Approaches to human nature

The matter of cooperation is a key subject of interest in virtually every social and behavioral science, as well various biological and animal sciences. To this grand question of human nature, each discipline applies its own unique approach rooted in that department’s favored methods, perspectives, and discourses. In this short discussion, I’d like to draw upon two such approaches; specifically, I will contrast the political-economic model, and another model which I will loosely call sociological.

Taking Ostrom, Hardin, or Orbell as examples of political-economists, this approach is highly theoretical, beginning from a “bottom-up” extrapolation of the nature of cooperation beginning with first principles. The logical progression from these first principles are often then explored with mathematical modeling, laboratory experiments (on human or other live subjects) or with computational simulation. Though political-economics have advanced considerably since the reign of absolutist rational actor theories, this approach is still deeply rooted in the idea that human beings are agents, utilizing some cognitive aptitude to assess the pros and cons of various behavioral strategies and identify an optimal course of action. For potential courses enabled only via some form of cooperation (i.e., a social dilemma), humans will employ their trademark ingenuity and devise a social-technology (i.e., norms, promises, altruistic punishment of defection, agreements, laws, etc.) capable of corralling a herd of independent-minded agents who are naturally reluctant to cooperate .

This “bottom-up” approach contrasts with what may be described as a “top-down” approach common to sociology and other animal behavioral sciences. Unlike political-economists who have inherited the traditional modus operandi of the economists, i.e., to begin from first principles, sociologists tend to start with direct observation of the animal itself, in its natural habitat. In some ways, what they observe is a quite different picture of humanity than what the political-economists present. Far from being reluctant cooperators, the sociologists see cooperation as an essential characteristic of the species. In their view, cooperation comes as natural to human beings as swimming to a fish, or burying acorns to a squirrel. We do it, quite simply, because its our nature to do so--it’s “in our genes,” and not simply in a manner of speech. From early-childhood, we are perpetually, actively seeking out others with whom to cooperate. Figuratively speaking, there is an invisible force of social-gravity that draws individuals toward on another. Perhaps the major difference is cooperation isn’t something that is achieved via a social-technology, it is the default presumption; cooperation is the default stance we humans take against the various ecological, interpersonal, and intergroup challenges we face. We are not individuals in nature, we are a lattice structure--an array of beings that survives in numbers. For our ancestors, if you were not part of a group, you were dead (and thus not one of our ancestors).

To facilitate and deepen cooperation, we invent value systems and entire cosmologies that we can all share. These intellectual constructions may accentuate similarities or common challenges, while exacerbating differences with respect to out-groups. We have rich verbal and physical means of communication that allow trust to grow from an initial seed (a smile), to a sappling (small talk, trivial banter), to robust cooperation (secrets, valuable knowledge, loyalty). Importantly, all of this is done unconsciously; we do it without even thinking about it. The slightest knowledge of group membership (like estimations of numbers of dots on a screen) can significantly alter behavior. Next time you are in a coffee shop listening to two individuals smile and banter back and forth about absolutely nothing of consequence, be assured that that despite appearances something very important is going on: they are trust-building, watering the seed of cooperation.

In sum, political-economists insist--and show compelling justification and evidence--that the temptation to defect is real. At the same time sociologists have collected vast data showing that the drive to cooperate is real. Logically, these views do not seem to be mutually exclusive. While it is in our nature to cooperate, we are not immune from the temptation to become “the first among equals”, get ourselves and our progeny a bigger, better piece of the pie. I’m reminded of John Godfrey Saxe’s re-telling of the Indian parable of the elephant. Six blind, wisemen from a distant province encountered an elephant for the first time. One man felt at the trunk, and said that this beast must be like a snake. Another felt its leg and figured it must be like a tree. Another felt the tusk and imagined it like a spear, and so forth. For me, this discussion reinforces the importance of an interdisciplinary (or perhaps non-disciplinary) approach to the grand question. Like the six wisemen, we may each have an important piece of the puzzle. If we are ever to them together and finally produce the rich understanding of human nature that has arguably been our greatest, most noble ambition, then we must take a lesson from our ancestors and eschew the temptation for each of us to go it alone. Rather, we are all of us bound together by a higher purpose, to delve the mysteries of nature and extract from it true knowledge of who we are, where we came from, and why we are here.