BradCube said:
On another note, I forgot to mention that I started to work through the paper on evolution of reciprocity. I didn't make it very far for 3 reasons:
1. I was extremely tired
2. The explanations were quite wordy and required a great deal of concentration
3. It seemed to be making assumptions about a few things (ie the benefit of giving is greater than that of receiving)
Now, obviously point (1) + (2) don't hold any weight, but they do explain why I may have misunderstood (3). So with that, would you be able to explain to me where this assumption came from and if it was anything more than intuition on their part?
I assume you mean the following passage (or similar): "In the simplest model [of direct reciprocity], the altruistic act consists in conferring a benefit
b on the recipient at a cost
c to the donor. We shall always assume that the cost is smaller than the benefit, so that if the act is returned, both individuals experience a game. The payoff structure yields an instance of the familiar Prisoner's Dilemma game."
Things to note:
- The assumption is not that benefit is greater than cost for
all actions which could be considered altruism. E.g. one could sacrifice their life in order to provide another person with a years subscription to Vogue Magazine. Clearly the cost exceeds the benefit in this case.
- Rather, the reference is to a model of development of altruistic behavior which only applies to those acts for which the assumption (b > c) holds. What is then established is that, provided b > c, a tendency to perform these actions, in semi-stable relationships, will work out to the benefit of both parties. Given that such tendencies are mutually advantageous (increasing the evolutionary fitness of all involved) one could expect such tendencies to develop over generations.
- A similar assumption will hold for arguments pertaining to indirect reciprocity. It is not an unreasonable assumption because one would not expect actions whose costs exceed their benefits to emerge in the long run. This is not to say that these actions will be eliminated altogether - actions
are performed where the cost > benefit and such actions may be driven, in part, by evolution derrived tendencies (applied in maladaptive situations). However, the evolutionary arguments that can be made only properly hold where b > c.
- You can see rough evidence for a tendency to weigh cost and benefit in human interactions. For example, I remember my Grandpa always saying "if a small action, taking little effort on your part, will make another person's life much easier then it would seem senseless not to do it." Similarly, a person will often be viewed as cruel/mean/unreasonable if they deny a small request from a person in pain/need/etc. which would aid them a great deal. Consider an individual who is motionless on a couch, suffering from a bout of influenza. They might ask a friend or family member to turn off the overhead lights because they are suffering form light sensitivity. A person who refuses this request, on the basis of laziness or a 'why don't you do it?' response, will probably be viewed as cruel or unreasonable. On the other hand, if the sick person asks someone to walk 5km to the nearest pharmacy (they're in the country, say) to get some panadol then it would seem more reasonable to deny the request. Not the most inventive example, but I'm sure you can spot similar trends.
