Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Second, a large number of posts in this thread dealt with the issue of cheating. That discussion, IMO, has not adequately addressed cheating in either biological or cultural evolutionary contexts. Instead, it has left off at the single-agent point. Is there a consensus that this is sufficient from the point of view of empathy training, the political will behind it, and its possible subversion into a tool for exploitation?
I’m all for continuing, but can you start it off by going into a little more detail on cheating in biological or cultural evolutionary contexts?
I’ll use something simple, because I’m not capable of complex explanation just now.
Take the case of the Cuckoo bird, a classic “cheater” species, which lays its large eggs, one at a time, in the nests of smaller birds with smaller eggs. The large Cuckoo chick pushes the other nestlings out of the nest and takes all of the food that the cheated parents can provide. If Cuckoos were able to completely use all of the potential host nests, there would soon be no hosts, and about a Cuckoo’s-lifespan later, there would be no more Cuckoos.
Since that has not happened, there must be some constraint on Cuckoo’s exploitation of hosts’ nests. I don’t know what that is, mainly on account of I’m thinking of this as I go along. Perhaps the hosts’ nests are not all that easy for Cuckoo’s to find. Perhaps there is some ecological limitation on adult Cuckoo’s, such that their ecological niche does not provide a large enough food supply to support a number of Cuckoos capable of over-exploiting the host species (in which case, nest-parasitization is a clever adaptation to a sub-standard niche). Perhaps the cheated species have developed the means to detect just enough of the cheaters’ eggs to avoid a catastrophic decline in numbers. Whatever, it should be clear that the cheaters’ numbers must remain below the level that would result in a decline of the hosts’ numbers to the point where the cheaters’ numbers could no longer be sustained. In other words, a dynamic equilibrium must be maintained, for both both roles to survive,
From that, it seems clear to me that, in principle, cheating is self-limiting as a role, in the sense that cheaters cannot afford to propagate their particular cheating strategies universally, or maximize their exploitation of their hosts. The exception would be what I call an “end-game scenario”, where the cheaters are not concerned about subsequent generations, and have no indefinite need for the resources provided by the hosts.
I could blather on, but I think I’ve said enough to prompt some good discussion. By the way, if there is a contemporary example of “end game scenarios” and their illusional or delusional practioners I have not consciously intended to take a snide swipe at, I wish I had.
Second, a large number of posts in this thread dealt with the issue of cheating. That discussion, IMO, has not adequately addressed cheating in either biological or cultural evolutionary contexts. Instead, it has left off at the single-agent point. Is there a consensus that this is sufficient from the point of view of empathy training, the political will behind it, and its possible subversion into a tool for exploitation?
I’m all for continuing, but can you start it off by going into a little more detail on cheating in biological or cultural evolutionary contexts?
I’ll use something simple, because I’m not capable of complex explanation just now.
Take the case of the Cuckoo bird, a classic “cheater” species, which lays its large eggs, one at a time, in the nests of smaller birds with smaller eggs. The large Cuckoo chick pushes the other nestlings out of the nest and takes all of the food that the cheated parents can provide. If Cuckoos were able to completely use all of the potential host nests, there would soon be no hosts, and about a Cuckoo’s-lifespan later, there would be no more Cuckoos.
Since that has not happened, there must be some constraint on Cuckoo’s exploitation of hosts’ nests. I don’t know what that is, mainly on account of I’m thinking of this as I go along. Perhaps the hosts’ nests are not all that easy for Cuckoo’s to find. Perhaps there is some ecological limitation on adult Cuckoo’s, such that their ecological niche does not provide a large enough food supply to support a number of Cuckoos capable of over-exploiting the host species (in which case, nest-parasitization is a clever adaptation to a sub-standard niche). Perhaps the cheated species have developed the means to detect just enough of the cheaters’ eggs to avoid a catastrophic decline in numbers. Whatever, it should be clear that the cheaters’ numbers must remain below the level that would result in a decline of the hosts’ numbers to the point where the cheaters’ numbers could no longer be sustained. In other words, a dynamic equilibrium must be maintained, for both both roles to survive,
From that, it seems clear to me that, in principle, cheating is self-limiting as a role, in the sense that cheaters cannot afford to propagate their particular cheating strategies universally, or maximize their exploitation of their hosts. The exception would be what I call an “end-game scenario”, where the cheaters are not concerned about subsequent generations, and have no indefinite need for the resources provided by the hosts.
I could blather on, but I think I’ve said enough to prompt some good discussion. By the way, if there is a contemporary example of “end game scenarios” and their illusional or delusional practioners I have not consciously intended to take a snide swipe at, I wish I had.
The Cuckoo is a good example that I think Dawkins used in The Selfish Gene? as well. But I think ASD’s claim is that if even one Cuckoo gets away with it then it is good. I disagree and say that cheating robs any system and it is only systems that are large enough to take the loss that make cheating possible. That said Cuckoos survive as a species by cheating, but I don’t see that as cheating being beneficial/positive only a negative/loss that is sustainable by a large enough positive system.
The Cuckoo is a good example that I think Dawkins used in The Selfish Gene? as well. But I think ASD’s claim is that if even one Cuckoo gets away with it then it is good. I disagree and say that cheating robs any system and it is only systems that are large enough to take the loss that make cheating possible. That said Cuckoos survive as a species by cheating, but I don’t see that as cheating being beneficial/positive only a negative/loss that is sustainable by a large enough positive system.
I’m glad I picked the Cuckoo example then.
I’m fairly sure I agree with you as far as you go. I’m going to try to take it farther to see what happens.
I don’t know if the Cuckoo’s cheating robs the entire system. It probably increases the Cuckoo’s proporttion of biomass in the system, and it almost certainly decreases the proportion of biomass that will belong to the victimized hosts descendents (because they will likely have fewer of them), but the system may remain constant.
If there is any systematic difference between host species individuals that are victimized by Cuckoos and those that are not, there will be some selection pressure for those differences that served to prevent victimization. I don’t know what Dawkins says about this, but I sense that the relationships can be quite complex, and reverberate throughout an ecosystem.
With respect to a human cultural system, cheating does not necessarily rob the system, but does change the proportion of resource allocation vis-a-vis an absence of cheating. If the human system is already at the limit of sustainable resource extraction, and additional effort will not further increase that extraction, then cheating will mainly serve to enlarge the portion of the cheaters’ share at the expense of the non-cheaters’ share. The cheaters’ additional labor cannot extract more resources, so the only self-interested way to get more resources is to cheat. Rwanda just prior to the genocide is perhaps an example of such a situation.
If the system is not yet at the limit of sustainable resource extraction, then cheating may be chosen as a way to acquire a greater portion of resources at lesser cost. This does seem to rob the system of available resources, i.e., resources that could have been extracted for the general benefit. This is also the paradigm for most social-welfare discussion in the U.S., i.e., that cheaters are just not doing their “fair share” to earn their share of the general benefit, with the assumption that their work would add to the general welfare at least proportionately to their effort. Ironically, in discussions concerning immigration, the prior (resource-limited) paradigm is used, by exactly the same people, to argue against illegal aliens or increased immigration. That’s something to go figure on.
In either case, an increase in cheating can result in a net loss to the system, if the non-cheaters reduce their effort at extraction to counter cheating. This will result in less total resource being extracted. This may still represent a net gain to the cheaters, if they get a larger share after cheating than they got before cheating. An indefinite increase in cheating is appears unsustainable, in this situation, because total extraction will eventually drop below the level necessary for subsistence. While the extraction level is above subsistence, however, there will be considerable selective pressure for cheating. A dynamic equilibrium might be reached in a sufficiently isolated system.
A couple of interesting variations occur to me. The first is when the cheating is not detected by the hosts. This would appear to the case with the Cuckoo’s cheating (i.e., why don’t the hosts just knock the Cuckoo’s egg out of the nest?). Most peer-to-peer cheating in human cultural systems is detectable, and humans are almost certainly hard-wired neurally to detect probable cheating and recognize situations where cheating is possible. Some human cheating might not be recognized, presumably because not enough is known of the situation for it to trigger the pattern recognition, but possibly also to some extent because the pattern recognition or the trigger has been suppressed. Suppression might happen because of indoctrination, eg, “the minister would never do that”, or because of misdirection, as in a confidence-game where the victim believes he is the cheater.
The second variation is a situation where an external event changes the current resource extraction level from sustainable to unsustainable, without corresponding awareness of that by all individuals. China has arguably done that with respect to its population levels (the resource being target population slots), but it’s made its intentions quite clear. What if some other situations match that paradigm without the participants awareness, or without all the participants awareness? It occurs to me that some of our contemporary problems can be framed in those terms.
I feel I haven’t addressed the OP well enough, so I’ll try to tie this all into empathy soon. I hope you find it stimulating.
Would your idea of empathy training be different than a course in psychology?
I don’t know what a psychology class teaches, as the only college exposure I’ve had was when, decades ago, I took was a 3-credit freshman survey course featuring para-psychology. I didn’t learn much, if anything. In a ninth-grade sociology course, I was introduced to Freud’s now cliche terminology. Even the teachers (there were two there for some reason) seemed possibly to be snickering about the lack of utility in such concepts. I found it to be apparently reasoned but odd in its exclusion of relevance. So I’m probably not qualified to answer the question. I dislike how psychology is worded. Empathy training, ideally, would revolve around a new vocabulary.
Antisocialdarwinist - 26 August 2011 02:26 PM
. . . Being sensitive to and vicariously experiencing the feelings of a bank robber, on the other hand, would probably make you more inclined (and therefore more likely) to show leniency if you were asked to decide on the bank robber’s punishment.
Courts have evolved empathic ways more aggressively than anyone else has managed to do, I suspect. Attorneys are empathy professionals.
A highly empathic person, trained in what I’m suggesting could be done throughout K-12 as needed, would be ready and able to protect someone being harassed or bullied. The problem to be avoided, it seems to me, would be an increase in typical cultures of honor.
Poldano, I also appreciate a thread that winds around itself, like real thread.
. . . Having sat on a jury, I know what it’s like to empathize with someone but still find him guilty.
I once sat on a jury, too, in the mid-90’s in New York. Two defendants were being tried for pickpocketing on 14th Street, and my empathy if any was with the victims the very competent and softspoken prosecutor conjured up for us to imagine. Empathy for the pickpocketers was nowhere to be found except for in the defense attorney’s imagination.
Well, we are not dealing with absolutes so there is subjectivity but I would point to the universal consensus (as far as I know) of laws against stealing across all cultures going back as far in human society as we can see. ...
Why is it so? Because we know that the rule “do not steal” is beneficial to us as well as to others.
.
Well, we are not dealing with absolutes so there is subjectivity but I would point to the universal consensus (as far as I know) of laws against stealing across all cultures going back as far in human society as we can see. ...
Why is it so? Because we know that the rule “do not steal” is beneficial to us as well as to others.
.
Take the case of the Cuckoo bird, a classic “cheater” species, which lays its large eggs, one at a time, in the nests of smaller birds with smaller eggs. The large Cuckoo chick pushes the other nestlings out of the nest and takes all of the food that the cheated parents can provide. If Cuckoos were able to completely use all of the potential host nests, there would soon be no hosts, and about a Cuckoo’s-lifespan later, there would be no more Cuckoos.
At the risk of sounding like a dummy, this classic example doesn’t really seem like cheating to me. The cuckoo birds are taking advantage of another species. How is that different from any predator taking advantage of its prey? Are lions cheating when they hunt zebras? Are we humans cheating when we slaughter cattle? Or when we go to war against another country?
Cheating, to me, implies taking advantage of others within one’s own group or system. Am I wrong about that? Or do the smaller birds and the cuckoos belong to the same group?
GAD - 26 August 2011 10:41 PM
The Cuckoo is a good example that I think Dawkins used in The Selfish Gene? as well. But I think ASD’s claim is that if even one Cuckoo gets away with it then it is good. I disagree and say that cheating robs any system and it is only systems that are large enough to take the loss that make cheating possible. That said Cuckoos survive as a species by cheating, but I don’t see that as cheating being beneficial/positive only a negative/loss that is sustainable by a large enough positive system.
I think you need to define what you mean by “good” here, GAD. You and I both agree that cheating isn’t objectively good (or bad). And I’m not claiming that cheating is good for the system. Obviously, it isn’t. That’s half the reason we have laws.
The other half is that cheating is good for the cheater, which is what I am claiming. Otherwise, why bother cheating? And if there was no point in cheating, people wouldn’t cheat and we wouldn’t need laws. Or empathy, for that matter.
You seem to be claiming that cheating is bad for the cheater for two reasons:
1. cheating is bad for the system; since the cheater is a part of the system, it’s therefore bad for the cheater.
2. when one person cheats, other people who wouldn’t otherwise have cheated begin to cheat, too, thus multiplying the negative impact on the system.
Do I have that right?
Assuming the system hasn’t reached the breaking point, reason number one doesn’t hold up because the negative impact on the system is spread out over everyone, but the cheater gains 100% of the benefit. Consider the example of cheating on your taxes. Suppose you cheat the IRS out of $10,000 by not reporting all your income. The loss of that $10,000 (plus the interest on the additional $10,000 that the government now has to borrow, since we’re running a deficit) is spread out over all taxpayers; your share of that loss is next to nothing. But the benefit of keeping that $10,000 is yours alone.
Reason number two doesn’t hold up because, provided you don’t get caught, no one knows you’re cheating. So how could your cheating possibly influence others to cheat?
Well, we are not dealing with absolutes so there is subjectivity but I would point to the universal consensus (as far as I know) of laws against stealing across all cultures going back as far in human society as we can see. ...
Why is it so? Because we know that the rule “do not steal” is beneficial to us as well as to others.
.
Correction: we believe that the rule “do not steal” is beneficial to us as well as to others.
Take the case of the Cuckoo bird, a classic “cheater” species, which lays its large eggs, one at a time, in the nests of smaller birds with smaller eggs. The large Cuckoo chick pushes the other nestlings out of the nest and takes all of the food that the cheated parents can provide. If Cuckoos were able to completely use all of the potential host nests, there would soon be no hosts, and about a Cuckoo’s-lifespan later, there would be no more Cuckoos.
At the risk of sounding like a dummy, this classic example doesn’t really seem like cheating to me. The cuckoo birds are taking advantage of another species. How is that different from any predator taking advantage of its prey? Are lions cheating when they hunt zebras? Are we humans cheating when we slaughter cattle? Or when we go to war against another country?
Cheating, to me, implies taking advantage of others within one’s own group or system. Am I wrong about that? Or do the smaller birds and the cuckoos belong to the same group?
I think is a fair point but I think the analogy still holds since this is used in conjunction with game theory and tipping points of systems.
GAD - 26 August 2011 10:41 PM
The Cuckoo is a good example that I think Dawkins used in The Selfish Gene? as well. But I think ASD’s claim is that if even one Cuckoo gets away with it then it is good. I disagree and say that cheating robs any system and it is only systems that are large enough to take the loss that make cheating possible. That said Cuckoos survive as a species by cheating, but I don’t see that as cheating being beneficial/positive only a negative/loss that is sustainable by a large enough positive system.
I think you need to define what you mean by “good” here, GAD. You and I both agree that cheating isn’t objectively good (or bad). And I’m not claiming that cheating is good for the system. Obviously, it isn’t. That’s half the reason we have laws.
The other half is that cheating is good for the cheater, which is what I am claiming. Otherwise, why bother cheating? And if there was no point in cheating, people wouldn’t cheat and we wouldn’t need laws. Or empathy, for that matter.
You seem to be claiming that cheating is bad for the cheater for two reasons:
1. cheating is bad for the system; since the cheater is a part of the system, it’s therefore bad for the cheater.
2. when one person cheats, other people who wouldn’t otherwise have cheated begin to cheat, too, thus multiplying the negative impact on the system.
Do I have that right?
Assuming the system hasn’t reached the breaking point, reason number one doesn’t hold up because the negative impact on the system is spread out over everyone, but the cheater gains 100% of the benefit. Consider the example of cheating on your taxes. Suppose you cheat the IRS out of $10,000 by not reporting all your income. The loss of that $10,000 (plus the interest on the additional $10,000 that the government now has to boanrrow, since we’re running a deficit) is spread out over all taxpayers; your share of that loss is next to nothing. But the benefit of keeping that $10,000 is yours alone.
Reason number two doesn’t hold up because, provided you don’t get caught, no one knows you’re cheating. So how could your cheating possibly influence others to cheat?
I think numbers may be easier to see. Say it takes 1 Resource Unit (RU) per person to live and on average each person can produce 1.1 RU. So 100 people x 1.1 RU = 110 RU enough for each to live and some to invest. Now what if 10 outside people (Cuckoos) show up, 110 - 10 = 100 the system still works but there is no surplus for growth. What if 11 show up 110 - 11 = 99, since it takes 1 RU to live someone now has to die. You can do this with inside cheaters, outside cheaters, both apply % to how much the cheaters cheat but all that math will show the the systems suffers and that there is a tipping point at which it collapses. There is no way around the fact that cheating degrades the system and that system is what the cheaters are living on so it degrades them to.
Assuming the system hasn’t reached the breaking point, reason number one doesn’t hold up because the negative impact on the system is spread out over everyone, but the cheater gains 100% of the benefit. Consider the example of cheating on your taxes. Suppose you cheat the IRS out of $10,000 by not reporting all your income. The loss of that $10,000 (plus the interest on the additional $10,000 that the government now has to borrow, since we’re running a deficit) is spread out over all taxpayers; your share of that loss is next to nothing. But the benefit of keeping that $10,000 is yours alone.
Reason number two doesn’t hold up because, provided you don’t get caught, no one knows you’re cheating. So how could your cheating possibly influence others to cheat?
I disagree that cheaters need to be identified for cheating to spread. As soon as evidence of successful cheating becomes known, prospective cheaters will become more motivated to attempt it. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that cheaters will not somehow give themselves away; the whole point of cheating is to get something for less effort than would otherwise be required. At the very least, a cheater will show signs of being better off than his visible means of support would deem likely. In some cases, the cheater’s survival itself may be sufficient evidence of cheating. I’m going to beat on this some more, so you don’t need to read further if you’re already convinced.
If a form of cheating remains undetected, or is otherwise not considered cheating (i.e., it’s considered appropriate behavior within the cheater’s group by the people who are being cheated), then it will not tend to reinforce remedies against cheating. I believe I referred to this in one of my situation descriptions. I think it’s the one that mentioned a minister. I kind of thought you folks would have a field day with that; maybe some other time. This is perhaps the case with Cuckoos’ hosts. I recall from a television program that Cuckoos lay a single egg in a nest where several are present, and push one out, leaving the number the same. They may thereby defeat one of the countermeasures that their hosts possess, making their cheating undetectable by the means available to their hosts.
If cheating is suspected, but the identity of the cheater is unknown, those cheated may take action to prevent or reduce the amount they lose to the cheater. Locking doors is an obvious example of this; in some places, we assume that there are unidentified people about who will take advantage of opportunities to steal from others, if there is a reasonable chance that they will not be caught. The actions taken are an expense to the system that could otherwise be put to other use; door locks cost money that could be more usefully spent on beer, for example. At this point, cheating and the desirability of its mitigation have already entered the cultural knowledge base, and the arms race is likely to go on indefinitely.
Even if no overt action is taken, changes in behavior of those cheated (possibly detected by empathy) may indicate to prospective cheaters that someone else has succeeded in cheating. This may prompt them to start doing so. Evidence of successful cheating is present, and a multitude of cheaters where only one is initially suspected may provide some “herd immunity” to individual discovery.
Well, we are not dealing with absolutes so there is subjectivity but I would point to the universal consensus (as far as I know) of laws against stealing across all cultures going back as far in human society as we can see. ...
Why is it so? Because we know that the rule “do not steal” is beneficial to us as well as to others.
.
That’s stealing from those in the same social group. Stealing from others is just fine (cattle raids, conquest, etc.).
There’s lots of discussion of this in evolutionary psychology and game theory. It seems that we have conflicting biological imperatives: (1) to gain as much of available resources for ourselves as we are able; (2) to share resources equitably. When we see somebody cheating we seem to be wired to want to punish them for violating (2), which puts a social cap on the possibilities for carrying out (1). But (1) is conditioned by past experiences as well as by instinct, somebody who has suffered traumatic deprivation may well feel compelled to acquire more than they could ever use. And we also admire and attempt to imitate those who are socially successful, which can lead to cheating as well.
Take the case of the Cuckoo bird, a classic “cheater” species, which lays its large eggs, one at a time, in the nests of smaller birds with smaller eggs. The large Cuckoo chick pushes the other nestlings out of the nest and takes all of the food that the cheated parents can provide. If Cuckoos were able to completely use all of the potential host nests, there would soon be no hosts, and about a Cuckoo’s-lifespan later, there would be no more Cuckoos.
At the risk of sounding like a dummy, this classic example doesn’t really seem like cheating to me. The cuckoo birds are taking advantage of another species. How is that different from any predator taking advantage of its prey? Are lions cheating when they hunt zebras? Are we humans cheating when we slaughter cattle? Or when we go to war against another country?
Cheating, to me, implies taking advantage of others within one’s own group or system. Am I wrong about that? Or do the smaller birds and the cuckoos belong to the same group?
I think is a fair point but I think the analogy still holds since this is used in conjunction with game theory and tipping points of systems.
From that perspective, we should view cheating as just another form of resource utilization. The smaller birds are a resource for the cuckoos in the same way that farmland or oceans are resources for humans. If the cuckoos overutilize their resource by laying too many eggs, they suffer the consequences of resource depletion in the same way that poor farming techniques deplete the soil of nutrients or overfishing depletes the ocean of fish.
If the cuckoos agreed among themselves not to lay more than two eggs per year, but one of them secretly laid three, that would be cheating.
GAD - 27 August 2011 04:36 PM
I think numbers may be easier to see. Say it takes 1 Resource Unit (RU) per person to live and on average each person can produce 1.1 RU. So 100 people x 1.1 RU = 110 RU enough for each to live and some to invest. Now what if 10 outside people (Cuckoos) show up, 110 - 10 = 100 the system still works but there is no surplus for growth. What if 11 show up 110 - 11 = 99, since it takes 1 RU to live someone now has to die. You can do this with inside cheaters, outside cheaters, both apply % to how much the cheaters cheat but all that math will show the the systems suffers and that there is a tipping point at which it collapses. There is no way around the fact that cheating degrades the system and that system is what the cheaters are living on so it degrades them to.
From the perspective of the 10 outside people, the original 100 are just a resource for RUs in the same way that farmland is a resource for crops or oceans are a resource for fish. The outsiders each harvest 1 RU from the originals. Their net benefit is 1 RU. In this case, I don’t see any cost at all to the outsiders, since they weren’t even a part of the system before they started cheating. The cost to the system (no more RUs to invest) isn’t even relative to the outsiders. So clearly, in this case it’s in the outsiders’ own self interest to leech off the originals. If I’m an outsider, why should I even care about the loss to the system of the 10 extra RUs?
Now the 11th outsider shows up, bringing the total population to 111. The system can only support 110, so each individual stands of 1/111 chance of having to die. That’s obviously a cost to the originals, since they were at no risk of dying before the 11th outsider arrived. Whether it’s a cost to the outsiders depends on what alternative they had to leeching off the originals. Without that information, we can’t say whether a 1/111 chance of dying is a net gain for them.
Your point is well taken, though: we can keep adding additional outsiders until the likelihood of dying in the system exceeds the outsiders’ likelihood of dying outside the system. At some point, self interest will prevent additional outsiders from coming. But until that point is reached, it’s in the outsiders’ best interest to keep coming—even though it degrades the system.
This scenario, like the cuckoo scenario, seems less interesting (and less realistic) to me than the case where the cheating is being done by members of the original group. Internal cheaters have more to lose than external cheaters, so the self-interest calculation isn’t quite as straightforward.
Suppose that instead of 10 outsiders showing up, 9 of the originals decide to sit on the couch watching television instead of producing RUs. The total output of the system decreases to (91/100)* 110 = 100.1. The system loses its 10 investment RUs, but that cost is spread out over 100 members. The cost to each individual member is only 10/100, or 0.1 RU. Since the cheaters are gaining 1 RU apiece, the net benefit to each cheater is still 0.9 RUs. Again, it’s in the cheaters’ own best interest to cheat—even though it degrades the system.
Now suppose a 10th original becomes a couch potoato. The system ouptut drops to 99 RUs. Each member stands a 1/100 chance of dying. The cheaters would then have to decide whether a 1/100 chance of dying was worth the benefit of no longer having to work to produce RUs. I don’t think there’s an objectively right answer to that—it’s purely a matter of how lazy a person is.
There’s lots of discussion of this in evolutionary psychology and game theory. It seems that we have conflicting biological imperatives: (1) to gain as much of available resources for ourselves as we are able; (2) to share resources equitably. When we see somebody cheating we seem to be wired to want to punish them for violating (2), which puts a social cap on the possibilities for carrying out (1). But (1) is conditioned by past experiences as well as by instinct, somebody who has suffered traumatic deprivation may well feel compelled to acquire more than they could ever use. And we also admire and attempt to imitate those who are socially successful, which can lead to cheating as well.
Our attempts to reconcile and balance these conflicting biological imperatives provide the context for the development of ethics and morality. Now that we are less tribalistic (at least in social structure) than we were a few centuries ago, the conflicts are more pronounced. The tribal impulses are still present, as is evident in any Friday night high school football game, where fans of schools from towns only 10 miles apart are cheering when their team “kills” the other. The object of the game is for one team to “gain as much of an available resource as they are able” (yardage, scores), but the rules of the game are designed to see that this done equitably (one team can’t have the ball every single time). A certain amount of “stealing” is allowed (interceptions, taking the ball away from a running back or recovering a fumble). A certain level of violence is encouraged. To keep the game from getting out of control, there are officials and rules committees. Competition is so fierce that cheating is inevitable - witness the yearly revelations about NCAA recruiting violations at major colleges.
I disagree that cheaters need to be identified for cheating to spread.
OK, fair enough. The question then becomes, how quickly will cheating spread; and how much impact will one individual’s cheating have on the total amount of cheating in the system? GAD claims cheating by just one person would cause that behavior to spread throughout the entire population in a single day:
GAD - 19 August 2011 08:23 AM
Yes, and that is the simple rationalization that many people use to recuse themselves from personal restraint. But there is a larger context to consider, if I can kill and get away with it then by the same reasoning someone else could kill me and get away it, and by the end of the first day there would only be the last man standing. [emphasis mine]
If GAD’s right then cheating is never in my own self-interest and he stands, like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke, as the last bastion against his local park going to crap.
If it takes longer, however, then there is still a period of time (and I claim it’s an extended, perhaps indefinite period of time) when cheating is in the cheater’s best interest—even though it’s contributing to the eventual collapse of the system.
In addition, I question how much impact a single person’s decision to cheat or not has on the overall amount of cheating in the system. One person’s impact is probably inversely proportional to the size of the system: from significant in very small systems, to negligible in very large ones.
There’s lots of discussion of this in evolutionary psychology and game theory. It seems that we have conflicting biological imperatives: (1) to gain as much of available resources for ourselves as we are able; (2) to share resources equitably. When we see somebody cheating we seem to be wired to want to punish them for violating (2), which puts a social cap on the possibilities for carrying out (1). But (1) is conditioned by past experiences as well as by instinct, somebody who has suffered traumatic deprivation may well feel compelled to acquire more than they could ever use. And we also admire and attempt to imitate those who are socially successful, which can lead to cheating as well.
Some of us admire and attempt to imitate those who are honest and follow the rules. What determines which we admire more? It’s back to those mental structures NV mentioned. Wouldn’t we all be better off if children were indoctrinated from an early age to value honesty above social success? Or, better yet, to equate honesty itself with social success?
From the perspective of the 10 outside people, the original 100 are just a resource for RUs in the same way that farmland is a resource for crops or oceans are a resource for fish. The outsiders each harvest 1 RU from the originals. Their net benefit is 1 RU. In this case, I don’t see any cost at all to the outsiders, since they weren’t even a part of the system before they started cheating. The cost to the system (no more RUs to invest) isn’t even relative to the outsiders. So clearly, in this case it’s in the outsiders’ own self interest to leech off the originals. If I’m an outsider, why should I even care about the loss to the system of the 10 extra RUs?
Now the 11th outsider shows up, bringing the total population to 111. The system can only support 110, so each individual stands of 1/111 chance of having to die. That’s obviously a cost to the originals, since they were at no risk of dying before the 11th outsider arrived. Whether it’s a cost to the outsiders depends on what alternative they had to leeching off the originals. Without that information, we can’t say whether a 1/111 chance of dying is a net gain for them.
OK lets change from birds to people. Say 10 illegal immigrants show up and drop anchor babies. The system is degraded but still functions. It is a benefit for the illegals but the system to support growth (and more of them) is degraded. After the 11 shows up it goes negative including for them.
Our attempts to reconcile and balance these conflicting biological imperatives provide the context for the development of ethics and morality. Now that we are less tribalistic (at least in social structure) than we were a few centuries ago, the conflicts are more pronounced. The tribal impulses are still present, as is evident in any Friday night high school football game, where fans of schools from towns only 10 miles apart are cheering when their team “kills” the other. The object of the game is for one team to “gain as much of an available resource as they are able” (yardage, scores), but the rules of the game are designed to see that this done equitably (one team can’t have the ball every single time). A certain amount of “stealing” is allowed (interceptions, taking the ball away from a running back or recovering a fumble). A certain level of violence is encouraged. To keep the game from getting out of control, there are officials and rules committees. Competition is so fierce that cheating is inevitable - witness the yearly revelations about NCAA recruiting violations at major colleges.
Yes, and real-world ethical situations are often complex beyond what can readily be calculated—for instance, how landlords keep up their residences. If a building is in a city that has strong rent-control regs, he may feel justified in not looking after certain of the less than necessary items such as landscaping, updating of kitchens, bathrooms, floors, modernizing windows, plumbing, etc. Even without rent control in the picture, a landlord may feel financially strapped and become, at least in the opinions of his tenants, a tightwad or even a slumlord while in his own mind he’s a legitimate and caring landlord.
Cheating, lying, stealing, etc. can perhaps all be termed deception/negligence-for-gain. Throughout our lives, we encounter fuzzy boundaries between what is ethically proper and what is not, and deception/negligence for gain often seems palatable to us. Even when filing taxes, I suspect that certain kinds of fudging are commonly done in clear conscience by taxpayers, and IRS (or equivalent) regulations are stunningly extensive and specific. I suspect that most people see themselves as almost never being guilty of deception or negligence for gain. When we’re accused of something, we just point to extenuating circumstances that level the culpability playing field.
Cheating, lying, stealing, etc. can perhaps all be termed deception/negligence-for-gain. Throughout our lives, we encounter fuzzy boundaries between what is ethically proper and what is not, and deception/negligence for gain often seems palatable to us. Even when filing taxes, I suspect that certain kinds of fudging are commonly done in clear conscience by taxpayers, and IRS (or equivalent) regulations are stunningly extensive and specific. I suspect that most people see themselves as almost never being guilty of deception or negligence for gain. When we’re accused of something, we just point to extenuating circumstances that level the culpability playing field.
Legal and ethical lines are drawn so that people will know what the limits are. But this encourages us to get as close to the limit as possible, and it’s generally a given that the line will be crossed. Like setting your cruise control, you go as high as you think you can without getting caught, but see a highway patrolman and your foot instinctively taps the brake. We like to live close to the edge, to the limit. It’s the gambler in us, I suppose. And we justify it in various ways, such as “that’s the way it’s done”, “everyone does it,” etc.
From the perspective of the 10 outside people, the original 100 are just a resource for RUs in the same way that farmland is a resource for crops or oceans are a resource for fish. The outsiders each harvest 1 RU from the originals. Their net benefit is 1 RU. In this case, I don’t see any cost at all to the outsiders, since they weren’t even a part of the system before they started cheating. The cost to the system (no more RUs to invest) isn’t even relative to the outsiders. So clearly, in this case it’s in the outsiders’ own self interest to leech off the originals. If I’m an outsider, why should I even care about the loss to the system of the 10 extra RUs?
Now the 11th outsider shows up, bringing the total population to 111. The system can only support 110, so each individual stands of 1/111 chance of having to die. That’s obviously a cost to the originals, since they were at no risk of dying before the 11th outsider arrived. Whether it’s a cost to the outsiders depends on what alternative they had to leeching off the originals. Without that information, we can’t say whether a 1/111 chance of dying is a net gain for them.
OK lets change from birds to people. Say 10 illegal immigrants show up and drop anchor babies. The system is degraded but still functions. It is a benefit for the illegals but the system to support growth (and more of them) is degraded. After the 11 shows up it goes negative including for them.
It goes negative for the first ten illegal immigrants compared to what it was for them before the 11th snuck in. Whether it’s a negative for the 11th depends on her alternative to sneaking in and dropping an anchor baby.
I disagree that cheaters need to be identified for cheating to spread.
OK, fair enough. The question then becomes, how quickly will cheating spread; and how much impact will one individual’s cheating have on the total amount of cheating in the system? GAD claims cheating by just one person would cause that behavior to spread throughout the entire population in a single day:
GAD - 19 August 2011 08:23 AM
Yes, and that is the simple rationalization that many people use to recuse themselves from personal restraint. But there is a larger context to consider, if I can kill and get away with it then by the same reasoning someone else could kill me and get away it, and by the end of the first day there would only be the last man standing. [emphasis mine]
If GAD’s right then cheating is never in my own self-interest and he stands, like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke, as the last bastion against his local park going to crap.
Denied! That is out of context that comment was about killing not stealing and was in context to what it was a reply too.
If it takes longer, however, then there is still a period of time (and I claim it’s an extended, perhaps indefinite period of time) when cheating is in the cheater’s best interest—even though it’s contributing to the eventual collapse of the system.
Then there is only one logical conclusion, everybody should cheat. But most of us realize that if everyone cheated the system would collapse and we would all be fucked. Solution, ban cheating and hold cheaters accountable as much as is reasonable. I would say the world we live in empirically supports that conclusion.
In addition, I question how much impact a single person’s decision to cheat or not has on the overall amount of cheating in the system. One person’s impact is probably inversely proportional to the size of the system: from significant in very small systems, to negligible in very large ones.
Agreed. But without consequences cheating would become rampant and collapse the system. So it is consequences for cheating that keep it at bay.
If it takes longer, however, then there is still a period of time (and I claim it’s an extended, perhaps indefinite period of time) when cheating is in the cheater’s best interest—even though it’s contributing to the eventual collapse of the system.
Then there is only one logical conclusion, everybody should cheat. But most of us realize that if everyone cheated the system would collapse and we would all be fucked. Solution, ban cheating and hold cheaters accountable as much as is reasonable. I would say the world we live in empirically supports that conclusion.
No, that’s a completely illogical conclusion not supported by anything I’ve said. The only logical conclusion from any self-interested individual’s perspective is: “No one should cheat except me.”
And a better solution than strictly holding cheaters accountable is to also indoctrinate children from an early age to believe that cheating is wrong, period, without trying to justify it through reason.
I’ll meet you half way, GAD. You’ve convinced me that reason alone will not necessarily lead a person to conclude that cheating is in his own self-interest, even in systems that have not reached the tipping point. But nor do I think you can claim reason alone will necessarily lead a person to conclude that cheating is not in his own self-interest. So if we rely on reason alone, self-interest will only prevent some people from cheating. We’d be better off instilling the belief that cheating is wrong.
Cheating, lying, stealing, etc. can perhaps all be termed deception/negligence-for-gain. Throughout our lives, we encounter fuzzy boundaries between what is ethically proper and what is not, and deception/negligence for gain often seems palatable to us. Even when filing taxes, I suspect that certain kinds of fudging are commonly done in clear conscience by taxpayers, and IRS (or equivalent) regulations are stunningly extensive and specific. I suspect that most people see themselves as almost never being guilty of deception or negligence for gain. When we’re accused of something, we just point to extenuating circumstances that level the culpability playing field.
Legal and ethical lines are drawn so that people will know what the limits are. But this encourages us to get as close to the limit as possible, and it’s generally a given that the line will be crossed. Like setting your cruise control, you go as high as you think you can without getting caught, but see a highway patrolman and your foot instinctively taps the brake. We like to live close to the edge, to the limit. It’s the gambler in us, I suppose. And we justify it in various ways, such as “that’s the way it’s done”, “everyone does it,” etc.
As I’ve aged, I’ve become much more cautious than I used to be in certain ways. It might illustrate a fine point of empathy analysis. My new-found caution is strictly selfish in a sense, and I’m hoping I won’t invite a flury of anti-Randians assuming I’m fully in her camp.
If I’m on an open freeway, I’m perfectly happy going very quickly, especially if I’m on a roadworthy motorcycle. But I’ve become cautious not to drive over the speed limits of roads where things seem busy or in any way potentially hazardous. I could invent all sorts of nice sounding reasons for my recently increased caution, but to be truthful, it was my realization of how badly I might feel if my quick driving preferences ended up harming someone else. The reason this has stuck with me so strongly is that it’s always difficult if not impossible to assign with accuracy all the factors that resulted in any given road mishap. I don’t want someone’s death or injury anywhere near my conscience, and as a result, I exercise more caution than I used to do.
If it takes longer, however, then there is still a period of time (and I claim it’s an extended, perhaps indefinite period of time) when cheating is in the cheater’s best interest—even though it’s contributing to the eventual collapse of the system.
Then there is only one logical conclusion, everybody should cheat. But most of us realize that if everyone cheated the system would collapse and we would all be fucked. Solution, ban cheating and hold cheaters accountable as much as is reasonable. I would say the world we live in empirically supports that conclusion.
No, that’s a completely illogical conclusion not supported by anything I’ve said. The only logical conclusion from any self-interested individual’s perspective is: “No one should cheat except me.”
LOL! And the result of all self-interested individual’s believing “No one should cheat except me.” is everyone cheating.
And a better solution than strictly holding cheaters accountable is to also indoctrinate children from an early age to believe that cheating is wrong, period, without trying to justify it through reason.
That’s sounding like religion, follow without reason. I try to teach my kids the reasons so they have a solid foundation to stand on.
I’ll meet you half way, GAD. You’ve convinced me that reason alone will not necessarily lead a person to conclude that cheating is in his own self-interest, even in systems that have not reached the tipping point. But nor do I think you can claim reason alone will necessarily lead a person to conclude that cheating is not in his own self-interest. So if we rely on reason alone, self-interest will only prevent some people from cheating. We’d be better off instilling the belief that cheating is wrong.
I think reality dictates that I have to accept that….....
