Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sei]

ITT: Same-species parasites.

All complex systems contain parasites. In any system of cooperative behavior, an uncooperative strategy will be effective -- and the system will tolerate the uncooperatives -- as long as they're not too numerous or too effective. Thus, as a species evolves cooperative behavior, it also evolves a dishonest minority that takes advantage of the honest majority. If individuals within a species have the ability to switch strategies, the dishonest minority will never be reduced to zero. As a result, the species simultaneously evolves two things: 1) security systems to protect itself from this dishonest minority, and 2) deception systems to successfully be parasitic.

Humans evolved along this path. The basic mechanism can be modeled simply. It is in our collective group interest for everyone to cooperate. It is in any given individual's short-term self interest not to cooperate: to defect, in game theory terms. But if everyone defects, society falls apart. To ensure widespread cooperation and minimal defection, we collectively implement a variety of societal security systems.

Two of these systems evolved in prehistory: morals and reputation. Two others evolved as our social groups became larger and more formal: laws and technical security systems. What these security systems do, effectively, is give individuals incentives to act in the group interest. But none of these systems, with the possible exception of some fanciful science-fiction technologies, can ever bring that dishonest minority down to zero.

In complex modern societies, many complications intrude on this simple model of societal security. Decisions to cooperate or defect are often made by groups of people -- governments, corporations, and so on -- and there are important differences because of dynamics inside and outside the groups. Much of our societal security is delegated -- to the police, for example -- and becomes institutionalized; the dynamics of this are also important. Power struggles over who controls the mechanisms of societal security are inherent: "group interest" rapidly devolves to "the king's interest." Societal security can become a tool for those in power to remain in power, with the definition of "honest majority" being simply the people who follow the rules.

The term "dishonest minority" is not a moral judgment; it simply describes the minority who does not follow societal norm. Since many societal norms are in fact immoral, sometimes the dishonest minority serves as a catalyst for social change. Societies without a reservoir of people who don't follow the rules lack an important mechanism for societal evolution. Vibrant societies need a dishonest minority; if society makes its dishonest minority too small, it stifles dissent as well as common crime.

Food for thought. I chose Super-Bullshit over General due to nature of topic and (soon-to-be dashed) hopes for its corresponding discussion, which I realize I may be failing to properly spark.

_{P.S. why the fuck does SMF munge up quote=dude,url but not quote=url,dude? IT IS A MYSTERY}

[Classic]

Have I ever told you guys that religious fundamentalism is a pet peeve of mine? Because I will probably continue to tell you until the sun runs out of fusible elements.

[Aintaer]

What does the parasitism mean in terms of a "dishonest minority"? Just ones who do not participate in majority "cooperative" behavior? Or is it actively doing things to undermine majority construction?

What about those who are prosocial in one aspect but antisocial in another?

[sei]

I parse it two (compatible) ways

• one can adopt a parasitic stance with regard to specific systems (and to the exclusion of others)
• an overall assessment of parasite or not (read: cumulative drag or not) can generally be made

E.g. if Stephen Hawkings were pirating music, he would be a parasite WRT the music (industry) ecosystem, but not a parasite in a general, societal sense. (It seems safe to say that his scientific and cultural contributions outweigh abusing Napster.)

The first example of productive non-cooperation that springs to mind is free culture/pirate radio (which Lawrence Lessig discusses).

[Pacobird]

what makes nihilism so insidious is its ability to masquerade as literally any other set of beliefs; logical consistency is only important insofar as one values logic for its own sake

this guy is trying to channel foucault but missing the part where foucault points out that the insane are not to blame for being so, and does not understand that as a result he comes across as the exact person foucault was trying to reach.  more likely, he understands this perfectly but simply does not care

[sei]

no pomo

[Aintaer]

His argument is that because of the dishonest minority, there is, as a matter of course, institutions of "security" to protect against the dishonest minority such that the wellbeing of the Society as an Organism can be maintained.

I find this argument weak. There exists no enforcement in other highly social groups such as bees. A large bee colony of the size of a modern country's human population does not find the same percentage of dishonest minority bees. I postulate that there exists such a population in humans only because of the excess due to lack of evolutionary pressure to be prosocial.

While psychological security is necessary for a creature's wellbeing, the sort described as protection against the minority is an excuse to justify institutionalized power not as a distinctly human invention to deal with distinctly human problems, but rather as something that is necessary of complex systems. I say that's the wrong conclusion to make. The evolutionist's framework is enough to explain the emergence of the "cheaters" already, why use extra labels like "dishonest" and "security"? All that is happening is that there is not evolutionary pressure for the complex system to be optimally supporting a society. Hence there exists niches for suboptimal socialization. In this framework, institutionalized security is just one factor controlling the niche size, or a counter-niche to the existence of the dishonest minority to begin with.

Imagine the opposite situation, where rule of power triumphs over rule of law. A society built around the concept that the most powerful should rule, and those who band together in a social group are being "dishonest" to the social status quo. Is there then a necessary "security" in the form of a crackdown? The entire framework of a dishonest minority provides no explanatory power and does not advance a cogent argument as to why this must exist in cooperative societies. Restated in terms of thermodynamics: a system will tolerate turbulence provided the turbulence is not too turbulent. Tautology, anyone?

[Misha]

bees are not social. For genetic purposes, a hive of bees is a single organism. Any individual bee would only lose from say, hoarding honey away from the hive. It would not increase its own ability to pass on its genes because it is sterile.

[sei]

RE: Aintaer

I'm not sure how to gauge the success of humans vs bees.

Bees aren't extinct. They're as fit as evolution's driven them to be, per "lack of evolutionary pressure" to do otherwise. Humans aren't extinct either (then again, give us a couple years).

If a (human) society's constituents all agree on a rule set that doesn't perfectly maximize fitness, and that rule set includes something like "don't rock the boat," the society stagnates at a local maximum. Rule-breaking could potentially jostle society onto a nearby hill with a higher peak. Given enough time, it probably would.

(Think random-restart hill-climbing or simulated annealing vs dumb hill climbing.)

[Aintaer]

bees are not social. For genetic purposes, a hive of bees is a single organism. Any individual bee would only lose from say, hoarding honey away from the hive. It would not increase its own ability to pass on its genes because it is sterile.

Bees are social. They communicate in more than rudimentary ways. However your point about individual bees not seeking gain is correct. In their society, what's good for one of them (the queen) is good for all of them. But bee society was raised as a counterpoint to "In any system of cooperative behavior, an uncooperative strategy will be effective". His argument was that complex systems necessitate this behavior. I see it as merely a human take on a wider evolutionary trend.

Re: sei

It is not so much rule-breaking that I'm reading out of this, it's more of the abuse of existing mechanisms. To break status quo to reach higher maxima, I think, is honest defection.

Of dishonest competition, it is true that given any mechanism it is possible for an agent to abuse the mechanism for its own gain. Classic parasitism aside, within humans, sociopathy abuses attraction mechanisms for an organism's own gain. However making the point that a policing mechanism arises alongside the abuse, which I take is his point, is not evident. It is not necessary that there be a Security of any sort against the Abusive behavior. I seem to remember it was a snake species that hides its own egg in the nest of birds, so that the mother bird will hatch the egg for the snake, and along the way, providing her own eggs as a nice easy meal for the newborn snake. There is no Security against this behavior besides the mother bird being capable enough to recognize a false egg and toss it out of her nest. He makes the argument that Abuse and Security rise together, and implies in fact that Abuse is reactive to Security. That is what I don't agree with.

[Ted Belmont]

Bees are communists. 

[Classic]

Classic parasitism aside

I- Hey! That's not nice at all!

I've heard human cooperation explained as not so much a push for an individual's genes, but a push for the genes of related individuals. If I perish in the process of ensuring the fertility of an equal or greater number of siblings it counts as a win (for our genetic traits anyway).

I guess maybe you're also taking issue with his assumption that the emergence of cooperation between genetically diverse individuals is some kind of guarantee?

Yeah. I like to pretend that biological systems are analogous to structures I'm more comfortable with. Oddly, I think this is one of the more apt comparisons.

[Aintaer]

Actually, the evolutionary landscape is pretty aptly described by energy hills and valleys, inverted that is. Evolution selects toward lowest energy (minimal for survival), but when the landscape shifts, the local minima are no longer minima. Those that can move out of their previous minimum into a new minimum survive.

The problem I have is that the author conflates cooperative societies with societies of creatures that can plan and coordinate in order to cooperate. The former has several cases in nature; the latter has one, us (not technically true, bonobos & al do some sorts of the same but only within small social groups). He's making generalized conclusions on not just cooperative societies, but all complex systems.

There's nothing inherent about a complex social system that necessitates cheating as a viable strategy (see bees and ants), and there's nothing inherent about parasitism that requires security to counter it (snake eggs). The entire phenomenon of security and its enforcement as a counter to cheating in a complex social system is one that I think is highly human. It is an invention of man to have members of society dedicated not toward an outside threat, but one within. Hence, if the postulate of the dishonest parasite is one that cannot be generalized, then it has little explanatory power. Littler still when compared with the existing evolutionary one.

The author could be making a different point though: the existence of a generalized mechanic opens up a niche to use and abuse the mechanic. Everything from ATP generation (whole mitochondria swallowed into other cells as their slaves!) to Jerry and George getting to the Neo-Nazi's limo. But this is not evident from his opening paragraphs, and from the title of his book (The Dishonest Minority: Security and Its Role in Modern Society), I don't think he's exploring that space.

[Büge]

Bees aren't extinct.

Given the way bee populations are dropping off, I'd say they're getting close.

[Mongrel]

I don'  knows much. All's I know is that whenever I sees me a really large number o' people doin' X, I find meself VERY STRONGLY INCLINED to do anything but X.

[Pacobird]

If a (human) society's constituents all agree on a rule set that doesn't perfectly maximize fitness, and that rule set includes something like "don't rock the boat," the society stagnates at a local maximum.

While I personally thought Ismael was a bunch of sentimental bullshit, it reflects the sincere belief held by many that the Root Problem of Culture is that it confuses homeostasis for stagnation, or even that it considers "stagnation" a bad thing at all.

[Shinra]

I don't know what you ivory tower elites are talkin' about, but I think them dang minorities are dishonest too! That's why we gotta kick em' outta our country. Stars and stripes! God bless america! These colors don't run!

[gg]

OP: Any sufficiently complex system will contain parasitism. Any complex system will further develop securities against said parasitism.

Ain: Bees are a complex system that contain no parasites. Birds don't have security against snakes.

[gg]

if i can't ban evade for this one topic i don't know what i got myself banned for in the first damn place :D

[Mongrel]

Why was this pinned?

That's not a complaint, I'm just genuinely confused as to why this particular discussion has been marked in a way no other Real World discussion has.