5 ms·

Why is it not self evident that cooperation is driven by self interested paired with intelligence? Animal A sees animal B in its territory. This tends to result

by rjf72 8y ago

Why is it not self evident that cooperation is driven by self interested paired with intelligence? Animal A sees animal B in its territory. This tends to result in an immediate battle where both animals expose themselves to risk of death. Higher intelligence would instead tell you 'hey if I cooperate with this guy, not only can we both keep all this land - but we can go take over the land owned by animal C'. There's plenty of evidence of this happening in animals with greater levels of intelligence. For instance chimps tend to join up into groups and then go engage in war with other groups. But they, in turn, lack that intelligence to go even one step further. The same logic of '2 individuals can go kill 1 individual and take their land' leads to 'two groups can join up to go kill one group and take their land.' Presumably some outlier will eventually manage to start realizing this at which point you're well on your way to to the evolution of another highly intelligent species spreading themselves all over the place. I also think there's even evidence of this in society today. When social order collapses, for instance due to a natural disaster, we turn to some pretty nasty behavior quite quickly even when it's in no way necessary. This seems to suggest cooperation, in and of itself, is not innate - but rather something else drives that cooperation. We can even see it in higher order systems. Corruption is a regular part of all societies at all levels. And that is people simply determining that they can get more by working outside the interests of society than working within it. It's quite easy to see how the same intelligence can drive both corruption and cooperation. Once again, self interest driven by intelligence enabling an accurate assessment of probable outcomes. Do I work just for myself, or do I work with this guy? --- One argument against this are simple creatures that possess no semblance of higher order thinking, yet cooperate. Examples would include most types of ants. But I think there are too many differences to start considering these sorts of species. They tend to be extremely short lived and have extremely minimal needs relative to the quantity of resources out there -- that's unlike anything we can imagine. Imagine if a single banana could feed thousands of chimps for days. That rather reduces any motivation or incentive for competition. Well, except for when your thousands of other familiars run into a group of thousands of unfamiliars - which does happen and can lead to 'ant wars'.

pessimizer 8y ago
> When social order collapses, for instance due to a natural disaster, we turn to some pretty nasty behavior quite quickly even when it's in no way necessary. Only in misanthropist fiction and television shows. When social order collapses in real life previously equal people organize, cooperate, and protect the weak. That being said, if there's some extreme social stratification in the group already, and there was previously a wider authority explicitly restraining the more powerful group from completely enslaving the weak group, of course that would change if the wider authority were eliminated. During the flooding of New Orleans, the footage exemplifying "nasty behavior" broadcast on television were generally starving people looting grocery stores, cold, wet people foraging for clothing, blankets and bedding, or at the worst (and rarest) impoverished people looking for things they might be able to sell. The really scary thing was how police, both alone and as hastily-assembled white citizens' councils, started looting the town and threatening and killing flood survivors with impunity, and how the media cheered them on with a narrative of "nasty behavior." Almost the entire source of nasty behavior in the case of that disaster was from people who were completely secure - the New Orleans police, police in nearby towns, and the national media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_Hurricane_Katrina_in_New_Orleans#Civil_disturbances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_Hurricane_Katrina_i... > Civil disturbances in post-Hurricane Katrina were consistent with all existing research on disaster sociology, which concludes that “[post-disaster] widespread looting [is] a myth”,[51] and were vastly overstated by the media, ultimately fueling a climate of suspicion and paranoia which greatly hampered rescue efforts and further worsened the conditions of the survivors.[52] > Some initial reports of mass chaos, particularly in stories about the Superdome, were later found to be exaggerated or rumor.[53] In the Superdome for example, the New Orleans sex crimes unit investigated every report of rape or atrocity and found only two verifiable incidents, both of sexual assault. The department head told reporters, "I think it was an urban myth. Any time you put 25,000 people under one roof, with no running water, no electricity and no information, stories get told." Based on these reports, government officials expected hundreds of dead to be found in the Superdome, but instead found only six dead: four natural deaths, one drug overdose, and one suicide.[43][54] In a case of reported sniper fire, the "sniper" turned out to be the relief valve of a gas tank popping every few minutes.[53] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Henry_Glover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Henry_Glover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretna,_Louisiana#Hurricane_Katrina_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretna,_Louisiana#Hurricane_Ka...

by rjf72 8y ago

pessimizer 8y ago

> When social order collapses, for instance due to a natural disaster, we turn to some pretty nasty behavior quite quickly even when it's in no way necessary. Only in misanthropist fiction and television shows. When social order collapses in real life previously equal people organize, cooperate, and protect the weak. That being said, if there's some extreme social stratification in the group already, and there was previously a wider authority explicitly restraining the more powerful group from completely enslaving the weak group, of course that would change if the wider authority were eliminated. During the flooding of New Orleans, the footage exemplifying "nasty behavior" broadcast on television were generally starving people looting grocery stores, cold, wet people foraging for clothing, blankets and bedding, or at the worst (and rarest) impoverished people looking for things they might be able to sell. The really scary thing was how police, both alone and as hastily-assembled white citizens' councils, started looting the town and threatening and killing flood survivors with impunity, and how the media cheered them on with a narrative of "nasty behavior." Almost the entire source of nasty behavior in the case of that disaster was from people who were completely secure - the New Orleans police, police in nearby towns, and the national media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_Hurricane_Katrina_in_New_Orleans#Civil_disturbances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_Hurricane_Katrina_i... > Civil disturbances in post-Hurricane Katrina were consistent with all existing research on disaster sociology, which concludes that “[post-disaster] widespread looting [is] a myth”,[51] and were vastly overstated by the media, ultimately fueling a climate of suspicion and paranoia which greatly hampered rescue efforts and further worsened the conditions of the survivors.[52] > Some initial reports of mass chaos, particularly in stories about the Superdome, were later found to be exaggerated or rumor.[53] In the Superdome for example, the New Orleans sex crimes unit investigated every report of rape or atrocity and found only two verifiable incidents, both of sexual assault. The department head told reporters, "I think it was an urban myth. Any time you put 25,000 people under one roof, with no running water, no electricity and no information, stories get told." Based on these reports, government officials expected hundreds of dead to be found in the Superdome, but instead found only six dead: four natural deaths, one drug overdose, and one suicide.[43][54] In a case of reported sniper fire, the "sniper" turned out to be the relief valve of a gas tank popping every few minutes.[53] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Henry_Glover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Henry_Glover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretna,_Louisiana#Hurricane_Katrina_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretna,_Louisiana#Hurricane_Ka...