Altruism: Games people learn

Synopsis: In a society formed by putting different groups of people put together, the social climate developed depends on the local learning dynamics.


An independently derived culture can evolve in two ways.

Reciprocity

In isolation the evolution is convergent, maintaining the distinct, undiluted identity. In open relationships with other cultures, there is a parallel evolution, with influence and change flowing in both directions.

A cycle of reciprocity is formed. The biology of an individual generates and shape culture. At the same time, evolving culture influences the shaping genetic materials.

Cultural equilibrium

In a society formed by putting different groups of people put together, the social climate developed depends on the local learning dynamics. People tend to adapt their behaviour to this environment. They become predisposed to administering, anticipating and avoiding punishment in ways conducive to its sustenance.

Hence the different groups arrive at a ‘cultural equilibrium’ distinct from what they each have had before. Henrich et al predict that the local learning dynamics of diverse people determine how the strategies of cooperation and punishment are combined in the society.




Local learning

The researchers conducted game-playing experiments in 15 different societies on five continents including populations in Kenya, Fiji and Missouri. They used three-game experiments to test their prediction.

1. In the ultimate game (UG) experiment two anonymous players are to divide up a stake of real money in a one-shot deal. Player 1 can offer any monetary amount, even the smallest nonzero number to player 2. If the latter accepts whatever the ‘positive’ proposal is, both are rewarded but perhaps in unequal ratio. If the proposal is rejected, it is a costly punishment, since both players lose the stake.
2. In the third party punishment game (3PPG) experiment player 1 and player 2 are to divide up a stake of real money. There is however, player 3, who gets one half of the stake amount. This player decide whether the division has been fair, because player 2 has no say in the matter, and must receive whatever the other gives to him. In unequal sharing between the other two, player 3 has the option to pay out of
his/her amount to mete a costly punishment to player 1.
3. In the dictator game (DG) experiment the degree of altruism is measured. The process is the same as the first experiment, except that player 2 cannot reject the amount dictated by player 1.

Value of punishment

The games were designed to measure the degree of self-interest of players and their spirit of altruism. That is, to what extent people help others when not directly linked to them through kinship, reciprocity, reputation, or the immediate threat of punishment.

A prominent finding across cultures was the willingness to punish unfair acts. In every population tested, less-equal offers were punished more frequently. A greater willingness to punish selfishness and unfairness results in more prosocial behaviour. The researchers conclude that chastising the violations of norms allows its adherents to flourish, and hence also the genetic shaping towards altruism.

Comments/opinions, anyone??

References for ‘Altruism’ blogposts:

Gene-culture Coevolution
Disciplines Cross in Emory Anthropologist's Studies of Human Behavior