![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Nowak and Karl Sigmund have studied this phenomenon in humans for many years. Either I help you, then you help someone else at a later time, or I help you and then someone else, some time in the future, helps me. ![]() Distinguished from “direct reciprocity”, in which I help you and you help me, indirect reciprocity confers no immediate benefit to the one doing the helping. One of the behaviors that humans display a lot of is “indirect reciprocity”. Humans display a wide range of behavior that seems counter-intuitive to the survival of the fittest mentality until you consider that we are an inherently social species, and that keeping our group fit is a wise investment of our time and energy. (Which, of course, leads to improved individual survival, on average.) This relationship between individual and group survival is subject to intense debate among biologists. One answer is that humans are not only concerned with our individual survival, but the survival of our group. Winning by cheating, or stepping on others to achieve goals. However, in humans this evolutionary concept is often co-opted to defend a wide range of behaviors, not all of them good. Qualities such as strength and speed were beneficial to our ancestors, allowing them to survive in demanding environments, and thus our general admiration for these qualities is now understood through this evolutionary lens. Taken from Darwin’s theory of evolution, survival of the fittest is often conceptualized as the advantage that accrues with certain traits, allowing an individual to both thrive and survive in their environment by out-competing for limited resources. If ‘survival of the fittest’ is the prime evolutionary tenet, then why do some behaviors that lead to winning or success, seemingly justified by this concept, ultimately leave us cold? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |