Posted by alexandra_k on September 18, 2013, at 15:09:27
In reply to Re: Social Skills, posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2013, at 0:25:14
if you have a common space... some grazing land. a lake. woods. the ocean. the skies.
then if everybody does what is rationally in their own best interests (to use up more of the communal resource for ones personal profit than everyone else - to gain the competitive advantage)... then it will eventually be ruined for everyone.
natural selection can result in situations where what improves my inclusive fitness (e.g., to have more sheep than you) results in the extinction of us all.
in order to prevent the tragedy of the commons you need to regulate it. if you rely on individual conscience to police then you select for selfish individuals who are insensitive to the good of the group (and to their own longer term welfare).
e.g., psychopaths. or just your average insensitive idiot.
natural selection is incremental: not goal or ends directed. a trait isn't selected 'for the good of the group' but it is present in the group in higher frequencies in subsequent generations for doing better than other variants.
this is what makes the evolution of co-operation seem puzzling...
the best strategy is if everyone co-operates / has a conscience. but given that one cheats / defects, it seems that everyone else must, too. so given that the default was to be un co-operative, how could co-operation have gotten up off the ground as a viable strategy?mutual benefit
but why co-operate when it is in your best interests to defect?
it isn't in your best interests to defect - you will be punished
but why punish when doing so is individually costly?
because if you cheat me I'LL BE SO INCENSED I'LL STRIKE THE FURY OF THE GODS UPON YE
and the outrage i reliably feel in response to injustice is hard to fake
(pro-social emotions include emotions that make us likely to punish / police defectors because they prevent the population being over-ridden by selfish bastards)this is why people get together and bond by expressing appropriate disgust / condemnation / admiration for the actions of others. the function is signalling ones moral attitudes / emotions that you will then muster to motivate co-operation / punishment of defection. seeing whether people have the appropriate attitudes / emotions. Whether they can harness those in ways that make mutual collaborative activity possible. Seeing whether their judgements about others possessing the appropriate attitudes / emotions are reliable. Reputation. For what is important. Namely, for figuring out who to trust with potentially mutually profitable co-operative activities. e.g., i have research funding. i give you some money, you produce some work. i get more research funding for work that was produced. you get more money. you give more work. and so on. you need to know who the defectors are to avoid them... or the whole ship goes down. reputation (of those with reputation) is important. Of course it is complicated by some people being trustworthy with some things in some circumstances but not with these other things over there... The judgements we must make...
hardest thing in the world: deciding who to engage in co-operative activity with
a lot depends on situation...
MUTUAL BENEFIT. with minimal opportunity to use the ring of gyges...
could mental illness be a tragedy of the commons? how so?
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1047868
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20130914/msgs/1050922.html