Christopher Boehm in Moral Originsconcludes, after intensive analysis of 50 representative hunter-gatherer cultures, that our ancestors likely experienced a “radical political change,” evolving from a hierarchic “apelike ‘might is right’…social order,” to become more egalitarian. About 250,000 years ago, their survival became a team sport because chasing big-game toward teammates was much more productive than solo hunting. But only if profit-sharing was sustainable. Even with fit teammates hunting needs luck (e.g. 4% success today). Then, as now, the logic of social insurance solved team problems by sharing profits and risks. Productivity gains in interdependent teams radically changed our evolution. Cooperators thrived. As did teams with the best adapted sharing rules, provided they were well enforced.Homo socialis versus homo economicus.
The first stage in the development of humanity was as homo socialis (social man), then as homo fabulans (story-telling man), and then homo publicus (public man).
There has never been a homo economicus historically.
It's a theoretical fabrication. In fact, individuals who "rationally" pursued maximum utility were at a disadvantage against teams, and if they happened to gain dominance, they were eliminated at the communal stage of development. It was not until surplus societies that the warrior and priestly classes, which survived on the surplus of the worker class, could dominate the more numerous workers, so that the hierarchy of these classes were able to dominate politically.
However, the length of time that the latter arrangement has been in place is much shorter than the length of time that the communal society operative, so that the evolutionary influence of homo socialis is still strong. Therefore, the impetus toward cooperation, reciprocity, and fairness remain strong, in spite of the increase of individualism. Thus, the very recent story of homo economicus and the fable of makers and takers only works to the degree that people can be convinced that there is a free rider problem rather than that some are better than others.
Scientific American — Blogs
Justice Is in Our Nature
Jag Bhalla
Scientific American — Blogs
Justice Is in Our Nature
Jag Bhalla
11 comments:
Hey this is funny from the author's bi-line: "Jag Bhalla is an entrepreneur and writer. His current project is Errors We Live By, a series of short exoteric essays exposing errors in the big ideas running our lives,"
I bet I know the biggest one currently and he doesnt even have it in his list...
This is interesting from the article: "They use rebukes, ridicule, shame, shunning, exile and execution ..."
Save the executions but everything else looks like a good idea here.
rsp,
"convinced that there is a free rider problem rather than that some are better than others."
Tom,
Couldnt a laborer look at someone who is in the intelligensia and think "that ain't workin'... that's the way you do it, etc"?
And a laborer could easily think that the intelligensia are 'free riders' so-called as they do not 'labor'?
Seems like what you are asserting is that the only legitimate way to look at this is that the acquirers are the TRULY 'free-riders'? and they do not "work" as they are not laborers?
You know Ive met a lot of people who appear to like to labor... I see that they at the end of the day desire to see some sort of material results from their labor, rather than some sort of abstract form of results of their daily activities...
Like if you told them they would have to quit their jobs and do what Jamie Dimon does all day they would probably slit their wrists...
They just want to get paid adequately for what they do all day....
I say: "pay them"... pay them well.
I think we can have 'classes' or 'classifications' of people without thinking 'some are better than others...'
Where does this 'some are better than others' come from? Wages?
iow if someone makes more "money" than another then they are deemed "better"?
Is this a compensation issue here? Because that can be easily fixed imo... or is it more than just "the money"?
rsp,
These are small tribes, not nations comprising hundreds of millions of disaffected people who are alone together. The logical extrapolation to take from this tiny article is that small, decentralized, non hierarchical living works best. It sure isn't fronting for a disconnected bureaucratic led way of life.
This is interesting from the article: "They use rebukes, ridicule, shame, shunning, exile and execution ..."
Save the executions but everything else looks like a good idea here.
Matt, this is the way same species free riders and nuisances are dealt with down the biological chain. Humans are just more sophisticated about it.
Couldnt a laborer look at someone who is in the intelligensia and think "that ain't workin'... that's the way you do it, etc"?
And a laborer could easily think that the intelligensia are 'free riders' so-called as they do not 'labor'?
This is certainly true of rentiers, Matt. It would also apply to those warriors and intelligentsia that do contribute but also abuse their power to exploit others for their own class advantage.
These are small tribes, not nations comprising hundreds of millions of disaffected people who are alone together. The logical extrapolation to take from this tiny article is that small, decentralized, non hierarchical living works best. It sure isn't fronting for a disconnected bureaucratic led way of life.
Ii don't think that is the point of the article, but some (anarchists) draw it, illogically I think.
The point is that evolution happens over long periods during which patterns are set that persist over very long periods in the future. A lot of work is being done in evolutionary theory that undermines the notion that humans are chiefly individualistic and driven by self-interest.
The evidence points to homo socialis as the foundation of human evolutionary success and dominance rather than homo economicus, as many economists erroneously assume in their models.
"A lot of work is being done in evolutionary theory that undermines the notion that humans are chiefly individualistic and driven by self-interest."
Tom,
Not sure what you mean by some anarchists? Is that meant as an invective, and somehow disqualifies the argument? I also don't think we can extrapolate from small band societies to large impersonal ones.
No matter. Every act by an individual is by definition individualistic. My brother pointed that out over at NC awhile back. Also as Max Stirner has cogently demonstrated, to the chagrin of Marx and Engels among others, all individual acts are based on self interest, whether or not a person is aware of that fact or not. This is not to be confused with the narrow and self-defeating self interest of, say, an Ayn Rand. We are largely cooperative beings, and as the article sates have been that way for at least 250 thousand years (although I have more than a quibble with the 250 number in that we have ALWAYS been nothing but cooperative as a species, else none of us would be here). At any rate we are all necessarily selfish, but our selfish natures aren't mutually exclusive acts leading us away from the desire to do good to others. The individual isn't a social pathology but rather an entity that is everything to itself, everywhere and always.
I meant this for my second to last sentence:
"At any rate we are all necessarily selfish, but our selfish natures aren't mutually exclusive self defeating acts leading us away from the desire to do good to others".
In other words we all act in our self interest, which for the most part benefits others. You might say we have a cooperation gene. Cooperation is in our self interest.
Not sure what you mean by some anarchists? Is that meant as an invective, and somehow disqualifies the argument? I also don't think we can extrapolate from small band societies to large impersonal ones.
I happen to be an anarchist, in the sense of preferring consensual governing to hierarchical government, which has historically been hijacked by a ruling class pretty consistently. I take the consensual framework of communal societies based on reciprocity as the paradigm. However, I am not a purist in thinking that all that needs to happen is shifting to the model, since it ignores existing cultural and institutional limitations, as well as how development has generally taken place. While I am an idealist with respect to vision, I am a pragmatist wrt to actualization.
...We are largely cooperative beings, and as the article sates have been that way for at least 250 thousand years (although I have more than a quibble with the 250 number in that we have ALWAYS been nothing but cooperative as a species, else none of us would be here). At any rate we are all necessarily selfish, but our selfish natures aren't mutually exclusive acts leading us away from the desire to do good to others. The individual isn't a social pathology but rather an entity that is everything to itself, everywhere and always.
Agree, and this is not the view of homo economicus, which in some versions of Bentham's utility calculus is narrowly individualistic along the lines of Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
While humans are individualistic wrt pursuing self-interest, their self-interest lies in cooperative behavior. I'm sure Roger Erickson will verify that this extends way down the evolutionary chain. This begins as reciprocal interaction, reciprocity develops into fairness and fairness becomes the basis for the concept of justice. This is hardwired through aeons of evolution.
Moreover, humans are more like hive, herd and pack species than individual hunters. The collective is just as important to human survival and progress as the individual, in fact, more important since individual humans are dispensable whereas the collective is not. And leaders, are more indispensable than followers, since they are better adapted to collective requirements.
This doesn’t prevent individual leaders from exploiting their position, however, unless they are reined in by the collective through cooperative efforts. Hence, rogue leaders take steps to prevent collective action that might limit their exercise of power for personal and class interest at the expense of the majority of the collective.
However, it is also a fact that the greatest leaders of humankind, the ones that are recognized as wise, have not only taught altruism as in the individuals genuine self-interest in unfolding human potential, but also they have shown this in their example — against which Ayn Rand in particular railed, following her understanding of reading Nietzsche.
Alexis de Tocqueville's take on nineteenth century Americans' enlightened self-interest is also interesting.
HOW THE AMERICANS COMBAT INDIVIDUALISM BY THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-INTEREST RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD
Tom,
I'm sure you and I are kindred souls. We both desire what's best for the individual in light of the collective. I see people as basically good hearted. I hope we can find perfect balance in light of where we are at present. Diffusion of power seems to me to be one avenue to that end. I hope we can thread that needle sooner rather than later.
Yes. I need to write up my thoughts on this.
There is a simple solution, which is to raise the level of collective consciousness. This is happening naturally in evolution but slowly. It is possible to accelerate the process consciously.
In my view Marx erred in thinking that consciousness raising is principally a function of changing material conditions. That's wagging the dog's tail.
Instead there is an interaction between subjective and objective poles that views them as a unity in experience. Subjectivity and objectivity are complementary rather than in opposition.
Culture and institutions are manifestations of collective consciousness that shape individual consciousness within that system. Collective consciousness determines culture and institutional arrangements that determine a great deal of individual mindset and behavior.
This is pretty standard thinking now in organizational behavior and management science. The engineering issue is locating and adjusting the controls, internal and external, which work in parallel.
A conceptual starting point is Abraham Maslow's Theory Z, which goes beyond McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y in being based on humanistic and transpersonal psych.
Post a Comment