UC Davis political scientist James Fowler mathematically models altruistic punishment.
A new UC Davis study about the origin of cooperation may shed light on why nations punish other countries for human rights violations or why people sanction those who do not vote.
Political scientist James Fowler has created a mathematical model of human behavior that suggests that "moralists" who voluntarily pay a cost to punish "misbehavers" can come to dominate a population and ensure cooperation among its members.
"This may help explain mass political behaviors like voting," Fowler said. "When individuals say, 'It doesn't really matter if I vote,' others -- programmed genetically or by social norms -- may seek to punish them, even though it means a self-sacrifice."
He believes that humans may have physically or developmentally evolved to altruistic punishment. Previous studies found that "acting the moralist" stimulates the reward center in the brain.
Some researchers have suggested that cooperation may make sense in a society with altruistic punishers -- essentially, moralists who are willing to pay a personal cost to punish free-riders.
Fowler said his theory can also be used to explain some behaviors in international politics. For instance, the U.S. advocacy for human rights in China has continued for years, despite financial incentives to ignore them. "Our security risks from China's human rights abuses are tenuous at best, but we seem to be engaging in altruistic punishment anyway," Fowler said.
The United States government is willing to have both political and economic losses from its stance because of the stable international system that has evolved so that it is dominated by the "moralists," Fowler says.
Fowler's mathematical model simulates interacting behaviors in a society over time. He found altruistic punishers can enter a population of cooperators and non-cooperators and change the dynamics of the group.
Under certain conditions, altruistic punishment is so beneficial to the population that it will come to dominate the behavior of the group and keep non-cooperators at bay.
Fowler's article, "Altruistic punishment and the origin of cooperation," was published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
You can read the full paper in PDF format.
The full paper brings up a number of interesting points. One idea is that selection for altruistic punishment could be enhanced if the punishers punish not just violators of rules for cooperation but also if the punishers punish anyone who does not participate in doling out punishment. Make the punishment severe enough (say death) one can envision how in a small isolated group a small number of altruistic punishers could purge many non-punishers and violators.
The urge to dole out altruistic punishment must have a genetic basis. When germ line genetic engineering (i.e. genetic engineering done on eggs, sperm, and embryos) becomes feasible one of my fears is that key genetically controlled qualities of human nature will be modified by parents and governments in ways that will threaten civilization. Genetic engineering to raise testosterone levels and dominance behavior would have obvious political consequences. But the urge to altruistically punish others is another crucial component of human nature which is going to become more or less strongly felt in future generations as a result of germ line genetic engineering. See my previous posts "Brain Rewards For Carrying Out Altruistic Punishment" and "Altruistic Punishment And Genetic Engineering Of The Mind".
By Randall Parker at 2005 May 13 10:17 AM Brain Altruism | TrackBackThis sounds like the motivation for all sort of fundamentalists. Islamic fundamentalists demand a purity of behavior especially in regards to women and to the influence of Western culture. Pro-lifers in Kansas devote their lives and resources to the cause. It's not enough for me to lead a straight and narrow life but I must make everyone around me do the same.
Kendall,
I was thinking the exact same thing. We have to punish the heathen, the iniquitous, the idolaters, the non-believers.
And to complete the thoughts above ...
... in so doing, improve the cooperability of our local population.
Of course, this just points out the obvious, which is that seperate groups of cooperators are very unlikely to be compatible. There's a reason Islamic fundamentalism/fascism and Western democracy are at loggerheads, even though both are driven by moralists: xenophobia is good genetics.
Face it, to solidify your population, you want more people like you breeding. Two groups cannot simultaneously win that game unless one gives up seperable identity (and in that case, they can become a powerful influence of the cooperating concensus; see the American black population).
What people don't seem to get is the fact that this sort of altruistic punishment is ripe for exploitation as an extended phenotype. All you have to do is gain control of the moral imprints of the population and you can get them running around killing people for you for free.
In the present context we aren't seeing so much Christian fundamentalism or Islamic fundamentalism as we're seeing politically correct fundamentalism. A good example of how psychotic this behavior has become can be seen in the way "hate" has become a buzzword for the PC altruistic punishers.
It may be a parody but it it isn't far from the truth to describe the extended phenotype of the powerful as follows:
Dissidents frequently hate their oppressors. You are a dissident, hence likely to hate your opporessor. You should therefore be put into prison and raped by ethnic gangs until you are cured of your hatred.
The drive to enforce rules, however, if rule-neutral. An altruistic punisher raised in an ethos you agree with would enforce that rule-set. They'd enforce free speech, freedom of religion, and rule of law; if that's what they themselves believed was right.
So, we're right back where we started, which should surprise no one. Rule-set enforcers have been with us this is entire time, and they are the reason some system and cultures (whether Islam, or America) are relatively stable and long lived.
Randall is correct that tinkering with rule-enforcer behavior would be socially dangerous. Too many, and you'd have a lot of conflict. A certain number of people need to 'go with the flow' for a system to operate. On the other hand, not enough rule-enforcers, and the system quickly breaks down for lack of cooperation.
Neuroscience discovered that adult human brains do not mature until the age of 25 or 30. Until that time it is natural for the immature human brain to chafe under rules and laws, which makes them natural rebels and radicals. Any strict rule enforcers younger than 25 might be perceived as unnatural. Likewise, any rebels and radicals above the age of 30 might likewise be seen as unnatural. Unless they lived in a society dominated by sharia-type laws with excessive punishments. Then being a rebel at any age would be enlightened.
Some people with very little perspective have supposed that because christian fundamentalists are a part of the president's coalition, that the US is currently ruled by Taliban-like intolerance. Clearly these people have never actually lived in a society like Saudi Arabia's, the Soviet Union's, or the Taliban. You can't take them seriously. As an atheist I appreciate the way the US governments are comprised, to limit the effect of religion on secular life. I also appreciate the freedom to practice virtually any religion that the US guarantees.
"Any strict rule enforcers younger than 25 might be perceived as unnatural."
I can attest to this. You sure don't get any sympathy from rule breakers, or support from the sheep.
Goodness! Ruggendorfer, are you saying that someone has discovered the biological basis of the Yippie maxim "Don't trust anyone over 30"?
That's just jaw-droppingly amazing.
You know, it is the rule enforcers who keep a society functioning. The best way to destroy an organized society is to kill everyone over the age of 30. You have an excellent point, thanks.
Very interesting article!
I guess you can call me THE PUNISHER!!!
;-)
Most moralists I know don't pay a cost when punishing people. They enjoy doing it.