challenges a previous theory which suggested that evolution does favor selfish people.
"Natural selection favors organisms with X trait" does not equal "X trait is preferable".
posted by escape from the potato planet at 8:25 AM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
leopard: It should also be pointed out that the "study" in question is not actually an empirical review of how evolution does not favor selfish people, but rather a pure mathematical modeling exercise.
Theoretical modeling of the effects of various forms of organism behavior on population genetics has been possible since the grand synthesis. Mathematical modeling of those dynamics is useful because it provides hints of what to look for in naturalistic settings.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:26 AM on August 2, 2013
Theoretical modeling of the effects of various forms of organism behavior on population genetics has been possible since the grand synthesis. Mathematical modeling of those dynamics is useful because it provides hints of what to look for in naturalistic settings.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:26 AM on August 2, 2013
The point is that consensus is reached not by one study, but by many different studies over a period of time by many different scientists in many different contexts repeating the results of the original study.
That's true but science is about evidence, not consensus.
These are our two choices in life, be selfish or selfless, and a study now shows which one is better?
No, it shows which one evolution favors.
posted by IvoShandor at 8:31 AM on August 2, 2013
That's true but science is about evidence, not consensus.
These are our two choices in life, be selfish or selfless, and a study now shows which one is better?
No, it shows which one evolution favors.
posted by IvoShandor at 8:31 AM on August 2, 2013
Theoretical modeling of the effects of various forms of organism behavior on population genetics has been possible since the grand synthesis. Mathematical modeling of those dynamics is useful because it provides hints of what to look for in naturalistic settings.
Yeah, but I have a hard time understanding why this paper is particularly deserving of popular press. People have been modeling the prisoner's dilemma for decades; the most simple model shows up in high school textbooks and is generally presented as a puzzle because while it captures some part of the human experience, it's also clearly missing out on something important. It's not like no one's ever noticed that people do in fact cooperate in life. This paper looks like a technical advance on some modeling issue that may or may not be applicable to anything in the real world, which is great but it's not exactly settling grand questions of what it means to be human.
posted by leopard at 8:31 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yeah, but I have a hard time understanding why this paper is particularly deserving of popular press. People have been modeling the prisoner's dilemma for decades; the most simple model shows up in high school textbooks and is generally presented as a puzzle because while it captures some part of the human experience, it's also clearly missing out on something important. It's not like no one's ever noticed that people do in fact cooperate in life. This paper looks like a technical advance on some modeling issue that may or may not be applicable to anything in the real world, which is great but it's not exactly settling grand questions of what it means to be human.
posted by leopard at 8:31 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
That's true but science is about evidence, not consensus.
Where is the evidence in this paper? It's basically a math paper.
No, it shows which one evolution favors
Really?
posted by leopard at 8:34 AM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
Where is the evidence in this paper? It's basically a math paper.
No, it shows which one evolution favors
Really?
posted by leopard at 8:34 AM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
Where is the evidence in this paper? It's basically a math paper.
I'm not a scientist. But Nature Communications is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Do you have some evidence that refutes these claims? I would be interested to see that.
Really?
According to the BBC. I'm going off what was posted here. Regardless the paper doesn't seem to make a claim toward which is better. A subjective thing anyway.
posted by IvoShandor at 8:40 AM on August 2, 2013
I'm not a scientist. But Nature Communications is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Do you have some evidence that refutes these claims? I would be interested to see that.
Really?
According to the BBC. I'm going off what was posted here. Regardless the paper doesn't seem to make a claim toward which is better. A subjective thing anyway.
posted by IvoShandor at 8:40 AM on August 2, 2013
Someone needs to model this in Dwarf Fortress so we can get a real answer.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:41 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:41 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
It doesn't surprise me that this study was done by mathematicians and not mainstream biologists.
Selfishness and altruism in the sense of human behavior presume a high degree of cognition and sentient self-awareness. Outside of the evopsych/HBD ghetto(s), biologists don't attribute gradations of sophisticated behavior along socially desirable/undesirable axes to biological natural selection.
Perhaps the paper provides an alternate rationale for the already extremely well-observed benefit of instinctive cooperation, but it's really hard to see the willingness of geese to flock or ants to drown themselves to make a bridge as having any bearing upon someone being a selfish jerk or a generous mensch.
posted by MattD at 8:41 AM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
Selfishness and altruism in the sense of human behavior presume a high degree of cognition and sentient self-awareness. Outside of the evopsych/HBD ghetto(s), biologists don't attribute gradations of sophisticated behavior along socially desirable/undesirable axes to biological natural selection.
Perhaps the paper provides an alternate rationale for the already extremely well-observed benefit of instinctive cooperation, but it's really hard to see the willingness of geese to flock or ants to drown themselves to make a bridge as having any bearing upon someone being a selfish jerk or a generous mensch.
posted by MattD at 8:41 AM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
The "Thatcher was wrong" framing is also kind of interesting. Apparently Thatcher was part of some moral and ideological debate that actually matters, in which there are consequences to believing the wrong thing about human nature. Yet the spin of the FPP is that evolution -- a soulless mechanical process -- can decide who wins this debate.
Do you have some evidence that refutes these claims? I would be interested to see that.
The claims you are referring to are not made in the paper, they are made by a journalist working for the BBC. Here are the claims of the paper:
Here we show that zero-determinant strategies are at most weakly dominant, are not evolutionarily stable, and will instead evolve into less coercive strategies. We show that zero-determinant strategies with an informational advantage over other players that allows them to recognize each other can be evolutionarily stable (and able to exploit other players). However, such an advantage is bound to be short-lived as opposing strategies evolve to counteract the recognition.
posted by leopard at 8:45 AM on August 2, 2013 [4 favorites]
Do you have some evidence that refutes these claims? I would be interested to see that.
The claims you are referring to are not made in the paper, they are made by a journalist working for the BBC. Here are the claims of the paper:
Here we show that zero-determinant strategies are at most weakly dominant, are not evolutionarily stable, and will instead evolve into less coercive strategies. We show that zero-determinant strategies with an informational advantage over other players that allows them to recognize each other can be evolutionarily stable (and able to exploit other players). However, such an advantage is bound to be short-lived as opposing strategies evolve to counteract the recognition.
posted by leopard at 8:45 AM on August 2, 2013 [4 favorites]
This is an aspect of the "selfish gene" concept. For most of human history, we lived in small tribes which amounted to extended family units. Being altruistic meant helping relatives.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:46 AM on August 2, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:46 AM on August 2, 2013 [3 favorites]
This paper is basically meaningless in terms of the usual discussion of selfishness versus altruism. Because such discussions are usually about what one should morally do. Not what is most likely to ensure the survival of the human species.
And personally I"m starting to come around to the idea that morally one should be trying to limit the further expansion of the human species. Humans are like a plague on the earth. Do we really need more of them?
This paper would then suggest that I morally should be selfish.
posted by mary8nne at 8:47 AM on August 2, 2013
And personally I"m starting to come around to the idea that morally one should be trying to limit the further expansion of the human species. Humans are like a plague on the earth. Do we really need more of them?
This paper would then suggest that I morally should be selfish.
posted by mary8nne at 8:47 AM on August 2, 2013
Actually, another recent study said that happiness increases as your income increases no matter how much income you have.
Though, in our consumer culture, more stuff=more happiness. Maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
posted by CrazyJoel at 8:53 AM on August 2, 2013
Though, in our consumer culture, more stuff=more happiness. Maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
posted by CrazyJoel at 8:53 AM on August 2, 2013
This looks like bad science reporting coupled with a study that doesn't really "show" anything and a perceived result that fits well with (most of) our political and ethical views.
If this study had the opposite result MetaFilter would tear it apart.
posted by rocket88 at 8:55 AM on August 2, 2013 [4 favorites]
If this study had the opposite result MetaFilter would tear it apart.
posted by rocket88 at 8:55 AM on August 2, 2013 [4 favorites]
I don't think the authors of the paper are necessarily responsible for the way research is reported by the popular press, nor do I think that every paper in a given field must be empirical instead of theoretical.
Selfishness and altruism in the sense of human behavior presume a high degree of cognition and sentient self-awareness.
In the sense of human behavior, certainly. In terms of population genetics, absolutely not. The two prototypical cases for altruism that were used in my quantitative genetics course were honeybees where altruism is obligatory, and scrub jays who are described as situationally altruistic depending on environmental conditions.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:01 AM on August 2, 2013
Selfishness and altruism in the sense of human behavior presume a high degree of cognition and sentient self-awareness.
In the sense of human behavior, certainly. In terms of population genetics, absolutely not. The two prototypical cases for altruism that were used in my quantitative genetics course were honeybees where altruism is obligatory, and scrub jays who are described as situationally altruistic depending on environmental conditions.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:01 AM on August 2, 2013
Cooperation, mutuality, and reciprocity are the foundations of thriving, burgeoning ecosystems and behaviors such as generosity, altruism, and empathy reinforce and promote the welfare of humans and the ecosystems in which we are embedded.
I don't really understand how one can talk meaningfully about an ecosystem having its "welfare" promoted--especially from an evolutionary perspective. An ecosystem has no desired end state, no goals, no way it "ought" or "ought not" to be. You can only talk meaningfully about "harming" or "helping" an ecosystem from the point of view of particular participants in it. From the point of view of most of the species from the Precambrian period, for example, the ecosystem went hopelessly off the rails and became an unlivable hellscape. From the point of view of jellyfish it might be about to enter a Golden Age. I think when we're talking about evolution, particularly when we get to larger scale developments such as the evolutionary changes in entire ecosystems, thinking in terms of human-scale morality just confuses the issue.
posted by yoink at 9:04 AM on August 2, 2013 [4 favorites]
I don't really understand how one can talk meaningfully about an ecosystem having its "welfare" promoted--especially from an evolutionary perspective. An ecosystem has no desired end state, no goals, no way it "ought" or "ought not" to be. You can only talk meaningfully about "harming" or "helping" an ecosystem from the point of view of particular participants in it. From the point of view of most of the species from the Precambrian period, for example, the ecosystem went hopelessly off the rails and became an unlivable hellscape. From the point of view of jellyfish it might be about to enter a Golden Age. I think when we're talking about evolution, particularly when we get to larger scale developments such as the evolutionary changes in entire ecosystems, thinking in terms of human-scale morality just confuses the issue.
posted by yoink at 9:04 AM on August 2, 2013 [4 favorites]
I think the other side of the coin is that societies punish cheaters, and in particular people really like punishing cheaters. It's shown in the ultimatum game, where people who receive less than 20% of a share of money refuse the deal.
This is touched on in the article where it says "your opponent would evolve the same recognition mechanism to also know you", which implies "and also find you and beat you to death with a sack of doorknobs".
posted by cyberscythe at 9:05 AM on August 2, 2013
This is touched on in the article where it says "your opponent would evolve the same recognition mechanism to also know you", which implies "and also find you and beat you to death with a sack of doorknobs".
posted by cyberscythe at 9:05 AM on August 2, 2013
No, it shows which one evolution favors.
No, this BBC article is terrible. There's a whole decades old literature on this. This study contributes, but I don't see anything revolutionary here. I have a smidge of formal training in this. Here goes...
Adami's speaking for the consensus in the literature when he says "it's almost like what we had in the cold war, an arms race - but these arms races occur all the time in evolutionary biology." The result of that arms race is not a world where everybody cooperates or where everybody cheats. Think of cheating and cooperating as ecological niches. A world where cooperating tends to pay off better than cheating is both a world where most people cooperate, but it's also a world where a handful of really talented cheaters are going to be well rewarded because they're surrounded by marks. A world where the incentives favor defection is a world where the minority of groups of people who've found a reliable way to build trust among themselves have a big advantage over their bunkered neighbors. The results you aren't going to get are an all-cheater world or an all-cooperator world.
Needless to say, the at least occasional success of a cheating "strategy" tells us nothing about whether cheating is morally right.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 9:07 AM on August 2, 2013 [6 favorites]
No, this BBC article is terrible. There's a whole decades old literature on this. This study contributes, but I don't see anything revolutionary here. I have a smidge of formal training in this. Here goes...
Adami's speaking for the consensus in the literature when he says "it's almost like what we had in the cold war, an arms race - but these arms races occur all the time in evolutionary biology." The result of that arms race is not a world where everybody cooperates or where everybody cheats. Think of cheating and cooperating as ecological niches. A world where cooperating tends to pay off better than cheating is both a world where most people cooperate, but it's also a world where a handful of really talented cheaters are going to be well rewarded because they're surrounded by marks. A world where the incentives favor defection is a world where the minority of groups of people who've found a reliable way to build trust among themselves have a big advantage over their bunkered neighbors. The results you aren't going to get are an all-cheater world or an all-cooperator world.
Needless to say, the at least occasional success of a cheating "strategy" tells us nothing about whether cheating is morally right.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 9:07 AM on August 2, 2013 [6 favorites]
I'm not a scientist. But Nature Communications is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Do you have some evidence that refutes these claims?
I am a scientist. When authors publish a single paper in a peer-reviewed journal, it does not relieve them of the burden of proof for their conclusions.
posted by grouse at 9:10 AM on August 2, 2013 [5 favorites]
I am a scientist. When authors publish a single paper in a peer-reviewed journal, it does not relieve them of the burden of proof for their conclusions.
posted by grouse at 9:10 AM on August 2, 2013 [5 favorites]
exhibiting only selfish traits would have made us become extinct
Still not too late.
posted by slogger at 9:20 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
Still not too late.
posted by slogger at 9:20 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
If altrusim is a clear winner over time then why is there so much selfishness still around so far back and till now?
posted by Postroad at 9:27 AM on August 2, 2013
posted by Postroad at 9:27 AM on August 2, 2013
Needless to say, the at least occasional success of a cheating "strategy" tells us nothing about whether cheating is morally right.
Yes. The point of mathematically modeling evolutionary altruism isn't to explain a should, it's to explain an is. Why are there thousands of examples of altruism at every scale of life? How do you get independent single-celled organisms to cooperate and specialize as colonial or multicellular life? That's what this form of theoretical modeling tries to explain.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:29 AM on August 2, 2013
Yes. The point of mathematically modeling evolutionary altruism isn't to explain a should, it's to explain an is. Why are there thousands of examples of altruism at every scale of life? How do you get independent single-celled organisms to cooperate and specialize as colonial or multicellular life? That's what this form of theoretical modeling tries to explain.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:29 AM on August 2, 2013
Look, the problem isn't that this is news. It's not news. Pope Guilty linked to a 111-year-old study on the matter.
The problem is that the truth is inconvenient for our current structure of capitalism, and that's why it's being ignored or attacked outright.
One of the overriding features of modern capitalism is willing suspension of responsibility, accompanied by the ability to say "well, I'm not one of those people", where "those people" are the ones fucking everything up.
If this study is true, it exposes that lie for the pathetic fig-leaf it is; it means that, no, really, you ARE one of "those people", and your secret fears are true. What they say about "if you can't see the asshole, the asshole is you" is true. You really are hurting everyone.
Not everyone involved in capitalist exploitation is a sociopath. A lot of the famous ones are, but capitalism doesn't rely on the sociopaths as much as it relies on the Good Germans: the ones who suspect in their heart of hearts that maybe this whole thing is kind of fucked up, but can work around it mentally and ethically because, hey, at least I'm not one of those people.
The reason this kind of information is attacked so vigorously isn't to defend the sociopaths or make them sleep better at night. Sociopaths, by definition, always sleep better at night because they just don't give a shit about anything else.
This information is attacked because the last thing anyone can afford is for the vast swath of Good Germans who keep capitalism running to start asking questions like "why am I doing this to myself and my community to make one white guy rich" and "why is it that I'm doing all the work and he's getting all the money" and "explain to me again how the CEO is worth three hundred and fifty times more than I am when he spends all his time on the golf course".
posted by scrump at 9:54 AM on August 2, 2013 [8 favorites]
The problem is that the truth is inconvenient for our current structure of capitalism, and that's why it's being ignored or attacked outright.
One of the overriding features of modern capitalism is willing suspension of responsibility, accompanied by the ability to say "well, I'm not one of those people", where "those people" are the ones fucking everything up.
If this study is true, it exposes that lie for the pathetic fig-leaf it is; it means that, no, really, you ARE one of "those people", and your secret fears are true. What they say about "if you can't see the asshole, the asshole is you" is true. You really are hurting everyone.
Not everyone involved in capitalist exploitation is a sociopath. A lot of the famous ones are, but capitalism doesn't rely on the sociopaths as much as it relies on the Good Germans: the ones who suspect in their heart of hearts that maybe this whole thing is kind of fucked up, but can work around it mentally and ethically because, hey, at least I'm not one of those people.
The reason this kind of information is attacked so vigorously isn't to defend the sociopaths or make them sleep better at night. Sociopaths, by definition, always sleep better at night because they just don't give a shit about anything else.
This information is attacked because the last thing anyone can afford is for the vast swath of Good Germans who keep capitalism running to start asking questions like "why am I doing this to myself and my community to make one white guy rich" and "why is it that I'm doing all the work and he's getting all the money" and "explain to me again how the CEO is worth three hundred and fifty times more than I am when he spends all his time on the golf course".
posted by scrump at 9:54 AM on August 2, 2013 [8 favorites]
Naval tradition touted the wisdom of using one hand for yourself, one for the ship.
This is not so much about using some of your own resources for the public good as it is about using one hand to do your work and the other to hold on to the ship so you don't fall on your ass or, worse, overboard.
posted by Aizkolari at 10:11 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
This is not so much about using some of your own resources for the public good as it is about using one hand to do your work and the other to hold on to the ship so you don't fall on your ass or, worse, overboard.
posted by Aizkolari at 10:11 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
If this study is true, it exposes that lie for the pathetic fig-leaf it is; it means that, no, really, you ARE one of "those people", and your secret fears are true. What they say about "if you can't see the asshole, the asshole is you" is true. You really are hurting everyone.
No, if this study is true* then you are getting worked up about nothing, because evolution doesn't like capitalism and sociopathic assholes are doomed to fail.
*Meaning, if the claims presented by the BBC writer are true. The paper is a contribution to the mathematical modeling literature and not a decisive "study" of human behavior.
posted by leopard at 10:58 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
No, if this study is true* then you are getting worked up about nothing, because evolution doesn't like capitalism and sociopathic assholes are doomed to fail.
*Meaning, if the claims presented by the BBC writer are true. The paper is a contribution to the mathematical modeling literature and not a decisive "study" of human behavior.
posted by leopard at 10:58 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
The problem is that the truth is inconvenient for our current structure of capitalism
How so? Capitalism is an immensely collaborative and cooperative endeavor, for one thing, but even if it weren't, there is simply no way, at all, to derive an "ought" from an "is." If this mathematical modeling study had come to a radically different conclusion--that selfishness was, in fact, the optimal evolutionary survival strategy--would you have renounced your political/economic beliefs and become a Randite capitalist? No? Then what logical reason does the capitalist have to be concerned that the conclusion happened to come out the other way?
posted by yoink at 11:06 AM on August 2, 2013 [3 favorites]
How so? Capitalism is an immensely collaborative and cooperative endeavor, for one thing, but even if it weren't, there is simply no way, at all, to derive an "ought" from an "is." If this mathematical modeling study had come to a radically different conclusion--that selfishness was, in fact, the optimal evolutionary survival strategy--would you have renounced your political/economic beliefs and become a Randite capitalist? No? Then what logical reason does the capitalist have to be concerned that the conclusion happened to come out the other way?
posted by yoink at 11:06 AM on August 2, 2013 [3 favorites]
Capitalism is an immensely collaborative and cooperative endeavor...
These words - "collaborative" and "cooperative" - I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
posted by jammy at 11:13 AM on August 2, 2013
These words - "collaborative" and "cooperative" - I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
posted by jammy at 11:13 AM on August 2, 2013
These words - "collaborative" and "cooperative" - I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Well, it's a minor point in any case because the really significant point is that "is this a successful evolutionary strategy" is not in any way related to the question of "how ought we to behave in life." But I would be interested how you could describe the actual lived institutional experience of capitalism (rather than some Randian fantasy of what it "ought" to be) that didn't involve massive amounts of both collaboration and cooperation.
posted by yoink at 11:22 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
Well, it's a minor point in any case because the really significant point is that "is this a successful evolutionary strategy" is not in any way related to the question of "how ought we to behave in life." But I would be interested how you could describe the actual lived institutional experience of capitalism (rather than some Randian fantasy of what it "ought" to be) that didn't involve massive amounts of both collaboration and cooperation.
posted by yoink at 11:22 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
For most of human history, we lived in small tribes which amounted to extended family units. Being altruistic meant helping relatives.
Yes, at the expense of every other tribe in the land. No one is equally altruistic to everyone. In fact, being altruistic to someone in my family/tribe/in-group often means being decidedly not altruistic to someone who is not a member.
posted by Tanizaki at 11:23 AM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yes, at the expense of every other tribe in the land. No one is equally altruistic to everyone. In fact, being altruistic to someone in my family/tribe/in-group often means being decidedly not altruistic to someone who is not a member.
posted by Tanizaki at 11:23 AM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
But I would be interested how you could describe the actual lived institutional experience of capitalism (rather than some Randian fantasy of what it "ought" to be) that didn't involve massive amounts of both collaboration and cooperation.
As quoted above:
posted by Space Coyote at 11:28 AM on August 2, 2013
As quoted above:
Here we show that zero-determinant strategies are at most weakly dominant, are not evolutionarily stable, and will instead evolve into less coercive strategies. We show that zero-determinant strategies with an informational advantage over other players that allows them to recognize each other can be evolutionarily stable (and able to exploit other players). However, such an advantage is bound to be short-lived as opposing strategies evolve to counteract the recognition.There is definitely collaboration and cooperation in capitalism, but it's at our expense. Here's where we cross our fingers about the 'short lived' part.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:28 AM on August 2, 2013
There is definitely collaboration and cooperation in capitalism, but it's at our expense. Here's where we cross our fingers about the 'short lived' part.
If the thesis is "capitalism=zero-determinant strategies" then I think the history of the last, let us say, three centuries would cast very serious doubt on the claim that such strategies must be "short lived."
I suspect, in the end, that all we're quibbling over here is a definition of 'capitalism.' I'm talking about it as an actual, lived, socioeconomic system. I mean, you say "it's at our expense" but unless you're writing from some non-capitalist country then the statement is silly; you're part of the capitalist system and you're reproducing that system with your behavior. So capitalism is simultaneously operating "at your expense" and "for your benefit" (whether the net result is gain or benefit is another question). I suspect that you and jammy and scrump mean something like "the pure, naked essence of capitalism" rather than "the inevitably mixed and messy reality of any human institutional praxis." I tend to think that "pure naked essences" are not very helpful abstractions. That is, within capitalism there are people who try "zero-determinant strategies" and there are people who try more altruistic strategies. Both, from my perspective, are engaging in "capitalism." I think most people/institutions engage in both strategies at different times to different degrees. I think the "capitalist system" would disintegrate very rapidly if everyone involved in it acted in some kind of purely self-interested, radically-short-sighted way of the kind you seem to imagine as the defining "essence" of capitalism. I suspect, in fact, that an examination of the history of capitalist societies as actual functioning societies would tend to bear out the findings of the study; that zero-determinant strategies are not, in the end, very stable. A study of the US banking industry over the last thirty years might be a good place to start.
posted by yoink at 11:39 AM on August 2, 2013
If the thesis is "capitalism=zero-determinant strategies" then I think the history of the last, let us say, three centuries would cast very serious doubt on the claim that such strategies must be "short lived."
I suspect, in the end, that all we're quibbling over here is a definition of 'capitalism.' I'm talking about it as an actual, lived, socioeconomic system. I mean, you say "it's at our expense" but unless you're writing from some non-capitalist country then the statement is silly; you're part of the capitalist system and you're reproducing that system with your behavior. So capitalism is simultaneously operating "at your expense" and "for your benefit" (whether the net result is gain or benefit is another question). I suspect that you and jammy and scrump mean something like "the pure, naked essence of capitalism" rather than "the inevitably mixed and messy reality of any human institutional praxis." I tend to think that "pure naked essences" are not very helpful abstractions. That is, within capitalism there are people who try "zero-determinant strategies" and there are people who try more altruistic strategies. Both, from my perspective, are engaging in "capitalism." I think most people/institutions engage in both strategies at different times to different degrees. I think the "capitalist system" would disintegrate very rapidly if everyone involved in it acted in some kind of purely self-interested, radically-short-sighted way of the kind you seem to imagine as the defining "essence" of capitalism. I suspect, in fact, that an examination of the history of capitalist societies as actual functioning societies would tend to bear out the findings of the study; that zero-determinant strategies are not, in the end, very stable. A study of the US banking industry over the last thirty years might be a good place to start.
posted by yoink at 11:39 AM on August 2, 2013
I'd say this study has absolutely nothing to do with socially constructed phenomena like capitalism, given that its claims are heavily dependent on population genetics and inheritance. If you want a game-theory critique of capitalism, you'd be better off looking in economics.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:44 AM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:44 AM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
an examination of the history of capitalist societies as actual functioning societies
That's an awfully short span of time to extrapolate truths about evolution. Capitalism is a blink of an eye in terms of the history of evolution.
And yes, your definition of captalism sounds quite broad, and sounds a lot like it is claiming various social and political and economic practices that have nothing to do with actual historical capitalism and probably pre-date its emergence by centuries.
I tend to think that loose (& self-justifying) definitions such as these are quite abstracted, and not very useful at all. Capitalism is a historical event with very definite characteristics.
posted by jammy at 11:46 AM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
That's an awfully short span of time to extrapolate truths about evolution. Capitalism is a blink of an eye in terms of the history of evolution.
And yes, your definition of captalism sounds quite broad, and sounds a lot like it is claiming various social and political and economic practices that have nothing to do with actual historical capitalism and probably pre-date its emergence by centuries.
I tend to think that loose (& self-justifying) definitions such as these are quite abstracted, and not very useful at all. Capitalism is a historical event with very definite characteristics.
posted by jammy at 11:46 AM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
yoink, I would like to separate a society that leaves room for market-based trade from 'capitalist' ones. If a feudal society was one where the rules favoured those who controlled land, and we say that a capitalist society has laws and structures that protect those that control capital - means of production - over the rest, than I would say the description of such a society as a small subset of the group operating at the expense of everyone else holds quite well. Doing commerce inside a capitalist society isn't itself capitalism, it's trade. Trade can exist outside of capitalism.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:49 AM on August 2, 2013
posted by Space Coyote at 11:49 AM on August 2, 2013
I think the "capitalist system" would disintegrate very rapidly if everyone involved in it acted in some kind of purely self-interested, radically-short-sighted way of the kind you seem to imagine as the defining "essence" of capitalism.
Capitalism is not a game where everyone gets to play on a level playing field. "Everyone involved" do not have to act in a given way when it only needs a very small few to get the job done.
posted by jammy at 11:53 AM on August 2, 2013
Capitalism is not a game where everyone gets to play on a level playing field. "Everyone involved" do not have to act in a given way when it only needs a very small few to get the job done.
posted by jammy at 11:53 AM on August 2, 2013
If the thesis is "capitalism=zero-determinant strategies" ...
Which is where this whole discussion turns into gibberish, because the zero-determinant strategies discussed in the paper are dependent on population genetics. You can't use General Relativity to explain the price of gas in your neighborhood either.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 12:10 PM on August 2, 2013 [5 favorites]
Which is where this whole discussion turns into gibberish, because the zero-determinant strategies discussed in the paper are dependent on population genetics. You can't use General Relativity to explain the price of gas in your neighborhood either.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 12:10 PM on August 2, 2013 [5 favorites]
In any discussion of capitalism, I often wish for a little icon next to peoples' names that indicates "HAS READ GRAEBER" or "HAS NOT READ GRAEBER".
posted by scrump at 12:45 PM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by scrump at 12:45 PM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
If altrusim is a clear winner over time then why is there so much selfishness still around so far back and till now?
It stands out more? Studies I've read (eg. Frans de Waal's "The Age of Empathy") seem to indicate that, as part of the mechanism behind atruism being a more successful group trait from an evolutionary perspective, we are attuned to notice when someone is being selfish, so as to punish that individual. It's the whats-its effect... uh, where you're expecting to see something or more attuned to that thing, so you consciously make note of it occurring more than you make note of it not occurring? (Somebody will remember the term I'm looking for, I'm sure.)
posted by eviemath at 12:46 PM on August 2, 2013
It stands out more? Studies I've read (eg. Frans de Waal's "The Age of Empathy") seem to indicate that, as part of the mechanism behind atruism being a more successful group trait from an evolutionary perspective, we are attuned to notice when someone is being selfish, so as to punish that individual. It's the whats-its effect... uh, where you're expecting to see something or more attuned to that thing, so you consciously make note of it occurring more than you make note of it not occurring? (Somebody will remember the term I'm looking for, I'm sure.)
posted by eviemath at 12:46 PM on August 2, 2013
We don't require any studies to confirm that Thatcher was wrong.
Technically, the last 30 or so years has been such a study. I think the outcome is fairly clear.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:03 PM on August 2, 2013
Technically, the last 30 or so years has been such a study. I think the outcome is fairly clear.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:03 PM on August 2, 2013
Which is where this whole discussion turns into gibberish, because the zero-determinant strategies discussed in the paper are dependent on population genetics.
Um, no? Zero-determinant strategies is a term from game theory (which is, of course, what this paper is about). It's not remotely restricted to population genetics. If your point is "population genetics isn't identical to economics" then, well, yes. If it is that game theory is irrelevant to economics then I'm afraid you're in for a rude awakening if you bother to do some minimal research.
posted by yoink at 1:11 PM on August 2, 2013
Um, no? Zero-determinant strategies is a term from game theory (which is, of course, what this paper is about). It's not remotely restricted to population genetics. If your point is "population genetics isn't identical to economics" then, well, yes. If it is that game theory is irrelevant to economics then I'm afraid you're in for a rude awakening if you bother to do some minimal research.
posted by yoink at 1:11 PM on August 2, 2013
Who will win this argument? THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
posted by srboisvert at 1:15 PM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 1:15 PM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
Capitalism is a historical event with very definite characteristics.
Yes. And I'm sure there are at least two of you who agree on exactly what those "definite characteristics" are. Well, at least you did, once, before that last unfortunate meeting ("splitter!").
If you want a theoretically pure definition of capitalism you have the unfortunate side-effect that you have to say that no actual capitalist societies or institutions exist--which shunts the entire discussion off into the cloud cuckoo land of abstract theory. If you say "o.k., let's say that the US is a capitalist society" then it's only fair to say "o.k., how do real institutions actually work in an actual capitalist society?" And the answer is: with enormous amounts of cooperation and collaboration, as well as with "selfish" competition.
Say, for example, that I'm the CEO of East Texas Widgets Inc. I contribute X% of my profits to a trade group that promotes the general utility and awareness of widgets to the US consumer and lobbies Congress for widget-friendly legislation. I do this knowing that not every widget manufacturer in the US contributes to the group and that many of them will benefit from the activities of the group on behalf of the general industry. That would be a clear cut case of an "altruistic" move designed to benefit the group in general, that is also a successful "evolutionary" strategy for the individual participant in the industry. These are the kinds of collaborative actions that are absolutely routine everyday business in any real capitalist economy you care to name.
posted by yoink at 1:21 PM on August 2, 2013
Yes. And I'm sure there are at least two of you who agree on exactly what those "definite characteristics" are. Well, at least you did, once, before that last unfortunate meeting ("splitter!").
If you want a theoretically pure definition of capitalism you have the unfortunate side-effect that you have to say that no actual capitalist societies or institutions exist--which shunts the entire discussion off into the cloud cuckoo land of abstract theory. If you say "o.k., let's say that the US is a capitalist society" then it's only fair to say "o.k., how do real institutions actually work in an actual capitalist society?" And the answer is: with enormous amounts of cooperation and collaboration, as well as with "selfish" competition.
Say, for example, that I'm the CEO of East Texas Widgets Inc. I contribute X% of my profits to a trade group that promotes the general utility and awareness of widgets to the US consumer and lobbies Congress for widget-friendly legislation. I do this knowing that not every widget manufacturer in the US contributes to the group and that many of them will benefit from the activities of the group on behalf of the general industry. That would be a clear cut case of an "altruistic" move designed to benefit the group in general, that is also a successful "evolutionary" strategy for the individual participant in the industry. These are the kinds of collaborative actions that are absolutely routine everyday business in any real capitalist economy you care to name.
posted by yoink at 1:21 PM on August 2, 2013
yoink: If your point is "population genetics isn't identical to economics" then, well, yes.
Funny, that's almost exactly what I just wrote.
If it is that game theory is irrelevant to economics then ...
No, my point is that the applications of game theory discussed in this paper are dependent on population genetics. The first criticism of ZD strategy involves parent-offspring competition, and the second criticism involves testing ZD under conditions of mutational instability. "To test how ZD fares in a simulation where strategies can evolve (in the previous sections, we only considered the competition between strategies that are fixed), we ran evolutionary (agent-based) simulations in which strategies are encoded genetically."
Neither of these make sense if the ZD in question isn't genetic.
... hat is also a successful "evolutionary" strategy for the individual participant in the industry.
Only if you can demonstrate that contributions to the trade group are a) genetic and b) influence the reproductive success of your children. Barring that, this discussion is irrelevant to the paper, and the paper is irrelevant to the discussion.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:50 PM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
Funny, that's almost exactly what I just wrote.
If it is that game theory is irrelevant to economics then ...
No, my point is that the applications of game theory discussed in this paper are dependent on population genetics. The first criticism of ZD strategy involves parent-offspring competition, and the second criticism involves testing ZD under conditions of mutational instability. "To test how ZD fares in a simulation where strategies can evolve (in the previous sections, we only considered the competition between strategies that are fixed), we ran evolutionary (agent-based) simulations in which strategies are encoded genetically."
Neither of these make sense if the ZD in question isn't genetic.
... hat is also a successful "evolutionary" strategy for the individual participant in the industry.
Only if you can demonstrate that contributions to the trade group are a) genetic and b) influence the reproductive success of your children. Barring that, this discussion is irrelevant to the paper, and the paper is irrelevant to the discussion.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:50 PM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
Not sure what your "splitter" comment refers to? I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Judean Popular Peoples Front.
Seriously, though, there's an extant body of literature on the historical development of capitalism. Of course there are debates around precise definitions, but no one is seriously going to say it can't be identified. One can discuss characteristics of historical phenomena without subscribing to theoretically pure definitions.
That would be a clear cut case of an "altruistic" move designed to benefit the group in general
It is good you put the term "altruistic" in quotations here because, again, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Please show me a real CEO (nice that you imagine yourself at the top of the ladder for your real world example) that performs "altruistic" acts that do not also & always benefit their own company. Selfish motives can easily wear generous smiles and offer open hands. If you think that corporations give the miniscule fraction of their profits that they do to charities and such solely out of "altruistic" motives, you've got a rude awakening coming. Good PR is like money in the bank.
And again, the fact that charitable and generous activities exist under/within capitalism does not mean that those activities arise from or are derived from capitalist organization. Do you think altruism originated with capitalism? Do you think that everything that happens is because of capitalism?
posted by jammy at 1:53 PM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
Seriously, though, there's an extant body of literature on the historical development of capitalism. Of course there are debates around precise definitions, but no one is seriously going to say it can't be identified. One can discuss characteristics of historical phenomena without subscribing to theoretically pure definitions.
That would be a clear cut case of an "altruistic" move designed to benefit the group in general
It is good you put the term "altruistic" in quotations here because, again, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Please show me a real CEO (nice that you imagine yourself at the top of the ladder for your real world example) that performs "altruistic" acts that do not also & always benefit their own company. Selfish motives can easily wear generous smiles and offer open hands. If you think that corporations give the miniscule fraction of their profits that they do to charities and such solely out of "altruistic" motives, you've got a rude awakening coming. Good PR is like money in the bank.
And again, the fact that charitable and generous activities exist under/within capitalism does not mean that those activities arise from or are derived from capitalist organization. Do you think altruism originated with capitalism? Do you think that everything that happens is because of capitalism?
posted by jammy at 1:53 PM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
If you are traveling with children, make sure that your own oxygen nitrous mask is on before stowing your children in the overhead compartment leaving them on the tarmac with grandma.
posted by nowhere man at 1:54 PM on August 2, 2013
posted by nowhere man at 1:54 PM on August 2, 2013
The real aim of capital is to remain the disproportionate beneficiary of the state's monopoly on violence. CEOs competing with one another is an interesting sub-game.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:59 PM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Space Coyote at 1:59 PM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
This result seems to suggest that altruism is necessary for the survival of a population as a whole but not necessarily that there's no fault tolerance for some degree of selfishness to persist in the population. We observe lots of traits that would be maladaptive if they were universal persisting in various degrees among populations in nature, don't we? The point I take from this is something like if evolution were so partial to selfishness that altruism within a species died out completely, that would lead to extinction. Makes sense. Even most species of sharks cooperate to some degree.
And genes don't really have traits like "selfishness" do they? Sequences of genes may give rise to traits at varying levels of biological organization in their expression, but the genes themselves are just collections of chemical switches, bits of code. They don't care if they get passed along or not, it's just a statistical fluke that only the genes that end up expressing traits that behave as if they care end up surviving.
Also, interesting that communication and the ability to share information is so vital to resolving the dilemma. It's tempting to think there's the makings of an argument against suppressing information to be made there.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:04 PM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
And genes don't really have traits like "selfishness" do they? Sequences of genes may give rise to traits at varying levels of biological organization in their expression, but the genes themselves are just collections of chemical switches, bits of code. They don't care if they get passed along or not, it's just a statistical fluke that only the genes that end up expressing traits that behave as if they care end up surviving.
Also, interesting that communication and the ability to share information is so vital to resolving the dilemma. It's tempting to think there's the makings of an argument against suppressing information to be made there.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:04 PM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don't have to justify my altruism to you. (In fact, I can selfishly refuse to do so.)
posted by Eideteker at 2:45 PM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Eideteker at 2:45 PM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
saulgoodman: I think this paper is very much in "imagine a spherical cow" territory. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I wouldn't apply it to real-world ecological relationships without a great number of caveats.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 3:05 PM on August 2, 2013
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 3:05 PM on August 2, 2013
But I would be interested how you could describe the actual lived institutional experience of capitalism (rather than some Randian fantasy of what it "ought" to be) that didn't involve massive amounts of both collaboration and cooperation.
Here was your direct question that I never answered. So!
I could describe my actual lived experience of running a business under capitalism. Would that work? (Does this satisfy your "real world" requirement? Am I "real" enough for you now?)
I am currently working to keep a retail store afloat. We recently hit on hard times, as have many, and put a plea out to our community. Our community, who values us, rallied strongly. Our business partners, suppliers and such, cut us off without so much as a sweet kiss goodbye. So, now, we can't even get the goods that our customers want and are willing to pay for up front. Please let me emphasize this: we have money in the bank and can give it to our suppliers and they are refusing it.
Our suppliers are acting like capitalists. If it doesn't benefit them, why would they do it? More than one has said "What's in it for us?" When I've remarked on our many years of doing good business together the response has been: "So what?"
Our customers? Well, we've always been something a bit more than a retail establishment, offering a space for community events and such. I think they are acting altruistically. They know that mutual aid makes *sense*. That far-sighted and communally-oriented goals are worth much more in the long run than the cheap and ultimately useless returns that capitalism offers.
And before you rush in and say: "Look, your customers are acting like altruistic capitalists" please let me note that many of them are simply *giving us money* (i.e., with no expectations or desires for reimbursement). That behavior is most decidedly not capitalist.
posted by jammy at 3:29 PM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
Here was your direct question that I never answered. So!
I could describe my actual lived experience of running a business under capitalism. Would that work? (Does this satisfy your "real world" requirement? Am I "real" enough for you now?)
I am currently working to keep a retail store afloat. We recently hit on hard times, as have many, and put a plea out to our community. Our community, who values us, rallied strongly. Our business partners, suppliers and such, cut us off without so much as a sweet kiss goodbye. So, now, we can't even get the goods that our customers want and are willing to pay for up front. Please let me emphasize this: we have money in the bank and can give it to our suppliers and they are refusing it.
Our suppliers are acting like capitalists. If it doesn't benefit them, why would they do it? More than one has said "What's in it for us?" When I've remarked on our many years of doing good business together the response has been: "So what?"
Our customers? Well, we've always been something a bit more than a retail establishment, offering a space for community events and such. I think they are acting altruistically. They know that mutual aid makes *sense*. That far-sighted and communally-oriented goals are worth much more in the long run than the cheap and ultimately useless returns that capitalism offers.
And before you rush in and say: "Look, your customers are acting like altruistic capitalists" please let me note that many of them are simply *giving us money* (i.e., with no expectations or desires for reimbursement). That behavior is most decidedly not capitalist.
posted by jammy at 3:29 PM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
Thing is, discussions like this tend to flirt pretty shamelessly with claims like:
See? This shows that we ought to be moral!
and/or:
See? Individuals ought to be altruistic rather than egoistic!
But the evolutionary conclusions don't show any such thing. None of this really adds anything to the relevant philosophical discussions, and it doesn't have any significant implications for what you or I as individuals ought to do. We're in the same situation we were always in. Specifically: each of us can sometimes benefit from cooperating, and sometimes benefit from screwing others over. And, as we've always recognized, screwing others over has consequences if others know we've done it.
Anyway...this is really just a suggestion that we recognize that this is of interest only as evidence in evolutionary biology. It doesn't have any interesting moral or policy implications that I can see.
Organisms that are cooperative when other organisms can see what they're doing might have an evolutionary advantage over thousands or millions of years...but that doesn't mean anything for what is advantageous to individuals like us who live very short lives.
[And, again, this is all about prudence, anyway, not about what is right and wrong...]
posted by Fists O'Fury at 3:50 PM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
See? This shows that we ought to be moral!
and/or:
See? Individuals ought to be altruistic rather than egoistic!
But the evolutionary conclusions don't show any such thing. None of this really adds anything to the relevant philosophical discussions, and it doesn't have any significant implications for what you or I as individuals ought to do. We're in the same situation we were always in. Specifically: each of us can sometimes benefit from cooperating, and sometimes benefit from screwing others over. And, as we've always recognized, screwing others over has consequences if others know we've done it.
Anyway...this is really just a suggestion that we recognize that this is of interest only as evidence in evolutionary biology. It doesn't have any interesting moral or policy implications that I can see.
Organisms that are cooperative when other organisms can see what they're doing might have an evolutionary advantage over thousands or millions of years...but that doesn't mean anything for what is advantageous to individuals like us who live very short lives.
[And, again, this is all about prudence, anyway, not about what is right and wrong...]
posted by Fists O'Fury at 3:50 PM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
Actually, the "evolutionary conclusions" very much do support the idea that altruism (or at the very least, cooperative, community-minded behavior) is advantageous. The most prolific species on the planet are hands-down all species that cooperate and display pro-social behaviors.
Suppose you breed chickens. Imagine what would happen, over time, if in order to put the naive formulation (in the philosophical sense, meaning the most simplistic version of the idea--i.e., not an insult) of the extreme Right-wing idea that life and death competition alone increase evolutionary fitness into practice in the most direct and extreme way possible: You design your breeding practices to select for the most aggressive, crafty and successful fighting breeding males. So out of every batch of adult roosters, you fight all of them to the death and only allow the winner to breed, and then just repeat the process. I posed this hypothetical scenario to a friend of mine who breeds chickens for a living and without hesitation she knew what the end result would be after enough successive generations: roosters so aggressive and violent they would kill their breeding partners and put an end to their own lines.
The idea that competition necessarily produces more fit animals is too simplistic. In reality, it takes more than breeding for competitive instinct to produce a prize rooster.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:55 PM on August 2, 2013
Suppose you breed chickens. Imagine what would happen, over time, if in order to put the naive formulation (in the philosophical sense, meaning the most simplistic version of the idea--i.e., not an insult) of the extreme Right-wing idea that life and death competition alone increase evolutionary fitness into practice in the most direct and extreme way possible: You design your breeding practices to select for the most aggressive, crafty and successful fighting breeding males. So out of every batch of adult roosters, you fight all of them to the death and only allow the winner to breed, and then just repeat the process. I posed this hypothetical scenario to a friend of mine who breeds chickens for a living and without hesitation she knew what the end result would be after enough successive generations: roosters so aggressive and violent they would kill their breeding partners and put an end to their own lines.
The idea that competition necessarily produces more fit animals is too simplistic. In reality, it takes more than breeding for competitive instinct to produce a prize rooster.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:55 PM on August 2, 2013
eviemath: It's the whats-its effect... uh, where you're expecting to see something or more attuned to that thing, so you consciously make note of it occurring more than you make note of it not occurring? (Somebody will remember the term I'm looking for, I'm sure.)I think the term you're looking for is "confirmation bias".
posted by mistersquid at 10:01 PM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]
Someone needs to model this in Dwarf Fortress so we can get a real answer.
Human beings evolved to want to build ruby floodgates decorated with shells but to be unable to get the shells so as to inevitably go berserk and bring down the whole fortress in an ever-widening spiral of madness and violent deaths, leaving only one baby alone in the blood and vomit-strewn wreckage of what had been a promising civilization.
Sounds right to me!
posted by winna at 4:01 AM on August 3, 2013
Human beings evolved to want to build ruby floodgates decorated with shells but to be unable to get the shells so as to inevitably go berserk and bring down the whole fortress in an ever-widening spiral of madness and violent deaths, leaving only one baby alone in the blood and vomit-strewn wreckage of what had been a promising civilization.
Sounds right to me!
posted by winna at 4:01 AM on August 3, 2013
« Older 150 Seconds of Headbutts | My name is Roman, last name is Zolanski Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Renoroc at 7:22 AM on August 2, 2013 [6 favorites]