« Collaboration Cases and Spaces |
Main
| Must Read: The Great Scam »
August 13, 2004
The Economist on the (post)-monkeymind
Posted by brendyn
The Economist has a review of Paul Seabright’s The Company of Strangers, concerning the surprise of human collaboration along non-genetic lines (unlike our ape cousins, where family groups largely sets the dynamics of collaboration.)
. Co-operation of a sort among different animal species is also quite common, though not very surprising, since members of different species are not generally competing with each other for food, still less for sexual partners. Elaborate co-operation outside the family, but within the same species, is confined to humans.
Neither of these tendencies [rational thought and a willingness to punish defection] could support co-operation without the other, and the balance between the two is delicate. Calculation without reciprocity often favours cheating: this undermines trust, so co-operation either cannot get started or quickly breaks down. On the other hand, reciprocity without calculation exposes people to exploitation by others. Again, fear of exploitation inhibits co-operation. For specialisation and division of labour to get going, one needs both instincts, each pushing against the other, so that cheating and free-riding are both kept in check.
To sit on the shelf between Wisdom of Crowds and Logic of Collective Action.
Comments (4)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Spolsky on Blog Comments: Scale matters
- › "The internet's output is data, but its product is freedom"
- › Andrew Keen: Rescuing 'Luddite' from the Luddites
- › knowledge access as a public good
- › viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace
- › Gorman, redux: The Siren Song of the Internet
- › Mis-understanding Fred Wilson's 'Age and Entrepreneurship' argument
- › The Future Belongs to Those Who Take The Present For Granted: A return to Fred Wilson's "age question"
1. JamesJayTrouble on August 13, 2004 8:51 PM writes...
Oh, c'mon...
I'm not saying that exploitation does NOT inhibit co-operation. But this is hominoid-infatuation to say this "crap" below:
"Co-operation of a sort among different animal species is also quite common, though not very surprising, since members of different species are not generally competing with each other for food, still less for sexual partners. Elaborate co-operation outside the family, but within the same species, is confined to humans."
For folks who only understand New Age-speak: I've seen, apparently, different species (or perhaps different sized) birds buzzing around a hawk. I've see them trying to steer the hawk (apparently from nesting area?), quite a few times. Plus, once saw a tiny bird being defended (ultimately unsuccessfully) by several species against a weird grackel. Never seen a grackel attack a bird, before or since, personally.
For anybody interested: Besides, there's even such phenomena as intra-marriage and intra-family competition. And if you don't think these get played out in the workspace...?!? Least there's been in the one's I'm familiar with. Nuclear family has impacted things, many things of course, and that's more of an explanation in my mind.
Quantitative analysis of co-operation-potential, afaik, seems like an oxymoron, (if there is such-a thing that applies to a whole sentence??). And is that what all this is leading to...??
Permalink to Comment2. Clay Shirky on August 13, 2004 9:24 PM writes...
But the paragraph you quoted specifically mentions cross-species collaboration of the kind you list, and nowhere do they suggest that humans don't also live in conflict.
What they suggest is that intra-species cooperation that transcends familial relations is uniquely human.
Permalink to Comment3. JamesJayTrouble on August 14, 2004 4:00 PM writes...
Two kinds of birds are the same species, afaik.
And you know what. If I'm mistaken about the exact and precise definition of the word 'species'..
..well, I think that is just TOO BAD.
What do you call parasitism?? What do you call the symbiotic relationships?!? And you if think that different species do NOT compete for food, then I'm not sure WHAT to think??
My point is that you pseudo-scientists have no idea what you are talking about. But then, so do most of the scientists.
So where does THAT leave you? Well, as a lay scientist (and pseudo-scientist, when I'm wrong)..
..my point is that voodoo science is ALWAYS WRONG, with the rare exception just to make it look otherwise. And this gives every appearance of being voodoo scientist.
~~~~~~
What you're looking for is how to enhance collaboration.
Right?
There are two ways, and two ways only:
Cooperation and coercion. There are many nuances to allow you to cross-section it down to various 4-ways...
POINT IS: Somebody coercing you by way of psyching you into cooperating is the most despicable form, because it gives the appearance of being FOR YOUR BENEFIT, and it does so ON PURPOSE.
Got it??
Permalink to Comment4. JamesJayTrouble on August 14, 2004 4:26 PM writes...
I didn't write that very well.
POINT IS ALSO: There's.. not a fine line.. but a not-only-vast-but-incredibly-DEEP RED CHASM, between a pscyh job and a teacher.
That may not have come across in my point above.
This is pure voodoo:
"Neither of these tendencies [rational thought and a willingness to punish defection] could support co-operation without the other, and the balance between the two is delicate."
I should, no doubt, have read the article to get the full context. You may have, indeed, perverted what the guy (or gal, whatEVER) was saying.
Co-operation, my 'friends', is NOT simply a matter of punishing defection you idiots. So how does a pig like this fly in the University of Blogaria?? ('Cause it doesn't need anything except virtual wings, literally.)-;
And if co-operation is solely, or mainly, or even a little bit DEPENDENT ON 'RATIONAL' THOUGHT, as implied on this very BLOG...
?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Well, that's blogus because:... ? Self-preservation is not only exceptionally rational, but exceptionally instinctual, so maybe all this is just wishful rationalization on MY part. ?
And just forget about how you're gonna balance all this stuff with your emotions, ye of your own blind 'self-inflated faith'.
Permalink to Comment