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.

Explaining Glenn Beck to an exceptional 14 year old.

Today an exceptionally bright 14 year old came to me and asked, "Who's Glenn Beck, and why did he have a rally?" As I considered how I would reply, it occurred to me that a quick response wouldn't do and that understanding who he is would require some knowledge of the context in which the phenomenon known as Glenn Beck is taking place. Here is my response, which I thought I would share with you. *Note: her name is substituted.

This is a very good question, Molly. I know you're a precocious and inquisitive person, so I'll presume that you have already looked up him up on Wikipedia and, like me, found that the most straightforward answer isn't very satisfying.

The most straightforward answer, of course, is that he is an influential conservative radio and television personality with close ties to the Tea Party movement. He is very popular these days and communicates with a lot of people on his radio and television programs. In general, he says that government should be very “small”. In other words, the government should collect very little taxes and not try to do a lot of things such as make rules for companies to follow, provide healthcare, and give people some money when they lose their jobs. His argument is that if people don't have to pay taxes, they can afford to do all these things themselves without the government's help and they can do it better and cheaper. The problem is these issues are 1) very complicated and difficult to understand, and 2) tend to arouse strong racial feelings. You see, most of these polices are designed to “help the poor by taxing the rich” (kind of like Robin Hood). A lot of white people that may have only a limited understanding of the issues think that the government is “taking their money” and giving it to poor people who don't deserve it. It's racial because in their view who “deserves it” frequently depends on what color their skin is. For example, they often believe the stereotypes that African-Americans are poor because they are lazy and don't work hard, and that illegal immigrants come here for free education, healthcare, and to steal our jobs.

Molly, one thing about people is that they tend to prefer to listen to people they agree with and ignore information that contradicts their view. The problem is the more people hear information that agrees with their view, the more and more they believe it. Glenn Beck says things that confirm in white peoples' minds that their problems in life are the fault of brown people. For example, when Barack Obama was elected president, a lot of white people were afraid that he would try to take all their money away and give it to black people, so Glenn Beck told everyone on television that Barack Obama “hates white people, and the white culture”, suggesting the he has some secret agenda to hurt them. Sometimes he even says things that make people think Obama is connected with “terrorists” who want to attack and destroy America. The more they listen to Glenn Beck, the more they feel the whole world--Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, and even Europeans, are attacking America from the inside. Consequently, a lot of white people got really paranoid and started organizing clubs for white Christians so they could feel safe.

Though most white people don't think like this, when you count all of them that do all across the whole country this still adds up to a lot of people. With the help of companies who don't want the government to make rules that they have to follow, these groups have used the Internet to find each other and organize into even larger groups. When you have “groups of groups” coming together, sometimes this is called a “movement”. In this case, we call it the Tea Party movement. For a lot of Tea Partiers, Glenn Beck is like a rock star. So when they wanted to have a big rally in Washington, putting Glenn Beck as the main event causes lots of excitement and draws many people to come see him and participate. This is why “he” had a rally in Washington.

Still, I don't know if anything I have said rally “answers” the question you asked me: who is Glenn Beck? I have talked about the things he does as best as I can, but I don't think we can understand 'who' someone is until we understand both what they do and importantly 'why they do it'. The thing is when Glenn Beck talks, everybody listens. People who agree with him love him, people who disagree with him hate him. Either way, they listen. Before Beck started talking about politics, he was a radio “shock jock.” A shock jock is someone who says very shocking things that people just can't stop listening to—usually because they just can't wait to hear if the next thing he says is even more shocking. A long time ago he would do things like call up a woman on the phone and laugh at her for having a miscarriage or make fun of an unarmed Black man who was shot by a police officer.

In my opinion, Glenn Beck is and always has been a man who will do or say anything for money. Recently, he has been discovered for having extraordinary talent as a propagandist. This is someone who deliberately talks about the news in a way to shape people's opinions about politics. This is a very, very valuable talent, and some very powerful and rich people support have hired him to shape peoples minds about many issues, from tax policy to rules that companies have to follow. He is now very rich and famous. I believe this was his only objective. Things just happen to work out that he is also a very prominent person in America and may have a big impact on our future.

I hope my explanation helps, though I hope you will consider what I've said to be just an "introduction". You will continue to hear and read about him for quite some time, and this may help you understand what you're witnessing. Ultimately, you will need to formulate your own opinions about him, based upon your total experience and unique way of thinking.

Good luck!

Liberal hypocrites.

Two criticisms conservatives frequently levy against liberals and progressives are that we 1) make them feel stupid, and 2) we are hypocrites. I'm not going to comment on the first point, save only to recall Isaac Asimov's musing on the subject:

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"

Conservative stupidity, however, isn't the purpose of my writing. Rather, the focus of my remarks will be on the second point: that we are hypocrites. I concur in this judgement. We are, in fact, total hypocrites. Let's just imagine, for a moment, what it must be like to listen to us drone endlessly on about malevolent corporations hijacking the government, oil wars and failure to launch any meaningful effort to mitigate climate change? We call them stupid for not listening to us, and they rightly call us out for the beneficiaries of these same injustices we decry. How many "liberals" in Washington, DC one way or another get their salary from the Defense Department budget? We're hypocrites because we know the wars are about oil, and we still go to work everyday doing our little part in the "War on Terrorism". We criticize corporations like Verizon and Google trying to destroy Net Neutrality, but we own Google and Verizon. That is to say, we own their shares. Which oil companies are you invested in via your mutual funds? And won't you throw a hissy fit when their CEO comes out and must inform you that their companies failed to turn a profit this quarter.

The median income in the US as of 2008 is roughly 31K. How many of you make more than that (or at least expect to make more than that when you graduate. If you're reading this blog, you are/will most likely (be) making two or three times at your fancy professional jobs--actuaries at insurance companies, stock managers at CitiGroup, researchers and sales-reps at GlaxoSmithKline, ratings analysts at Viacom, or engineers at Northrup Grumman. It's no wonder that we're not out protesting in the streets when we're the beneficiaries of an unjust system.

Here's a tip that might help you identify whether you are part of the problem you decry: Would you be fired if you were found out to have attended a protest at a G8 summit? If your boss saw you standing on the side of the street raising a sign that said, "no more blood for oil" would you be getting a talkin' to? No, we're not out in the streets, we're 35 floors up in an air-conditioned offices, and have no mind to rock the foundations of our fortune. What is perhaps more hypocritical still, is the expectation that as we look down on them through one-way glass panes, they should be able to tell the difference between us and the billionaires who we say are responsible for their houses getting foreclosed on, their job getting sent-away overseas, and their lack of adequate healthcare. This is a tall request for someone we have the nerve to call stupid.

Loyola Marymount study finds that Second Life relationships can be more satisfying that real world ones

From Virtual World News

Second Life Relationships More Satisfying Than Real Ones

Participants in the 3D virtual world Second Life are more satisfied with the romantic relationships they form in the virtual world than the ones in their real life, according to two studies conducted by Loyola Marymount Universityresearchers. Even more remarkably, Second Life users who participated in the study reported that their level of sexual satisfaction with virtual world relationships was roughly equal to what they experienced in their real world relationships. Read more...

Full article: http://www.virtualworldsnews.com/2010/08/second-life-relationships-more-satisfying-than-real-ones.html
__________________________________________________

More evidence that people can have real and satisfying emotional experiences within virtual worlds. I don't mean to imply that I think virtual lives are in anyway superior to "real" lives. Rather, that virtual worlds constitute a new living space for the mind, unaccompanied by the body. With our feet still firmly planted in the real world amidst real lives, our consciousness may extend into a second, perpendicular plane of existence simultaneously. Such an existence may seem an awkward stretch for many of us older birds, but for our children who will have been introduced to virtual worlds when their brains are still spongy, may find themselves perfectly at home with their consciousnesses striped across numerous realms.

-Nick

Competing ecosystems.

Apple is typically the company that comes to mind when one talks about a software 'ecosystem'; i.e., an effort to put all software and hardware together in a single, coherent package affording users all the capabilities they could ever need. Within a software ecosystem, individual applications pass data to each other seamlessly from the user's point of view. Perhaps even more importantly all applications share a common user-interface experience making it possible for users to competently use a variety of diverse software with a single common skill set; if you can use one, you can pretty much use them all.

It occurred to me today as I perused my daily RSS feeds via Google Reader on my Google Android phone, I'm utterly immersed in Google's software ecosystem. Why does this feel somehow ironic? Perhaps it is because Google is supposed to be the anti-Apple. Where Apple tries to micromanage the user's experience within the confines a "walled garden" ecosystem, Google (supposedly) works by connecting you with the world. But does it really? More and more I find that all the programs I use are Google. This is a Google-owned blogging site, and I chose it primarily for its simple integration with my Gmail account. While, I find the provided creation tools sufficient for my purposes, I might have composed my thoughts using the now revamped and impressive GoogleDocs suite. Apple doesn't even have one of those!

I realize that I'm glossing over the undoubtedly real and consequential distinctions between these two companies. Google actually does earn the large part of its revenue from connecting people with new things, whereas Apple makes its money by selling people computers. Yet my point of all this is simply that the term 'ecosystem' ought to be attached to Google as well. Ordinarily, this would hardly seem worth writing about, but given that heretofore Apple has pretty much owned the term, and further that Google is in some contexts characterized as the anti-Apple, it may help us to construct a better model of what is actually going on between these two giants. Both are ecosystems, and they're competing for your inhabitation. Underlying both of their business models is that they can each provide you with everything you could ever need or want. Consequently, you will never have to stray far from Google's ads or Apple's hardware.

Now if you will excuse me, I have several Google Voice messages waiting.

Response to those who say democracy is needed for economic growth

I don’t see that democracy is a necessary part of this equation: It is really about the combination of ‘security’ and ‘property rights’. Democracy is a useful means to an end, though not the only possible means. It’s merely convenient that democracy may impose some restraints on the government that enhance the security of property rights from the government---though this can happen without democracy, which I think is the story of East Asia during the second half of the 20th century. In small groups, humans WILL cooperate. It may be said that this is to a large part out of their control—it’s our biological nature to cooperate. Even under extreme circumstances, we will cooperate with kin. Security enables cooperation on larger scales, both in geographic terms and in terms of extended, non-kin social networks. Property rights, however, may be necessary to motivate cooperation at these scales. In kin relationships, or small groups, basic human sociality has mechanisms for incentivizing cooperation and disincentivizing freeriding. On a large scale, however, these mechanisms break down and profit takes over as the motivator of cooperation.

Thought of the day

Consumer choice is freedom, and we are the freest people in the world.

If we couldn't get fresh grapes in January, we'd be no better than the Soviets.