new paradigm leader wrote:
i must say that you are wise. as to inequity aversion I'm not too familiar with the concept would you please explain it maybe?
Oh my, i'll try. A very useful conceptual tool for understanding a host of behavior patterns in society - in humans but also monkey and canines!!
Here's a concise and formal definition:
Inequity aversion (IA) is the preference for fairness and resistance to inequitable outcomes.
The application literature is vast, the scientific experiments fascinating and cover multiple species... so I'll just quote a sampling.
Monkeys, like humans, are acutely aware of injustice, which suggests that a sense of equality is an ancestral trait among primates. In an unusual two-year experiment, animal behaviorists Sarah Brosnan and Frans de Waal of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, taught brown capuchin monkeys to receive tokens as a reward and to barter them for food. The monkeys were usually quite content to swap the tokens for cucumber but if the researchers gave one of the monkeys a grape, a more eagerly-sought food, the other animals would become jealous.
From Sarah Brosnan's - a summary of results from their reseach "Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay":
During the evolution of cooperation, it may have become worthwhile for individuals to compare their own payoffs to those of others, in an effort to increase relative fitness. Humans do so, frequently rejecting payoffs that are perceived as unfair (even if they are advantageous). While there is some variation, this response is widespread across human populations. If a sense of fairness did evolve to promote cooperation, some nonhuman animals may exhibit inequity aversion as well. This is particularly likely in social species with tolerant societies, such that individuals may reasonably expect some equity between themselves and other group members. Here we examine the response of five female capuchin monkeys to an unequal distribution of rewards during experimental exchange with a human experimenter. Females in pairs alternated exchanges with the experimenter under four conditions:
1) both females received the same reward,
2) one female received a superior reward,
3) one female received a superior reward without exchange (i.e. no work), and
4) a single female observed a superior reward in the absence of a partner.
Females were significantly less likely to complete an exchange when their partner received a higher-value food item than they, and this response was amplified if the partner received the reward without working for it. Refusals to exchange included passive rejections, such as refusing to either return the token or accept the reward, as well as active rejections, such as throwing the token or the reward out of the testing area. Whereas the basis of this response is unknown (e.g. social emotions, as proposed for humans), negative responses to this type of situation support a relatively early evolutionary origin of inequity aversion.
Earl Mardle writes: As brosnan says, human beings have a similar approach, we do not live in a world of absolute values but one in which we are constantly comparing ourselves with those about us and, like a capuchin, we can tell when we are being short changed. The whole shtick of welfare paternalism is enshrined in the statement "if only these people would act in the right way, they wouldn't get into so much trouble", but the poor will tell you that they get the very rough end of the pineapple. Now we can say, with some justice, that even a monkey could see that some people get habitually shortchanged and where the disproportionate rewards can be determined arbitrarily by someone else, you will get destructive, or irrational or very angry behaviour. And the only way to fix that is to stop the disproportionate rewards.
Even a monkey could see that.....
The absence of reward induces inequity aversion in dogs
1. Friederike Rangea,b,1,
2. Lisa Horna,
3. Zsófia Viranyib,c, and
4. Ludwig Hubera
1.
aDepartment of Neurobiology and Cognition Research, University of Vienna, A-1091 Wien, Austria;
2.
cKonrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research, A-3422 Altenberg, Austria; and
3.
bWolf Science Center, 4645 Grünau, Austria
Communicated by Frans B. M. de Waal, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, October 30, 2008 (received for review July 21, 2008)
Abstract
One crucial element for the evolution of cooperation may be the sensitivity to others' efforts and payoffs compared with one's own costs and gains. Inequity aversion is thought to be the driving force behind unselfish motivated punishment in humans constituting a powerful device for the enforcement of cooperation. Recent research indicates that non-human primates refuse to participate in cooperative problem-solving tasks if they witness a conspecific obtaining a more attractive reward for the same effort. However, little is known about non-primate species, although inequity aversion may also be expected in other cooperative species.
Here, we investigated whether domestic dogs show sensitivity toward the inequity of rewards received for giving the paw to an experimenter on command in pairs of dogs. We found differences in dogs tested without food reward in the presence of a rewarded partner compared with both a baseline condition (both partners rewarded) and an asocial control situation (no reward, no partner), indicating that the presence of a rewarded partner matters. Furthermore, we showed that it was not the presence of the second dog but the fact that the partner received the food that was responsible for the change in the subjects' behavior. In contrast to primate studies, dogs did not react to differences in the quality of food or effort. Our results suggest that species other than primates show at least a primitive version of inequity aversion, which may be a precursor of a more sophisticated sensitivity to efforts and payoffs of joint interactions.
I'll stop there.... there's much more which I'm sure you'll uncover if you pursue it
new paradigm leader wrote:
also this concept of asymmetrical exploitation is an interesting one. it pretty much sums up all things in life that relate to conflict.
this being how predation, disease, and numerous other things happen something without conscious thought takes advantage of an asymmetrical advantage in order to survive often killing the thing it held advantage over look for instance at The relations between the United States and Britain. in the 19th century up until the 1970's or 60's the British held a powerful sway in the world technologically militarily and economically. world war 2 set in motion the events that changed this: the empire's economic status became quite frankly dire, the military lacked resources and technology remained level for a long while this coupled with the United State's boost in economy, military, and technology enabled the USA to replace Britain as the major world superpower not that Britain is weak but rather degenerated, it is no longer filled with scientists, inventors and artists now we have, youth gangs, EU infringement of sovereignty, and a plethora of musicians who quite frankly aren't worth the polypropolene of a single Compact disk.
That's a keen application and analysis.
Like "inequity aversion",
asymmetrical exploitation is a vast topic with applications across a swath of fields and disciplines: military, economics, even human evolutionary theory, game theory, and so on...
All Guerrilla and Terrorist tactics are precipitating conflicts along asymmetric lines. 21st century changes to the worlds military forces are undergoing
reformation to combat asymmetric battles. This began in the early '90's and the many D.A.R.P.A. sponsored military projects from that period to this day are to deal with, create and exploit asymmetric edges.
I'll pick a quickie example from economics.
There was a time when IBM was the undisputed titan of all things computing and had been in that position for many decades.
Along came a nobody called Bill Gates who had gotten his hands on a little OS called DOS. Bill went to IBM and offered DOS to IBM
as a business deal, for a pittance. IBM said thanks but no thanks we got it all covered and showed bill the door. Bill believed in DOS
and decided to create a little business he called MS to make a few bucks since at the time he was a college drop-out. Well it wasn't too
many years after that the mighty titan, IBM was on the verge of going out of business and had to re-invent itself. What happened with
MS we all are familiar with.
How about our nomadic ancestors before the so called agricultural revolution. They had to compete with predators who were stronger, faster and had
natural tools like very sharp claws and teeth. And with all those disadvantages our ancestors managed to not only survive but evolve to prosper and rein over those competing powerful beasts eager to eat them for oh so many generations. One of the first asymmetric edges - "fire"... forever immortalized in the myth of Prometheus.
new paradigm leader wrote:well hopefully you will forgive my tangent there but i think i can pass it off as barely relevant.
thanks for reading
NPL
p.s. Whipper your posts intrigue me immensely they are forever a source of debate and intellectual discussion and for that i must thank you
P.s.s. hopefully that wont be taken as being a tad facetious or slightly whats the term?... brown-nosing
Thanks again
NPL
For me there really are no tangents because WZ can be a very useful "lens" to examine and discuss just about any topic. This was also the general climate of Pumpkin's own forums for WZ when it was first brought into the world for RTS gamers. Pumpkin team members participated in those "tangential" discussions too, set the temper of free-wheeling brainstorming even and we all had much fun learning while being a part of WZs development through 10 official patches that substantially changed the game from retail release - bug fixes where a very minor part what was introduced in those 10 patches. That culture in the WZ community was fostered through the many years after Pumpkin was put out of business
and clear through the years of non-stop efforts to get the source code liberated.
I appreciate your responsiveness and take it in no other way than being honest and forthright and gracious - all powerful virtues to be respected
in my personal credo.
The game, those in the community who have shared, the original creators Pumpkin, the moders, artists, mappers, the current developers - over the course of the last decade I have received so much of value and positive stimulus that reciprocating as best I can from day one to now seems the only way for me to participate.
Regards, whipper
.
.
