The Biological and Evolutionary Logic of Human Cooperation

2005 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Terence C. Burnham ◽  
Dominic D. P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Human Nature ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Kin Selection ◽  
Group Selection ◽  
Reciprocal Altruism ◽  
Alternative Solution ◽  
Individual Selection ◽  
Costly Signaling ◽  
Indirect Reciprocity ◽  
Costly Punishment

AbstractHuman cooperation is held to be an evolutionary puzzle because people voluntarily engage in costly cooperation, and costly punishment of non-cooperators, even among anonymous strangers they will never meet again. The costs of such cooperation cannot be recovered through kin-selection, reciprocal altruism, indirect reciprocity, or costly signaling. A number of recent authors label this behavior ‘strong reciprocity’, and argue that it is: (a) a newly documented aspect of human nature, (b) adaptive, and (c) evolved by group selection. We argue exactly the opposite; that the phenomenon is: (a) not new, (b) maladaptive, and (c) evolved by individual selection. In our perspective, the apparent puzzle disappears to reveal a biological and evolutionary logic to human cooperation. Group selection may play a role in theory, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain human cooperation. Our alternative solution is simpler, makes fewer assumptions, and is more parsimonious with the empirical data.

Tolerated reciprocity, reciprocal scrounging, and unrelated kin: Making sense of multiple models

2004 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 572-579 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Gurven
Keyword(s):  
Kin Selection ◽  
Reciprocal Altruism ◽  
Multiple Models ◽  
Costly Signaling ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Making Sense ◽  
Rigorous Testing

Four models commonly employed in sharing analyses (reciprocal altruism [RA], tolerated scrounging [TS], costly signaling [CS], and kin selection [KS]) have common features which render rigorous testing of unique predictions difficult. Relaxed versions of these models are discussed in an attempt to understand how the underlying principles of delayed returns, avoiding costs, building reputation, and aiding biological kin interact in systems of sharing. Special attention is given to the interpretation of contingency measures that critically define some form of reciprocal altruism.

A kind man benefits himself – but how? Evolutionary models of human food sharing

2004 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Getty
Keyword(s):  
Kin Selection ◽  
Reciprocal Altruism ◽  
Food Sharing ◽  
Relative Importance ◽  
Evolutionary Models ◽  
Costly Signaling ◽  
Human Food ◽  
The Right ◽  
Rule Out

Can evolutionary models explain food sharing in traditional human societies? Gurven's analysis cannot rule out any of the models (kin selection, reciprocal altruism, tolerated scrounging, costly signaling, or by-product mutualism), and quantitative partitioning of relative importance is not feasible. For now, the hypotheses seem like the proverbial blind men examining the elephant: each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong!

The Sociobiology of Human Cooperation

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Bowles ◽  
Herbert Gintis
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Inclusive Fitness ◽  
Equilibrium Selection ◽  
Helping Behavior ◽  
Reciprocal Altruism ◽  
Selection Model ◽  
Costly Signaling ◽  
Indirect Reciprocity ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Biological Explanations

This chapter examines the sociobiology of human cooperation. Given the tendency of people to copy the successful and the fact that natural selection favors the more fit, the chapter asks how our altruistic preferences overcame the cultural and biological evolutionary handicaps entailed by the reduced payoffs that they elicited. To answer this question, two major biological explanations of cooperation are discussed: inclusive fitness in either a kin-based or a multi-level selection model, and reciprocal altruism and its indirect reciprocity and costly signaling variants. The chapter explores a model of inclusive fitness based on group differentiation and competition, clarifying what is meant by multi-level selection and how it works. It also discusses models that address equilibrium selection, the link between standing strategy and indirect reciprocity, and positive assortment. Finally, it assesses the mechanisms and motives underlying helping behavior.

The history of human food transfers: Tinbergen's other question

2004 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 566-567
Author(s):  
Jim Moore
Keyword(s):  
Kin Selection ◽  
Multivariate Analyses ◽  
Reciprocal Altruism ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Integrated System ◽  
Costly Signaling ◽  
Important Paper ◽  
Current Function ◽  
History Of ◽  
Close Relatives

Emphasis on cross-cultural testing, multiple currencies, multivariate analyses, and levels of explanation makes this an important paper. However, it does not distinguish current function from evolutionary origin; it lacks history. Rather than distinct alternatives, tolerated scrounging (TS), costly signaling (CS), and reciprocal altruism (RA) are likely to be sequentially evolved components of a single integrated system (and kin selection (KS) important only among very close relatives).

The details of food-sharing interactions – their cost in social prestige

2004 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 570-571 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amotz Zahavi
Keyword(s):  
Kin Selection ◽  
Reciprocal Altruism ◽  
Food Sharing ◽  
Evolutionary Models ◽  
Costly Signaling ◽  
Social Prestige ◽  
The Social ◽  
Gains And Losses

I agree with Gurven that costly signaling can explain food-sharing phenomena. However, costly signaling may also explain the role of food sharing in deterring rivals. Details of food-sharing interactions may reveal gains and losses in the social prestige of the interacting parties. The evolutionary models of kin selection and of reciprocal altruism are unstable and should be avoided.

scholarly journals Exploring Cooperative Behaviors Among the Sena of Gorongosa National Park, Mozambique and the Dolgan/Nganasan of Ust'-Avam, Siberia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Silva
Keyword(s):  
National Park ◽  
Inclusive Fitness ◽  
Reciprocal Altruism ◽  
Partner Choice ◽  
Costly Signaling ◽  
Relationship Type ◽  
Indirect Reciprocity ◽  
Preliminary Study ◽  
Cooperative Behaviors ◽  
Using Data

Why do humans cooperate? Mechanisms including inclusive fitness, reciprocal altruism, indirect reciprocity, and costly signaling provide explanations for human cooperation and partner choice. Using data from the Sena people of Gorongosa National Park, Mozambique and the Dolgan/Nganasan of Ust’-Avam Siberia, I examine several questions relating to cooperation. During a preliminary study, interview and observational data was collected that provide insight on the day-to-day activities of 33 households in Gorongosa National Park. Cooperative activities include cooperative socializing, play, cooperative breeding, and household labor. It was found that most daily activities observed were done solitarily and men were most likely to be participating in the cooperative activities. A social network analysis of cooperative hunts among the Dolgan and Nganasan allowed me to test the influence of relationship type, reciprocity, and centrality on partner choice and hunting returns. Hunters were more likely to choose kin and friends as partners, and these relationships had greater reciprocity than neighbors and acquaintances. Hunters with high outdegree centrality and betweenness centrality had greater production per capita hunting returns. These outcomes are consistent with inclusive fitness and reciprocal altruism, and the benefits associated with cooperation.

THE NAKED EMPEROR: SEEKING A MORE PLAUSIBLE GENETIC BASIS FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM

2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Daniel Batson
Keyword(s):  
Kin Selection ◽  
Group Selection ◽  
Genetic Basis ◽  
Inclusive Fitness ◽  
Reciprocal Altruism ◽  
Cognitive Capacities ◽  
Parental Nurturance ◽  
Plausible Account ◽  
Psychological Altruism ◽  
Intentional Agents

The adequacy of currently popular accounts of the genetic basis for psychological altruism, including inclusive fitness (kin selection), reciprocal altruism, sociality, and group selection, is questioned. Problems exist both with the evidence cited as supporting these accounts and with the relevance of the accounts to what is being explained. Based on the empathy-altruism hypothesis, a more plausible account is proposed: generalized parental nurturance. It is suggested that four evolutionary developments combined to provide a genetic basis for psychological altruism. First is the evolution in mammals of parental nurturance. Second is the evolution in humans (and possibly a few other species) of the ability to see others as sentient, intentional agents and, thereby, to recognize other's needs, even subtle ones. Third is the evolution in humans of tender, empathic emotions as an important component of parental nurturance. Fourth is the evolution in humans of cognitive capacities that make it possible to generalize tender, empathic feelings and, thereby, altruism beyond offspring.

The moral consequences of social selection

Behaviour ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 151 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 167-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Boehm
Keyword(s):  
Human Nature ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Group Selection ◽  
Major Part ◽  
Free Riding ◽  
Reciprocal Altruism ◽  
Selection Model ◽  
Social Selection ◽  
Major Research ◽  
Research Focus

For half a century explaining human altruism has been a major research focus for scholars in a wide variety of disciplines, yet answers are still sought. Here, paradigms like reciprocal altruism, mutualism, and group selection are set aside, to examine the effects of social selection as an under-explored model. To complement Alexander’s reputational-selection model, I introduce group punishment as another type of social selection that could have impacted substantially on the development of today’s human nature, and on our potential for behaving altruistically. Capital punishment is a decisive type of social selection, which in our past hunter–gatherer environment was aimed primarily against intimidating, selfish bullies, so it is proposed that moral sanctioning has played a major part in genetically shaping our social and political behaviours. Aggressive suppression of free-riding deviants who bully or deceive has made a cooperatively generous, egalitarian band life efficient for humans, even as it has helped our species to evolve in directions that favour altruism.

4. Levels of selection

2019 ◽  
pp. 45-62
Author(s):  
Samir Okasha
Keyword(s):  
Kin Selection ◽  
Group Selection ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Levels Of Selection ◽  
Major Transitions ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Major Transitions In Evolution

‘Levels of selection’ examines the levels-of-selection question, which asks whether natural selection acts on individuals, genes, or groups. This question is one of the most fundamental in evolutionary biology, and the subject of much controversy. Traditionally, biologists have mostly been concerned with selection and adaptation at the individual level. But, in theory, there are other possibilities, including selection on sub-individual units such as genes and cells, and on supra-individual units such as groups and colonies. Group selection, altruistic behaviour, kin selection, the gene-centric view of evolution, and the major transitions in evolution are all discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document