Evolutionary Stable Strategies and Game Theory

Being selfish is such a dilemma. When I reflect on selfishness, it is as if the proverbial angel and devil on my shoulders appear.

The Devil: Isnt selfishness just the summation of all the evolutionary processes that have brought me into being? Selfishness is what works.

The Angel: I am more the the sum of biology; humanity tells me that I can be more than these things. Even though it is so easy to submit to selfishness, I know I can curb it and put others first.

So are the angel and devil completely incompatible? Either, or? Or, is there some kind of compromise between the two? Perhaps there are certain things about which we can (or even ought to) be selfish – they are not egregious faults of character – and then there are things for which we should hold ourselves higher.

 

There is a classic question in evolution: how come there are cheaters? Because they win. If everyone at first played fair, eventually some individuals may realize that they can cheat the system by stealing and get more than what they’re putting in.  If that’s the case, shouldn’t everyone be cheaters? But if everyone cheated, the system would ultimately fail and this would not be a sustainable method. An all-cheating system becomes obsolete, but an all-fair system doesn’t always last.  Rather, a more realistic situation exists wherein fair players compose the majority of the population and cheaters are a small minority. The exact proportions of how many in each category depends on a cost/benefit analysis of each role. This dilemma is described in biology as ESS – Evolutionary Stable Strategies – and in economics as Game Theory.

 

Let’s apply ESS/Game Theory to a single individual instead of a population: If selfishness is to cheating, then selflessness is to playing fair.  Constant selfishness may make you happy for a while, but in the end you will probably find yourself in a mess by yourself, having alienated people. And constant selfless is no fun. There’s a reason why usually only devoutly religious men and women who make it their livelihoods try to act completely selflessly (and even then, we see that doesn’t always work out too well).

 

So I guess the question boils down to which aspects of life can we be selfish about, and which parts should we really try to be better? I think this is a personal question, based on your own experiences, cultural background, and bringing up. At the end of the day (or life), what is your goal? What will you be satisfied with. What is sustainable?

Life’s stress is fair.

Life should be difficult. Life for most animals entails constantly looking over their shoulder, frequent searching for food. Wildlife aren't obese (aside from in college campuses and the local garbage can)

And most humans think of themselves as people – different, separate from animals. Life for a lot of people is comparatively cushy if we compare ourselves to animals. We’ve got luxuries like cars and grocery stores, houses with heating and air.

Instead, we find our stress elsewhere. Rising gas prices, feeling like you’re bleeding money left and right for various purchases, never-ending to-do lists . Urgent deadlines and worries at work that frazzle us. Natural stresses like searching for shelter and food have been converted into a different kind of currency. That doesn’t mean to say we shouldn’t try to minimize these costs; we ought. But the next time we complain or stress about spending an unexpected sum of money, let’s remember that it’s okay. Life should be difficult, and if it’s not then we’re cheating some Law of Nature. Don’t cheat.

clearly, i have not made much progress on this. ive decided that given my schedule, i should just write about whatever comes to mind instead of writing only after organizing everything i want to cover.

altruism. does it actually exist? does it make sense for altruism to have evolved? Do we ever do anything for someone else just for goodness' sake? Or, do we somewhere deep down expect the good karma to cycle back to us?

Altruism refers to doing something good for another without gaining benefit. Doing something good just because. You get the mail for your housemate not because it will better your relationship but because you were already getting your mail and she would appreciate it; you find a girlfriend for your brother just to be nice, not because that way he'll be out of the house or because he shares half your genes and you want your family line to continue.

Reciprocal altruism entails memory and debt - Monkey B remembers that fellow Monkey A shared a cache of food once so now Monkey B grooms Monkey A. By being 'altruistic' at one point in time, an individual eventually gains something in return in the future. So is reciprocal altruism a form of true altruism?

Let's take a step back and look at evolution itself. The end result of natural selection is just individuals who happened to be more fit and adapted to the environment. These guys at the end were more fit and simply survived and reproduced more. Scale here is important. If you look at maybe 100 years for a species, you may see lots of snout lengths. However, you look 500 years after that, the species now all have only long snouts because the short snouts couldnt dig deep enough in the ground to eat grubs. The long-snouted individuals survived because they were more fit and therefore they were able to mate more, make more babies with long snouts, and they in turn were more fit, and so on. So we see that selection acts on fitness.

Let's return to altruism. Using the logic in the above paragraph, it would make sense then to rationalize altruism by saying that it somehow increased the individuals who were altruistic - altruistic individuals were more fit than selfish ones. Being good to someone somehow increases your own chances. How can that be? This is where reciprocal altruism makes sense. Your own fitness increases when you do good because the recipient will ultimately return the favor. Always, somehow, you expect something back for your good deed. A tax exemption, or social recognition, to make yourself feel better, even. This take therefore suggests that individuals are selfish.

True altruism, then, has no place in evolution. If so, how did it come to be? Why are we nice when we dont need to be nice? How do we explain philanthropists and heros? It is a social contrivance. When our fitness is no longer in peril, we can afford true altruism. We no longer need to rationalize a good deed with a cost/benefit analysis. Social and ethical norms have facilitated this. True altruism is an example of how we are different from 'mere animals and beasts'. In this way, it can be said we are above the hand of evolution.

What makes this difficult to analyze is that if you look hard enough you can almost always find a way in which altruism benefits the actor. This is an example of the interplay between evolution and social norms. Look deep down within yourself when you commit an altruistic deed; ask yourself what is your motivation.

And now we like to pick up the mail for our friends.

The Beginning of a Wonderful Journey

Come and explore the evolutionary motivations behind common behaviours and situations. For example, stop entirely blaming that ex of yours for what happened - Mother Nature has been tinkering with us ever since the first cell!

Putting social situations within the context of Nature, we can often discover that our motivations and reactions are rooted in deeper than even the subconscious. We find that Evolution has been shaping our behaviors. We can ask, What biologically makes a woman act 'clingy' (according to her annoyed significant other)? or, Why does he hate shopping?. There are answers beyond "She misses him" and "He's a guy". Of course, there are no hard and fast answers, but Nature and her ever trusty sidekick Evolution have given us some pretty good explanations.

I think everyone can benefit from understanding more about the natural world, if not at the least have some brain-stuff to chew. In this blog, I'll share the things I've learned and pondered that perhaps can help us understand predicaments, provide us with more points to consider before acting, and therefore allow us react more logically and gentle(wo)manly.

So, heave ho!

But hold on to your gametes - it will be a while before I put up a real post..