To Cooperate or Cheat...

I'm currently reading Eric Beinhocker's The Origin of Wealth, which until recently had been sitting on my shelf for about a year, unread. After succumbing to the guilt of buying a $35 book and not reading it, I took off the dust jacket a few days ago and dove in. I originally purchased it at the recommendation of a friend, thinking it was a 400-page "get rich quick while improving your life" book. Having grown disgusted with that genre, starting that first page was tough. Much to my surprise the book is not at all related to personal wealth, but is instead an insightful look into a relatively new field of economics called complexity economics. My last experience with economics was an introductory course taken my sophomore year of college, where I did not attend class once, and first shook hands with the professor at the final exam. It also danced around the words "integral" and "derivative" like a belly dancer on hot coals. Needless to say, this book is nothing like that, and I have thoroughly enjoyed it thus far.

One of the main themes of complexity economics is that evolution can be applied to economies. Having just come off Dawkin's The Ancestor's Tale, I immediately bought in to this idea. The Origin is filled with all kinds of examples of evolution in financial systems, as well as experiments incorporating evolving agents performed to develop and test the theories of complexity economics. One of these theories is that cooperation is a driving force in the global economy and benefits all (obvious), and that it has its evolutionary roots in our genes which code for cooperation. Beinhocker asks how cooperation stands a chance to evolve in the face of selfish individuals (not genes) who are better immediately served by cheating. In describing cheating defense mechanisms, he says the following:

When we are in an environment in which most of our experience is of other people's cooperation and reciprocation and in which social norms give us signals that people can be trusted (e.g., people tell admiring stories about self-sacrificing, trustworthy types), then our mental cooperation software will tend to be biased toward cooperating. It will also be more surprised and more forgiving when it encounters an example of defection or cheating. In essence, our minds statistically sample the population around us, and if people are usually cooperative, then when we encounter a cheater, we will tend to assume that the person's behavior is probably the result of an error or misunderstanding. In contrast, in a low-cooperation, high-cheating environment with social norms that don't support cooperation (e.g., the stories are all about thieves, and people tell you to "watch your back"), our cognitive cooperation software biases us toward being suspicious. We react harshly to the first signs of cheating, forgive only slowly if at all, and are likely to resist cooperating until given a sign of cooperation from the other party first.

This passage really struck me. It made me reflect on my decision to take my current job and move to Austin three years ago, which I did primarily because of the honest and collaborative environment. Since that time, I have really become the former all-trusting and cooperating individual. I'm not sure how successful I am, but I do make a significant effort to be a good citizen, friend, and co-worker. When this is reciprocated, it makes me feel great. I let my guard down and feel as if I am in an idealistic world. Every now and then, however, I am jolted back to "reality" - whatever that means - when I sense cheating. What kind of cheating? I'm generally most appalled by dishonest, illogical, and manipulative people. That, and inconsiderate drivers; really, they boil my temper like nothing else. Whenever I am in one of these situations, I wish I could say that I cavalierly dismiss it as a misunderstanding, as the author suggests. But I am too street-wise for that. I am immediately brought back to some of those really unpleasant periods and experiences of my past, and I get angry... real angry. Fortunately, I don't think it compromises my personal cooperation on the whole, but you can bet I won't bend over an inch for the offender. It always leaves a bad taste in my mouth, generally until someone else does something nice to me and my trust in society, or at least my sheltered subset of it, is restored.

So what do I take away from this? Well, at the very least it confirmed what I already knew - that depending on your environment, the same individual can either be naughty, or nice. Beyond that, I think it suggests of what the human race is capable, genetically, at least. Given time, resources, and tremendous effort, we could elevate our civilization to an ideal: one where we sit around all day telling admiring stories of self-sacrificing, trustworthy individuals and never ever having to watch our backs.

If you've made it this far into the post, thanks, but also consider doing your your part to create this ideal. Be nice... cooperate! reciprocate! Do to others what they want done to them. Maybe we can evolve our society to really capitalize on those collaborative genes 4 billion years in the making!?!

First Post

This is my first post!