DOC

socexj162005doc - @cnChapter 20

By Thelma Scott,2014-10-25 18:51
10 views 0
socexj162005doc - @cnChapter 20

    For a PDF of the proofs for this article: www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/papers/20finalbusssocexweb.pdf

    Neurocognitive Adaptations Designed for Social Exchange

    Leda Cosmides and John Tooby

    Center for Evolutionary Psychology

    University of California, Santa Barbara

Chapter 20

    Evolutionary Psychology Handbook

    David M. Buss, Editor

    Wiley

    In press

Leda Cosmides

    Dept. of Psychology

    University of California

    Santa Barbara, CA 93106

    tel: 805-893-8720

    fax: 805-965-1163

    Cosmides & Tooby1

    ―If a person doesn‘t give something to me, I won‘t give anything to that person. If I‘m sitting

    eating, and someone like that comes by, I say, ―Uhn, uhn. I‘m not going to give any of this to

    you. When you have food, the things you do with it make me unhappy. If you even once in a

    while gave me something nice, I would surely give some of this to you.‖

    Nisa from Nisa: The Life and Words of a !Kung Woman, Shostak, 1981, p. 89

    Instead of keeping things, [!Kung] use them as gifts to express generosity and friendly intent,

    and to put people under obligation to make return tokens of friendship . . . In reciprocating, one

    does not give the same object back again but something of comparable value.

     Eland fat is a very highly valued gift . . . Toma said that when he had eland fat to give, he

    took shrewd note of certain objects he might like to have and gave their owners especially

    generous gifts of fat.

    Marshall, 1976, pp. 366369

Nisa and Toma were hunter-gatherers, !Kung San people living in Botswana‘s inhospitable

    Kalahari desert during the 1960s. Their way of life was as different from that in an industrialized, economically developed society as any on earth, yet their sentiments are as familiar and easy to comprehend as those of your neighbor next door. They involve social exchange, interactions in

    which one party provides a benefit to the other conditional on the recipient‘s providing a benefit in return (Cosmides, 1985; Cosmides & Tooby, 1989; Tooby & Cosmides, 1996). Among humans, social exchange can be implicit or explicit, simultaneous or sequential, immediate or deferred, and may involve alternating actions by the two parties or follow more complex structures. In all these cases, however, it is a way people cooperate for mutual benefit. Explicitly agreed-to forms of social exchange are the focus of study in economics (and are known as exchange or trade), while biologists and anthropologists focus more on implicit, deferred cases of exchange, often called reciprocal altruism (Trivers, 1971), reciprocity, or reciprocation. We

    will refer to the inclusive set of cases of the mutually conditioned provisioning of benefits as social exchange, regardless of subtype. Nisa and Toma are musing about social exchange interactions in which the expectation of reciprocity is implicit and the favor can be returned at a much later date. In their society, as in ours, the benefits given and received need not be physical objects for exchange to exist, but can be services (valued actions) as well. Aid in a fight, support in a political conflict, help with a sick child, permission to hunt and use water holes in your family‘s territory—all are ways of doing or repaying a favor. Social exchange behavior is both panhuman and ancient. What cognitive abilities make it possible?

     For 25 years, we have been investigating the hypothesis that the enduring presence of social exchange interactions among our ancestors has selected for cognitive mechanisms that are specialized for reasoning about social exchange. Just as a lock and key are designed to fit together to function, our claim is that the proprietary procedures and conceptual elements of the social exchange reasoning specializations evolved to reflect the abstract, evolutionarily recurring relationships present in social exchange interactions (Cosmides & Tooby, 1989).

     We picked social exchange reasoning as an initial test case for exploring the empirical power of evolutionary psychological analysis for a number of reasons. First, the topic is intrinsically important: Exchange is central to all human economic activity. If exchange in our species is made possible by evolved, neurocomputational programs specialized for exchange itself, this is surely worth knowing. Such evolved programs would constitute the foundation of

    Cosmides & Tooby2

    economic behavior, and their specific properties would organize exchange interactions in all human societies; thus, if they exist, they deserve to be mapped. The discovery and mapping of such mechanisms would ground economics in the evolutionary and cognitive sciences, cross-connecting economics to the rest of the natural sciences. Social exchange specializations (if they exist) also underlie many aspects of a far broader category of implicit social interaction lying outside economics, involving favors, friendship, and self-organizing cooperation.

     There was a second reason for investigating the computational procedures engaged by social exchange: The underlying counterhypothesis about social exchange reasoning that we have been testing against is the single most central assumption of the traditional social and behavioral sciencesthe blank slate view of the mind that lies at the center of what we have called the standard social science model (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). On this view, humans are

    endowed with a powerful, general cognitive capacity (intelligence, rationality, learning, instrumental reasoning), which explains human thought and the great majority of human behavior. In this case, humans putatively engage in successful social exchange through exactly the same cognitive faculties that allow them to do everything else: Their general intelligence allows them to recognize, learn, or reason out intelligent, beneficial courses of action. Despite

    or perhaps becausethis hypothesis has been central to how most neural, psychological, and social scientists conceptualize human behavior, it is almost never subjected to potential empirical falsification (unlike theories central to physics or biology). Investigating reasoning about social exchange provided an opportunity to test the blank slate hypothesis empirically in domains (economics and social behavior) where it had previously been uncritically accepted by almost all traditional researchers. Moreover, the results of these tests would be powerfully telling for the general issue of whether an evolutionary psychological program would lead to far-reaching and fundamental revisions across the human sciences. Why? If mechanisms of general rationality exist and are to genuinely explain anything of significance, they should surely explain social exchange reasoning as one easy application. After all, social exchange is absurdly simple compared to other cognitive activities such as language or vision, it is mutually beneficial and intrinsically rewarding, it is economically rational (Simon, 1990), and it should emerge spontaneously as the result of the ability to pursue goals; even artificially intelligent agents capable of pursuing goals through means-ends analysis should be able to manage it. An organism that was in fact equipped with a powerful, general intelligence would not need cognitive specializations for social exchange to be able to engage in it. If it turns out that humans nonetheless have adaptive specializations for social exchange, it would imply that mechanisms of general intelligence (if they exist) are relatively weak, and natural selection has specialized a far larger number of comparable cognitive competences than cognitive and behavioral scientists had anticipated.

     Third, we chose reasoning because reasoning is widely considered to be the

    quintessential case of a content-independent, general-purpose cognitive competence. Reasoning is also considered to be the most distinctively human cognitive abilitysomething that exists in

    opposition to, and as a replacement for, instinct. If, against all expectation, even human reasoning turned out to fractionate into a diverse collection of evolved, content-specialized procedures, then adaptive specializations are far more likely to be widespread and typical in the human psychological architecture, rather than nonexistent or exceptional. Reasoning presents the most difficult test case, and hence the most useful case to leapfrog the evolutionary debate into genuinely new territory. In contrast, the eventual outcome of debates over the evolutionary origins and organization of motivation (e.g., sexual desire) and emotion (e.g., fear) are not in

    Cosmides & Tooby3

    doubt (despite the persistence of intensely fought rearguard actions by traditional research communities). No blank slate process could, even in principle, acquire the human complement of motivational and emotional organization (Cosmides & Tooby, 1987; Tooby, Cosmides, & Barrett, 2005). Reasoning will be the last redoubt of those who adhere to a blank slate approach to the human psychological architecture.

     Fourth, logical reasoning is subject to precise formal computational analysis, so it is possible to derive exact and contrasting predictions from domain-general and domain-specific theories, allowing critical tests to be devised and theories to be potentially or actually falsified.

     Finally, we chose the domain of social exchange because it offered the opportunity to explore whether the evolutionary dynamics newly charted by evolutionary game theory (e.g., Maynard Smith, 1982) could be shown empirically to have sculpted the human brain and mind and, indeed, human moral reasoning. If it could be empirically shown that the kinds of selection pressures modeled in evolutionary game theory had real consequences on the human psychological architecture, then this would help lay the foundations of an evolutionary approach to social psychology, social behavior, and morality (Cosmides & Tooby, 2004). Morality was considered by most social scientists (then as now) to be a cultural product free of biological organization. We thought on theoretical grounds there should be an evolved set of domain-specific grammars of moral and social reasoning (Cosmides & Tooby, 1989) and wanted to see if we could clearly establish at least one rich empirical examplea grammar of social exchange.

    One pleasing feature of the case of social exchange is that it can be clearly traced step by step as a causal chain from replicator dynamics and game theory to details of the computational architecture to specific patterns of reasoning performance to specific cultural phenomena, moral intuitions, and conceptual primitives in moral philosophyshowcasing the broad integrative

    power of an evolutionary psychological approach. This research is one component of a larger project that includes mapping the evolutionary psychology of moral sentiments and moral emotions alongside moral reasoning (e.g., Cosmides & Tooby, 2004; Lieberman, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2003; Price, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2002).

     What follows are some of the high points of this 25-year research program. We argue that social exchange is ubiquitously woven through the fabric of human life in all human cultures everywhere, and has been taking place among our ancestors for millions and possibly tens of millions of years. This means social exchange interactions are an important and recurrent human activity with sufficient time depth to have selected for specialized neural adaptations. Evolutionary game theory shows that social exchange can evolve and persist only if the cognitive programs that cause it conform to a narrow and complex set of design specifications. The complex pattern of functional and neural dissociations that we discovered during a 25-year research program reveal so close a fit between adaptive problem and computational solution that a neurocognitive specialization for reasoning about social exchange is implicated, including a subroutine for cheater detection. This subroutine develops precocially (by ages 3 to 4) and appears cross-culturallyhunter-horticulturalists in the Amazon detect cheaters as reliably as adults who live in advanced market economies. The detailed patterns of human reasoning performance elicited by situations involving social exchange correspond to the evolutionarily derived predictions of a specialized logic or grammar of social exchange and falsify content-independent, general-purpose reasoning mechanisms as a plausible explanation for reasoning in this domain. A developmental process that is itself specialized for social exchange appears to be responsible for building the neurocognitive specialization found in adults: As we show, the design, ontogenetic timetable, and cross-cultural distribution of social exchange are not

    Cosmides & Tooby4

    consistent with any known domain-general learning process. Taken together, the data showing design specificity, precocious development, cross-cultural universality, and neural dissociability implicate the existence of an evolved, species-typical neurocomputational specialization.

     In short, the neurocognitive system that causes reasoning about social exchange shows evidence of being what Pinker (1994) has called a cognitive instinct: It is complexly organized

    for solving a well-defined adaptive problem our ancestors faced in the past, it reliably develops in all normal humans, it develops without any conscious effort and in the absence of explicit instruction, it is applied without any conscious awareness of its underlying logic, and it is functionally and neurally distinct from more general abilities to process information or behave intelligently. We briefly review the evidence that supports this conclusion, along with the evidence that eliminates the alternative byproduct hypotheses that have been proposed. (For more comprehensive treatments, see Cosmides, 1985, 1989; Cosmides & Tooby, 1989, 1992, 2005; Fiddick, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2000; Stone, Cosmides, Tooby, Kroll, & Knight, 2002; Sugiyama, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2002.)

    Social Exchange in Zoological and Cultural Perspective

    Living in daily contact affords many opportunities to see when someone needs help, to monitor when someone fails to help but could have, and, as Nisa explains, to withdraw future help when this happens. Under these conditions, reciprocity can be delayed, understanding of obligations and entitlements can remain tacit, and aid (in addition to objects) can be given and received (Shostak, 1981). But when people do not live side by side, social exchange arrangements typically involve explicit agreements, simultaneous transfer of benefits, and increased trade of objects (rather than intimate acts of aid). Agreements are explicit because neither side can know the other‘s needs based on daily interaction, objects are traded because neither side is present to provide aid when the opportunity arises, and trades are simultaneous because this reduces the risk of nonreciprocationneither side needs to trust the other to provide help in the future. Accordingly, explicit or simultaneous trade is usually a sign of social distance (Tooby & Cosmides, 1996). !Kung, for example, will trade hides for knives and other goods with Bantu people but not with fellow band members (Marshall, 1976).

     Explicit trades and delayed, implicit reciprocation differ in these superficial ways, but they share a deep structure: X provides a benefit to Y conditional on Y doing something that X

    wants. As humans, we take it for granted that people can make each other better off than they were before by exchanging benefitsgoods, services, acts of help and kindness. But when

    placed in zoological perspective, social exchange stands out as an unusual phenomenon whose existence requires explanation. The magnitude, variety, and complexity of our social exchange relations are among the most distinctive features of human social life and differentiate us strongly from all other animal species (Tooby & DeVore, 1987). Indeed, uncontroversial examples of social exchange in other species are difficult to find, and despite widespread investigation, social exchange has been reported in only a tiny handful of other species, such as chimpanzees, certain monkeys, and vampire bats (see Dugatkin, 1997; Hauser, in press, for contrasting views of the nonhuman findings).

     Practices can be widespread without being the specific product of evolved psychological adaptations. Is social exchange a recent cultural invention? Cultural inventions such as alphabetic writing systems, cereal cultivation, and Arabic numerals are widespread, but they have one or a few points of origin, spread by contact, and are highly elaborated in some cultures

    Cosmides & Tooby5

    and absent in others. Social exchange does not fit this pattern. It is found in every documented culture past and present and is a feature of virtually every human life within each culture, taking on a multiplicity of elaborate forms, such as returning favors, sharing food, reciprocal gift giving, explicit trade, and extending acts of help with the implicit expectation that they will be reciprocated (Cashdan, 1989; Fiske, 1991; Gurven, 2002; Malinowski, 1922; Mauss, 1925/1967). Particular methods or institutions for engaging in exchangemarketplaces, stock exchanges,

    money, the Kula Ringare recent cultural inventions, but not social exchange behavior itself.

    Moreover, evidence supports the view that social exchange is at least as old as the genus Homo and possibly far older than that. Paleoanthropological evidence indicates that before anatomically modern humans evolved, hominids engaged in social exchange (see, e.g., Isaac, 1978). Moreover, the presence of reciprocity in chimpanzees (and even certain monkeys; Brosnan & de Waal, 2003; de Waal, 1989, 1997a, 1997b; de Waal & Luttrell, 1988) suggests it may predate the time, 5 to 7 million years ago, when the hominid line split from chimpanzees. In short, social exchange behavior has been present during the evolutionary history of our line for so long that selection could well have engineered complex cognitive mechanisms specialized for engaging in it.

     Natural selection retains and discards properties from a species‘ design based on how

    well these properties solve adaptive problemsevolutionarily recurrent problems whose solution

    promotes reproduction. To have been a target of selection, a design had to produce beneficial effects, measured in reproductive terms, in the environments in which it evolved. Social exchange clearly produced beneficial effects for those who successfully engaged in it, ancestrally as well as now (Cashdan, 1989; Isaac, 1978). A life deprived of the benefits that reciprocal cooperation provides would be a Hobbesian nightmare of poverty and social isolation, punctuated by conflict. But the fact that social exchange produces beneficial effects is not sufficient for showing that the neurocognitive system that enables it was designed by natural selection for that function. To rule out the counterhypothesis that social exchange is a side effect of a system that was designed to solve a different or more inclusive set of adaptive problems, we need to evaluate whether the adaptation shows evidence of special design for the proposed function (Williams, 1966).

    So what, exactly, is the nature of the neurocognitive machinery that enables exchange, and how specialized is it for this function? Social exchange is zoologically rare, raising the possibility that natural selection engineered into the human brain information processing circuits that are narrowly specialized for understanding, reasoning about, motivating, and engaging in social exchange. On this view, the circuits involved are neurocognitive adaptations for social

    exchange, evolved cognitive instincts designed by natural selection for that functionthe

    adaptive specialization hypothesis. An alternative family of theories derives from the possibility that our ability to reason about and engage in social exchange is a byproduct of a neurocognitive system that evolved for a different function. This could be an alternative specific function (e.g., reasoning about obligations). More usually, however, researchers expect that social exchange reasoning is a byproduct or expression of a neurocognitive system that evolved to perform a more general functionoperant conditioning, logical reasoning, rational decision making, or some sort of general intelligence. We call this family of explanations the general rationality

    hypothesis.

     The general rationality hypothesis is so compelling, so self-evident, and so entrenched in our scientific culture that researchers find it difficult to treat it as a scientific hypothesis at all, exempting it from demands of falsifiability, specification, formalization, consistency, and proof

    Cosmides & Tooby6

    they would insist on for any other scientific hypothesis. For example, in dismissing the adaptive specialization hypothesis of social exchange without examining the evidence, Ehrlich (2002) considers it sufficient to advance the folk theory that people just ―figure it out.‖ He makes no predictions nor specifies any possible test that could falsify his view. Orr (2003) similarly refuses to engage the evidence, arguing that perhaps ―it just pays to behave in a certain way, and an

    organism with a big-enough brain reasons this out, while evolved instincts and specialized mental modules are beside the point‖ (p. 18). He packages this argument with the usual and

    necessarily undocumented claims about the low scientific standards of evolutionary psychology (in this case, voiced by unnamed colleagues in molecular biology).

    What is problematic about this debate is not that the general rationality hypothesis is advanced as an alternative explanation. It is a plausible (if hopelessly vague) hypothesis. Indeed, the entire social exchange research program has, from its inception, been designed to systematically test against the major predictions that can be derived from this family of countertheories, to the extent they can be specified. What is problematic is that critics engage in the pretense that tests of the hypothesis they favor have never been carried out; that their favored hypothesis has no empirical burden of its own to bear; and that merely stating the general rationality hypothesis is enough to establish the empirical weakness of the adaptive specialization hypothesis. It is, in reality, what Dawkins (1986) calls the argument from personal

    incredulity masquerading as its oppositea commitment to high standards of hypothesis testing.

     Of course, to a cognitive scientist, Orr‘s conjecture as stated does not rise to the level of a scientific hypothesis. ―Big brains‖ cause reasoning only by virtue of the neurocognitive programs they contain. Had Orr specified a reasoning mechanism or a learning process, we could empirically test the proposition that it predicts the observed patterns of social exchange reasoning. But he did not. Fortunately, however, a number of cognitive scientists have proposed some well-formulated byproduct hypotheses, all of which make different predictions from the adaptive specialization hypothesis. Moreover, even where well-specified theories are lacking, one can derive some general predictions from the class of general rationality theories about possible versus impossible patterns of cultural variation, the effects of familiarity, possible versus impossible patterns of neural dissociation, and so on. We have tested each byproduct hypothesis in turn. None can explain the patterns of reasoning performance found, patterns that were previously unknown and predicted in advance by the hypothesis that humans have neurocognitive adaptations designed for social exchange.

    Selection Pressures and Predicted Design Features

    To test whether a system is an adaptation that evolved for a particular function, one must produce design evidence. The first step is to demonstrate that the system‘s properties solve a well-specified adaptive problem in a well-engineered way (Tooby & Cosmides, Ch 1 this volume,

    1992; Dawkins, 1986; Williams, 1966). This requires a well-specified theory of the adaptive problem in question.

     For example, the laws of optics constrain the properties of cameras and eyes: Certain engineering problems must be solved by any information processing system that uses reflected light to project images of objects onto a 2-D surface (film or retina). Once these problems are understood, the eye‘s design makes sense. The transparency of the cornea, the ability of the iris to constrict the pupillary opening, the shape of the lens, the existence of photoreactive molecules in the retina, the resolution of retinal cellsall are solutions to these problems (and have their

    Cosmides & Tooby7

    counterparts in a camera). Optics constrain the design of the eye, but the design of programs causing social behavior is constrained by the behavior of other agentsmore precisely, by the

    design of the behavior-regulating programs in other agents and the fitness consequences that result from the interactions these programs cause. These constraints can be analyzed using evolutionary game theory (Maynard Smith, 1982).

     An evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) is a strategy (a decision rule) that can arise and

    persist in a population because it produces fitness outcomes greater than or equal to alternative strategies (Maynard Smith, 1982). The rules of reasoning and decision making that guide social exchange in humans would not exist unless they had outcompeted alternatives, so we should 1expect that they implement an ESS. By using game theory and conducting computer simulations

    of the evolutionary process, one can determine which strategies for engaging in social exchange are ESSs.

     Selection pressures favoring social exchange exist whenever one organism (the provider) can change the behavior of a target organism to the provider‘s advantage by making the target‘s receipt of that benefit conditional on the target acting in a required manner. In social exchange, individuals agree, either explicitly or implicitly, to abide by a particular social contract. For ease

    of explication, let us define a social contract as a conditional (i.e., If-then) rule that fits the

    following template: ―If you accept a benefit from X, then you must satisfy X‘s requirement‖

    (where X is an individual or set of individuals). For example, Toma knew that people in his band recognize and implicitly follow a social contract rule: If you accept a generous gift of eland fat

    from someone, then you must give that person something valuable in the future. Nisa‘s words

    also express a social contract: If you are to get food in the future from me, then you must be

    individual Y (where Y = an individual who has willingly shared food with Nisa in the past). Both realize that the act of accepting a benefit from someone triggers an obligation to behave in a way that somehow benefits the provider, now or in the future.

     This mutual provisioning of benefits, each conditional on the other‘s compliance, is usually modeled by game theorists as a repeated Prisoners‘ Dilemma (Trivers, 1971; Axelrod &

    Hamilton, 1981; Boyd, 1988; but see Stevens & Stephens, 2004; Tooby & Cosmides, 1996). The results show that the behavior of cooperators must be generated by programs that perform certain specific tasks very well if they are to be evolutionarily stable (Cosmides, 1985; Cosmides & Tooby, 1989). Here, we focus on one of these requirements: cheater detection. A cheater is an

    individual who fails to reciprocatewho accepts the benefit specified by a social contract

    without satisfying the requirement that provision of that benefit was made contingent on.

     The ability to reliably and systematically detect cheaters is a necessary condition for cooperation in the repeated Prisoners‘ Dilemma to be an ESS (e.g., Axelrod, 1984; Axelrod & 2Hamilton, 1981; Boyd, 1988; Trivers, 1971; Williams, 1966). To see this, consider the fate of a

    program that, because it cannot detect cheaters, bestows benefits on others unconditionally. These unconditional helpers will increase the fitness of any nonreciprocating design they meet in the population. But when a nonreciprocating design is helped, the unconditional helper never recoups the expense of helping: The helper design incurs a net fitness cost while conferring a net fitness advantage on a design that does not help in return. As a result, a population of unconditional helpers is easily invaded and eventually outcompeted by designs that accept the benefits helpers bestow without reciprocating them. Unconditional helping is not an ESS.

     In contrast, program designs that cause conditional helpingthat help those who

    reciprocate the favor, but not those who fail to reciprocatecan invade a population of

    nonreciprocators and outcompete them. Moreover, a population of such designs can resist

    Cosmides & Tooby8

    invasion by designs that do not nonreciprocate (cheater designs). Therefore, conditional helping, which requires the ability to detect cheaters, is an ESS.

     Engineers always start with a task analysis before considering possible design solutions. We did, too. By applying ESS analyses to the behavioral ecology of hunter-gatherers, we were able to specify tasks that an information processing program would have to be good at solving for it to implement an evolutionarily stable form of social exchange (Cosmides, 1985; Cosmides & Tooby, 1989). This task analysis of the required computations, social contract theory, specifies what counts as good design in this domain.

     Because social contract theory provides a standard of good design against which human performance can be measured, there can be a meaningful answer to the question, ―Are the

    programs that cause reasoning about social exchange well engineered for the task?‖ Well-

    designed programs for engaging in social exchangeif such existshould include features that

    execute the computational requirements specified by social contract theory, and do so reliably, precisely, and economically (Williams, 1966).

     From social contract theory‘s task analyses, we derived a set of predictions about the design features that a neurocognitive system specialized for reasoning about social exchange should have (Cosmides, 1985; Cosmides & Tooby, 1989). The following six design features (D1-D6) were among those on the list:

    D1. Social exchange is cooperation for mutual benefit. If there is nothing in a

    conditional rule that can be interpreted as a rationed benefit, then interpretive procedures should not categorize that rule as a social contract. To trigger the inferences about obligations and entitlements that are appropriate to social contracts, the rule must be interpreted as restricting access to a benefit to those who have met a requirement. (This is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition; Cosmides & Tooby, 1989; Gigerenzer & Hug, 1992.)

    D2. Cheating is a specific way of violating a social contract: It is taking the benefit when you are not entitled to do so. Consequently, the cognitive architecture must define the concept of cheating using contentful representational primitives, referring to illicitly taken benefits. This implies that a system designed for cheater detection will not know what to look for if the rule specifies no benefit to the potential violator.

     D3. The definition of cheating also depends on which agent‘s point of view is taken. Perspective matters because the item, action, or state of affairs that one party views as a benefit is viewed as a requirement by the other party. The system needs to be able to compute a cost-benefit representation from the perspective of each participant and define cheating with respect to that perspective-relative representation.

     D4. To be an ESS, a design for conditional helping must not be outcompeted by alternative designs. Accidents and innocent mistakes that result in an individual being cheated are not markers of a design difference. A cheater detection system should look for cheaters: 3individuals equipped with programs that cheat by design. Hence, intentional cheating should

    powerfully trigger the detection system whereas mistakes should trigger it weakly or not at all. (Mistakes that result in an individual being cheated are relevant only insofar as they may not be true mistakes.)

     D5. The hypothesis that the ability to reason about social exchange is acquired through the operation of some general-purpose learning ability necessarily predicts that good performance should be a function of experience and familiarity. In contrast, an evolved system for social exchange should be designed to recognize and reason about social exchange interactions no matter how unfamiliar the interaction may be, provided it can be mapped onto the

    Cosmides & Tooby9

    abstract structure of a social contract. Individuals need to be able to reason about each new exchange situation as it arises, so rules that fit the template of a social contract should elicit high levels of cheater detection, even if they are unfamiliar.

    D6. Inferences made about social contracts should not follow the rules of a content-free, formal logic. They should follow a content-specific adaptive logic, evolutionarily tailored for the domain of social exchange (described in Cosmides & Tooby, 1989).

Cheating does involve the violation of a conditional rule, but note that it is a particular kind of

    violation of a particular kind of conditional rule. The rule must fit the template for a social

    contract; the violation must be one in which an individual intentionally took what that individual

    considered to be a benefit and did so without satisfying the requirement.

     Formal logics (e.g., the propositional calculus) are content blind; the definition of violation in standard logics applies to all conditional rules, whether they are social contracts, threats, or descriptions of how the world works. But, as shown later, the definition of cheating implied by design features D1 through D4 does not map onto this content-blind definition of violation. What counts as cheating in social exchange is so content sensitive that a detection mechanism equipped only with a domain-general definition of violation would not be able to solve the problem of cheater detection., This suggests that there should be a program specialized for cheater detection. To operate, this program would have to function as a subcomponent of a system that, because of its domain-specialized structure, is well designed for detecting social conditionals involving exchange, interpreting their meaning, and successfully solving the inferential problems they pose: social contract algorithms.

    Conditional Reasoning and Social Exchange

    Reciprocation is, by definition, social behavior that is conditional: You agree to deliver a benefit conditionally (conditional on the other person doing what you required in return). Understanding it therefore requires conditional reasoning.

     Because engaging in social exchange requires conditional reasoning, investigations of conditional reasoning can be used to test for the presence of social contract algorithms. The hypothesis that the brain contains social contract algorithms predicts a dissociation in reasoning performance by content: a sharply enhanced ability to reason adaptively about conditional rules when those rules specify a social exchange. The null hypothesis is that there is nothing specialized in the brain for social exchange. This hypothesis follows from the traditional assumption that reasoning is caused by content-independent processes. It predicts no enhanced conditional reasoning performance specifically triggered by social exchanges as compared to other contents.

     A standard tool for investigating conditional reasoning is the Wason selection task, which asks you to look for potential violations of a conditional rule of the form If P, then Q (Wason,

    1966, 1983; Wason & Johnson-Laird, 1972). Using this task, an extensive series of experiments has been conducted that addresses the following questions:

    ; Do our minds include cognitive machinery that is specialized for reasoning about social

    exchange (alongside other domain-specific mechanisms, each specialized for reasoning about

    a different adaptive domain involving conditional behavior)? Or,

    ; Is the cognitive machinery that causes good conditional reasoning generaldoes it operate

    well regardless of content?

    Cosmides & Tooby10

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com