These posts will not be in any discernible order; nor will they resemble the order of presentations during the conference. They will merely reflect what I found profoundly interesting and what presentations sparked future research endeavors. These thoughts will be poorly cited and eventually as time permits, I will fill in citations as I move along.
With that being said, if it seems as though I think my thoughts are original or of my own, when in fact someone already went there...it's not plagiarism. Its my daily life. Someone. Already. Did. It. In that case, comment with a citation or two.
The BULLY: New free rider, found in any social dominance hierarchy. However, close groups of individuals don't need cheater detection. Early in hominin evolution, subordinate band members hold down bullies, through egalitarian methods; consensus groups, social pressure, and deviant reform are oft chosen methods.
50% of all capital punishment occurrences were to curb bullies (lying, theft, adultery: free rider suppression). Likewise, what offenses are reported as deviant are dominated by intimidators, including murder and sorcery.
Irreversible sanctioning is delivered about 9% of the time, where executions are delegated to kin, the group executes together, or permanent expulsion. However, 91% of the time, they deliver reversible sanctioning, spatial distancing, corporeal punishment, gossip, criticism, ostracism, and shaming. Through this reversible sanctioning, they are allowing lesser deviants to reform. With that, the reversible sanctioned individual might take a hit to their overall fitness, but their genes are maintained in the pool. (As opposed to the permanently sanctioned individual, also depended on when he is executed....a topic I'll revisit.)
Bullies can't be dealt with individually; this could result in revenge killing by other kin, no matter how diplomatic the capital punishment was. Social dynamics might be a dominant force in free rider suppression.
Mutualism
Short term, one-shot transactions between two people. Both benefit instantly; immune to free rider problems
Reciprocal Altruism
Long term transactions between people. Cheaters and free riders are a big deal. Possible explanation for marriage (interesting study idea...)
Group Selection
Between group > Within group. No individual compensation necessary. Highly vulnerable to free rider problem.
Misplaced Nepotism
People ACT like kin; bonding is transferred to non-kin along with the benefits. Some deceptive free riding can result
Simon's Docility Model
Good cultural learner; culture-taught altruism. Selfish free riders and bullies are going to ignore culture and fake altruistic behaviors.
Social Selection
Positive partner choice by reputation; others know you are an altruist, so you will be chosen as a mate and as cooperative partner
Negative partner choice by reputation; others know you're selfish and subsequently avoid you.
Collective social sanctions; divest a bully of their profits and split between band members.
Good reputation:
Marriage and subsistence partners benefit. Compensation from net gains in fitness and assortation: altruist + altruist = 2X mutual gains. Likewise, it is hard to be a cheater in a small hunting band. Too many gossips monitoring behavior.
Negative reputation:
Avoid cheaters easy, bullies are hard to avoid however.
Punitive social selection:
Group punishes free riders. Intimidators are the most potent and object of target.
Punitive social selection can rely on the ultimate sanctioning of free riders or can reform these free riders. Punitive social selection can also deter would be free riders from engaging in these behaviors. With that being said, free riding genes do not doom you to an early death by firing squad. The trait can be useful, with self control, in approved social competition arenas; could even confer large advantages.
Free-riders and altruists can coexist at fixation and humans are superbly skilled at free rider suppression.
With this social control aspect of punitive social selection or via reputation, no cheater detection mechanisms are needed.
I couldn't imagine getting to the point or
to future research ideas without giving you the mightily condensed version of the presentation.
One developmental psychologist's hand shot straight into the air after the presentation, with a question that was resonating in my head immediately after I heard the same bolded phrase above:
humans are superbly skilled at free rider suppression.
But the bullying problem today, in our adolescents and children, is rampant. How can what Dr. Boehm conveyed be applied in our schools today?
Obviously juvenille bullying and adult bullying are two completely distinct transactions. School-yard bullying is built upon one solid rule: don't tattle. It is obvious throughout the presentation (and through my scanty notes) that adult bullying can be suppressed through punitive social selection. This hinges upon, wait for it, GOSSIP.
In order to halt bullying, it seems as though we must enlist gossip. Even more so, sex differences in free riders/bullying might also hold the key. Female juveniles (sounds way fancier than young girls) engage in passive aggressive bullying. However, females are skilled with gossip. This might be why traditional "male" bullying is not found in females.
It could be said that if male juveniles are taught to enlist punitive social selection, it might slow the rampant bullying plaguing our schools today.
One final point I must revisit, is that of LH (of course.) The LH strategies of bullies would be a very interesting area of future research.
First, by examining how these free rider genes are maintained in populations. If these individuals are not being permanently sanctioned until after reproduction has occurred, the result is obvious. In order to have an effect, it must impact reproductive output.
If a bully resides in a society with stringent social punishment, they might exhibit a low K, high r strategy; a fast lifestyle. They are aware (implicitly or explicitly) that their behaviors will lead to their demise.
If a bully resides in a society that lacks stringent social punishment or even permits reform, they might exhibit a high K, low r strategy; a slow lifestyle.
These are barren hypotheses, but still might be interesting to investigate. It could also provide empirical support for the the need for social selection to suppress free riders/bullies.
With that being said, if it seems as though I think my thoughts are original or of my own, when in fact someone already went there...it's not plagiarism. Its my daily life. Someone. Already. Did. It. In that case, comment with a citation or two.
Altruism Problem: Free-riders are cheaters that preclude altruism.
The BULLY: New free rider, found in any social dominance hierarchy. However, close groups of individuals don't need cheater detection. Early in hominin evolution, subordinate band members hold down bullies, through egalitarian methods; consensus groups, social pressure, and deviant reform are oft chosen methods.
Gossip is the key to moralistic social control.
Not only does it permit private evaluation of others (deviants), it allows the entire group to form an opinion about the deviant, and decide on a collective action.
Executions and their impact on the gene pool:
Often times, capital punishment within tribes is considered murder by outsiders, and often hidden from anthropologists. Capital punishment would be delivered to group intimidation (bullies) first, cunning deviants second, sexual transgressors third, and miscellaneous transgressors last.50% of all capital punishment occurrences were to curb bullies (lying, theft, adultery: free rider suppression). Likewise, what offenses are reported as deviant are dominated by intimidators, including murder and sorcery.
Irreversible sanctioning is delivered about 9% of the time, where executions are delegated to kin, the group executes together, or permanent expulsion. However, 91% of the time, they deliver reversible sanctioning, spatial distancing, corporeal punishment, gossip, criticism, ostracism, and shaming. Through this reversible sanctioning, they are allowing lesser deviants to reform. With that, the reversible sanctioned individual might take a hit to their overall fitness, but their genes are maintained in the pool. (As opposed to the permanently sanctioned individual, also depended on when he is executed....a topic I'll revisit.)
Bullies can't be dealt with individually; this could result in revenge killing by other kin, no matter how diplomatic the capital punishment was. Social dynamics might be a dominant force in free rider suppression.
6 Theories of Altruism:
Mutualism
Short term, one-shot transactions between two people. Both benefit instantly; immune to free rider problems
Reciprocal Altruism
Long term transactions between people. Cheaters and free riders are a big deal. Possible explanation for marriage (interesting study idea...)
Group Selection
Between group > Within group. No individual compensation necessary. Highly vulnerable to free rider problem.
Misplaced Nepotism
People ACT like kin; bonding is transferred to non-kin along with the benefits. Some deceptive free riding can result
Simon's Docility Model
Good cultural learner; culture-taught altruism. Selfish free riders and bullies are going to ignore culture and fake altruistic behaviors.
Social Selection
Positive partner choice by reputation; others know you are an altruist, so you will be chosen as a mate and as cooperative partner
Negative partner choice by reputation; others know you're selfish and subsequently avoid you.
Collective social sanctions; divest a bully of their profits and split between band members.
Altruism is 100% culturally attractive; feeds positive selection by reputation.
Marriage and subsistence partners benefit. Compensation from net gains in fitness and assortation: altruist + altruist = 2X mutual gains. Likewise, it is hard to be a cheater in a small hunting band. Too many gossips monitoring behavior.
Negative reputation:
Avoid cheaters easy, bullies are hard to avoid however.
Punitive social selection:
Group punishes free riders. Intimidators are the most potent and object of target.
Bullies will overpower other altruists and weak or less powerful non-altruists.
Punitive social selection can rely on the ultimate sanctioning of free riders or can reform these free riders. Punitive social selection can also deter would be free riders from engaging in these behaviors. With that being said, free riding genes do not doom you to an early death by firing squad. The trait can be useful, with self control, in approved social competition arenas; could even confer large advantages.
Free-riders and altruists can coexist at fixation and humans are superbly skilled at free rider suppression.
With this social control aspect of punitive social selection or via reputation, no cheater detection mechanisms are needed.
I couldn't imagine getting to the point or
to future research ideas without giving you the mightily condensed version of the presentation.
One developmental psychologist's hand shot straight into the air after the presentation, with a question that was resonating in my head immediately after I heard the same bolded phrase above:
humans are superbly skilled at free rider suppression.
But the bullying problem today, in our adolescents and children, is rampant. How can what Dr. Boehm conveyed be applied in our schools today?
Obviously juvenille bullying and adult bullying are two completely distinct transactions. School-yard bullying is built upon one solid rule: don't tattle. It is obvious throughout the presentation (and through my scanty notes) that adult bullying can be suppressed through punitive social selection. This hinges upon, wait for it, GOSSIP.
In order to halt bullying, it seems as though we must enlist gossip. Even more so, sex differences in free riders/bullying might also hold the key. Female juveniles (sounds way fancier than young girls) engage in passive aggressive bullying. However, females are skilled with gossip. This might be why traditional "male" bullying is not found in females.
It could be said that if male juveniles are taught to enlist punitive social selection, it might slow the rampant bullying plaguing our schools today.
One final point I must revisit, is that of LH (of course.) The LH strategies of bullies would be a very interesting area of future research.
First, by examining how these free rider genes are maintained in populations. If these individuals are not being permanently sanctioned until after reproduction has occurred, the result is obvious. In order to have an effect, it must impact reproductive output.
If a bully resides in a society with stringent social punishment, they might exhibit a low K, high r strategy; a fast lifestyle. They are aware (implicitly or explicitly) that their behaviors will lead to their demise.
If a bully resides in a society that lacks stringent social punishment or even permits reform, they might exhibit a high K, low r strategy; a slow lifestyle.
These are barren hypotheses, but still might be interesting to investigate. It could also provide empirical support for the the need for social selection to suppress free riders/bullies.
No comments:
Post a Comment