|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Introduction |
|---|
Last week,
Science
(subscription
required)
published a
Report
and
summary
about altruistic behavior. Bhattacharjee's summary puts the case:
The results of this study are not conclusive, except to correlate punishment with selfish behavior.
|
Conclusions. We have shown three things about costly punishment as measured in one-shot anonymous experiments. First, costly punishment is present across a highly diverse range of human populations and emerges in a patterned fashion in each population. In every population, less-equal offers were punished more frequently. Second, we also find substantial variation among populations, with some societies showing very little overall willingness to punish, others demonstrating substantial willingness to punish, and still others revealing a willingness to punish offers that are either too generous or too stingy. Given the critical importance of costly punishment in maintaining cooperation in experimental studies (12, 34), the observed variation here suggests that the same institutional forms may function quite differently in different populations (33). Third, at the population level, this willingness to punish covaries with a behavioral measure of altruism.
These three results are consistent with recent evolutionary models of altruistic punishment (3, 4, 9). In particular, culture-gene coevolutionary models that combine strategies of cooperation and punishment predict that local learning dynamics generate between-group variation as different groups arrive at different "cultural" equilibria (36, 37). These local learning dynamics create social environments that favor the genetic evolution of psychologies that predispose people to administer, anticipate, and avoid punishment (by learning local norms). Alternative explanations of the costly punishment and altruistic behavior observed in our experiments have not yet been formulated in a manner that can account for stable between-group variation or the positive covariation between altruism and punishment (38, 39). Whether the co-evolution of cultural norms and genes or some other framework is ultimately correct, these results more sharply delineate the species-level patterns of social behavior that a successful theory of human cooperation must address.
This report does not in any way resolve an on going argument, whether altruistic behavior is genetically determined or culturally programmed or both. The authors suggest that the advantages of altruism may setup a genetic evolution, so that a behavioral mode eventually becomes "hard wired." While I don't know whether that is so, I note we are talking about Homo sapiens, not another species, in this study. So another variable enters the picture: altruism might be genetic in other species and Homo, but that does not prevent cultural dominance over genes among Homo sapiens because of our unique, programmable intellectual abilities.
Of course, I make this point as one committed to the view that the evolution of human culture is different in kind from ordinary, Darwinian evolution. My view clearly distinguishes evolution driven by genes and that driven by intellectual abilities (the brain). So, I fasten on Henrich's figure 3, as it seems to show a great deal of variation in how much punishment is correlated with altruism. Some societies are tolerant of selfish (or saintly) behavior and others are not, although all of them in some degree regulate toward an accepted norm. I would explain this result by saying that different cultural arrangements are possible for groups within an intelligent species. We are not ants or bees which have a strictly determined caste system.
On my view, the only limits on culture are basic survival. I think it obvious that a culture of death and destruction will soon enough commit suicide. Aside from that negative limit, all else is possible. We see those differences in the world about us. Large numbers of people are satisfied with their lives as they are, even if they are aware of the high living going on elsewhere. If this were not so, the fashionable cities would already be flooded with hundreds of millions of immigrants. On the other hand, tens of millions are not satisfied with their lives in Arabia, rural China or Latin America, so they are flocking to the cities of Europe, Asia and the America seeking betterment. All the different cities and provinces have different cultures and different standards. While some cultures are falling apart in the face of modernity, many are not. Despite the modern revolutions in living conditions and standards, there are many different, strongly persistent cultures; not everything has been Americanized. That is what figure 3 shows.
I believe Anglo-American Capitalism (AAC) is, for example, a cultural trait. It only makes sense when several background behaviors are postulated. When AAC is imposed on other countries or societies, the results are often dramatically poor. AAC doesn't seem to work very well in most of Africa. It is only partially successful in India and China, where it has been adapted to local conditions. Japan and South Korea are the only Asian countries which adopted a large dose of AAC, probably because of an imposing American military and economic presence since World War II. I would expect a study of the success of Capitalist economies in various societies to end up in a scattergram similar to figure 3.
What such a scattergram reveals, I think, is the presence of underlying cultural factors which have to be evaluated. In some societies, such as the United States, greed and selfishness are considered a social good (although I think them a positive evil). Thus, we would not expect the punishment for such behavior as an alternative to altruism to be severe. The reason for my foregoing discussion of AAC is, simply, Adam Smith's well known assumption that greed can be bent to socially beneficial purposes. Why would anyone think of such a thing, except in a society that demonstrates greed? In more community oriented societies, selfishness might be severely punished. Such societies might be more "socialistic" or less inclined to Smithian Capitalism.
Finally, I agree with the authors'
comment: a lot more study is needed, especially of cultural factors.
WalterB -
16:01:09 - Thursday, 06/29/2006
