wafe

cooperation evidence?

social exchange in hunter/gather cultures AND primates engage in reciprocal helping

altruism in nonrelatives presents a problem for evolutionary theory bcuz..

focus on individual benefits, natural selection prefers behaviors that yield individual higher than avg, two forms of helping

altruism

unilateral benefit (decrease helper’s fitness)

cooperation

mutual helping (increase direct fitness)

helping

behavior that on avg increase the direct fitness of the recipient (adds alt and coop)

alt behavior

behavior that on avg increased the direct fitness of the recipient and which reduces the fitness of the actor (increases long term fitness of actor)

co-op behavior

behavior that on avg increase direct fitness of the recipient and yields direct benefit to the actor

Self-serving behavior

A behavior that increases the actor’s direct fitness independently of the recipient (either positive or negative)

public good

behavior that helps 2 or more recipients + potential benefits to the actor

Robert Axelrod

adaptations for providing benefits to nonrelatives can evolve as long as the delivery of benefits is reciprocated at some point in the future: those who engage in reciprocal will outproduce those who are selfihs and the hunter/gather cultures where food is shared

trivers suggested 6 conditions

_ long life span
_ low rate of dispersal

_ high degree of mutual dependence

_ long parental care

_ ability to assist conspecific in combat

_ flexible dominance

alexander said theres 3 ways of how indirect reciprocity is beneficial

altruistic appearing are desirable, behaviors are rewarded by sharing, kin may get help from other members

tooby and devore - 4 characteristics of reciprocity

_ unprecedented development in the frequency and degree of reciprocity + manifestation
_ unparalleled degree of negotiation intercontingent behavior

_ ^ division of labor btwn sexes

_ mating negotiation and exchange (wife exchange)

maynard smith (games theory)

examines strats of coop behavior, conditional behavioral options, payoff matrix, EES

tit 4 tat AKA prisoners dilemma game: they can coop or defect

4 possible behaviors
paysoff each player receives 3 units for mutual coop, 1 for defection
if one coop and the other defects then coop 0 and cheater 5
doesnt pay to coop in single round

CO and CO, CO and D, D and CO, D and D

3, 0, 5, 1

Prisoners Dilemma

T - temptation to free ride, benefit w no cost ~ 5
R - reciprocity, benefit w cost ~ 3

P - punishment, not cost no benefiit ~ 1

S - sucker cost but no benefit ~ 0

math rule ofprisoners dilemma?

T > R > P > S

Pay off for mutual coop

R > (T+S)/2

Axelrod created

game of prisoner’s dilemma

what strat won the game?

two simple rule: coop first round and reciprocate every move after

what are the keys to success?

never be the 1st 2 defect
retaliate only after the other has defected
be forgiving

coop in animals?

vamp bats (female bats fed friends n those who were in need) AND chimps politics! (yeroenn and nikkie)

social contract theory (comides and tooby)

cheaters have an evolutionary advantage (more benefit), thrive more in a pop where theres no coop, reciprocal altruism: organisms detect mechanism to avoid cheating

how do you solve the problem of cheating?

1- ability to tell many diff individual humans
2 - ability to remember the history w diff individuals ( u owe me money)
3 - communicate one’s values to others (i want this )
4 - ability to model the values of others (how to coop )
5 - ability to represent cost and benefit indp of the specific item exchanged

so waxon test revealed…

the logical version got a low rate of success while the social got a wayyy higher rate

do ppl remember cheaters?

evidence: memory for faces of cheaters, auto attentional bias, facial cues related to neg emotions

input, decisions, output: ppl walk away in response those who dont coop

william michael brown …

argued that humans possess an evolved mechanism to detect genuineness of altruistic acts

cost signaling theory

individuals that show altruism to signal that they can be allies (charity and honest)

friendships

could give you sexual access, resources , info from opp sex BUT theres intrasexual rivalry in same sex friendships, friends can be seen as mate poachers, sexual rivalry is not restricted to interaction btwn same sex stranger

tooby and cosmides states in how to be irreplaceable

1) promote a reputation that highlights ones unique attributes (be unique)
2) be motivated to recognize personal attributes to value that may be hard to get from others
3) cultivate skills that increase irreplaceability
4) avoid social groups in which one’s unique attributes are easily provided
5) seek out groups that have what u need and groups that lack
6) drive off rivals who offer benefits that you alone formely provide

factors determining choice of friend

1) number of slots already filled
2) evaluate who shows pos externalities
3) friends that have empathy
4) pick a friend that sees u as irreplaceable
5) pick a friend that want the same thing

limitations in coalition

• defection of group members

• game theory shows defection (free riding or cheaters

• punishment of non coop (fake friends are worse than bitter enemies)

only 2 species that showed male coalition in aggression

humans and chimps

opposing view of aggression

nature or nurture

ethological theory - aggression in inevitable cuz we look for fights + sports

behaviorism - aggression is learned

evo psyc - aggression solves adaptive problems like competition 4 mates, status, resource

leonard berkowitz states that theres 7 types of aggression..

1) predatory - aggression between species
2) inter male - competition for territory, dom, mates
3) fear induced - survival response when theres no escape
4) irritable - aggression directed toward another
5) maternal - aggression to protect offspring
6) sex related - aggression that is aroused by sexual behavior
7) instrumental - goal and reward based

using aggression as a solution to adaptive problems by…

1) co-opt the resources of others (stealing, trickery, social exchange, secure resources)
2) defense against attacks (can be used as defense)
3) inflict cost on intrasexual rivals (same sex are fighting for same/similar resources)
4) negotiate status and power (increase it or not)
5) deter rivals from future aggression (dont wanna mess w me)
6) deter long term mates from infidelity

agression is triggered in context that present the problem like…

spousal battering, reputational consequences

why are men more violent?

_ homicides (men v men)
_ intrasexual competion (parental investment, sexual selection, risk taking)

warfare (history of violence)

yanomamo war, corrupted by modern instuition

steven pinker states that theres a decline in violence cuz…

few wars, few homicides, modern civilization lowers agg, ask why is there peace?

intercommunity violence is present

young males that form alliances
more motivated by social bonds
xenophobia

state

complex group engaged in diverse economic activities

states use war

to get resources and manipulate others for benefits

4 conditions of war

avg long term gain in reproductive resources
coalition believes in winning
risk n contributions must = benefit
viel of ignorance abt survival

any predictions of war ?

1) men evolve psyc mech for war
2) sexual acess 2 women
3) men join groups for wars if success are high
4) men retreat if death is imminent
5) men should evolve psyc mech that detect cheating
6) psyc mech that detect, prefer, enlist should evolve

sexual conflict

conflict btwn the evolutionary (genetic) interest of individual of two sexes

strat inference theory (buss)

strat inference happens when a person employs a specfic strat to achieve a goal and another blocks it by using another strat

two main strat inference

strat interference is predicted to occur whenever members one sex violate the desires of the opp sex

neg emotions rep evolved solution to problems of the strat interference

activation of neg emotion serves 4 function

1) drawing attention to interfering events
2) marking those events for storage in memory
3) motivating actions that reduce or eliminate the source
4) motivating memorial retrieval and hence subsequent avoidance of context producing future interference

conflicts over sex

inferences - men think theres a sexual intent when it doesnt exist
deception - men report intentionally lying 2 women abt emotional commitment
cognitive bias - men overestimate female interest

commitment skepticism bias

women have a bias to underestimate men’s actual lvl of romantic commitment to early in courtship

error management theory (haselton and buss)

we live in an uncertain social world, many psyc states are concealed, chaos of prob cues

two types of error in EMT

failing to detect and falsely inferring

in means of cost of EMT

men have a higher cost when there is sexual interest but they missed it

sexual withholding

men consistently complain about women sexual withholding by saying no, leading them on, teasing

conflicts in sex

sexual withholding
female manipulation of men’s perception
encourages male long term mating

sexual aggressiveness

male strat to minimize their investment for access (cost = retaliation and dmg to reputation)

in means of rape…

men choose victims who are younger than older

evidence for rape in animals?

scorpionflies, orangutans, etc

symon states that rape was a evo byproduct because

desire for sexual variety
sex drive
willingness to engage in impersonal sex
less discriminating criteria for sexual partners
greater physical size
agg evolved in non rape context

thornhill and palmer states 6 adaptions of rape in men

1) vulnerability of the victim
2) context sensitive switch that motivates rape by men w/o sexual acess
3) preference for fertile rape victims

4) increase sperm counts of rape compared to consensual sex
5) sexual arousal to the use of force
6) marital rape under circumstances of sperm competition

rape conclusions

~ no compelling evidence for specialized adaptation to rape
~ some evidence contradicts rape adaption theory (rapists arent always sex deprived)
~ evidence does partially support theories
~ research needed

any anti rape defense?

• special friends (other males) for protection

• picking mates that are bigger and have more social dominance (bodyguard hypothesis)

• cultivation of female female coalition for protection

• women avoiding situation in where there might be danger

• avoidance of risky activities during ovulation

• psyc pain from rape motivates women to avoid rape

four common strats women use to avoid rape

1) avoid strangers or dangerous men
2) avoid appearing sexually receptive
3) avoid being alone
4) being preparedd and alert for danger

if both sexes were asked to sleep

64 of women were insulted
17 of women were flattered

67 of men were flattered
15 of men were insulted