The source of Trust and Obligation

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

Game theory suggests that individuals who interact with one another repeatedly tend to gravitate toward cooperation with those who have shown themselves to be honest and reliable and shun those who have behaved opportunistically. But to do this effectively they have to be able to remember each other’s past behaviours and anticipate likely future behaviours based on an interpretation of other people’s motives. This is not so easy to accomplish since it is the appearance of honesty, trust and not honesty itself that is the marker of a potential collaborator. That is, I will agree to work with you if you seem to be honest based on experience. But if you have deliberately built up a fund of trust in the past, you can put yourself in a position to take even greater advantage of me in the future. So while self-interest propels individuals to cooperate in social groups, it also creates incentives for cheating, deceiving, and other forms of bahaviour that undermine social solidarity.

For one, cheating may cause an exit from society and its potential benefits. The EAST adopted the losing face (disgrace) measure which holds the end point for social life of who stands against its OBLIGATIONS. In contrast, the WEST took another value measures such as legal institutions to treat disgraced person who breaches its obligations.

Of course in complicated, cultural-mixed global-scaled systems, the latter measure is favored the most. Yet building a far-reaching global administrative and authoritative body who can effectively impose and police the measure remains a key challenge.   

I am investigating below, the source of trust and social obligations with use of biological evolution framework and game theory. It may be a critical question for someone

Where did human beings’ sociability (cooperation, cheating)) come from?

  

Indeed biologists have identified two natural sources of cooperative behaviour; kin selection and reciprocal altruism. The most basic forms of cooperation predate the emergence of human beings societies. 

William Hamilton formulated the principle of inclusive fitness or kin selection which holds that individuals of any sexually reproducing species will behave altruistically toward kin in proportion to the number of genes they share. (W.D. Hamilton Journal of Theoretical Biology 7 – 1964 and R. Dawkins Oxford Press 1989) So nepotism is not only a socially but also a biologically grounded reality which explains the desire to pass resources on to kin.

Reciprocal altruism is a term referred to cooperation with genetic strangers. It is regarded as the second major biological source of social behaviour of humans after kin selection. Social cooperation depends on an individual ability to solve its life games. (Game theory) In these games individuals benefit potentially by being able to work with their fellow humans. But they can often benefit more if they let other individuals do the cooperating and free ride off of their efforts (R. Axelrod 1980)

Thus human sociability is not a historical or cultural acquisition, but something hardwired into human nature. Some may say other species such as vampires chimpanzees and wolves have shown sociability though their social evolutionary process has not ended into the level of human-like civilizations and advances. This contrasts the cognitive ability of humans which has not advanced into upper level in other species as it has occurred for humans. What is the source of this cognitive ability? At first glance it may appear that cognitive abilities were required for human beings to adapt their physical environments. Greater intelligence offers advantages with regard to hunting and making tools. But it is not the whole story. One may argues other species even do hunting, gathering, surviving harsh climates and the like without having developed anything like a human being’s cognitive abilities.

So what makes all differences between human beings and other intelligent species?

From evolutionary biology perspective, the source of human’s brain advancement must be different from those species such counted above. It is suggested that human being in effect enter into a cooperation and competition with other human beings through which the winners are those groups that could create more complex forms of social organization based on new cognitive abilities to interpret each other’s behaviour. (N. Humphrey, Cambridge university press 1976; R. Alexander, University of Michigan press 1990) It is wise to say that the source of human beings’ brains development is their social interactions, races and the means by which these interactions undertaken such as language.

My 2011

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

December-2011 turned into its second half. This is the time for reflecting the year which we will pass into history just in the next few days time and building upon new hopes for 2012.

Like every years, the first year of the second decade of the 21st century, accommodated bitter and sweet events. It may be hard to draw a bold line to contrast sweet and bitter events, as they could be differently interpreted by people. There were, however, some events that there is a general consensus which overwhelmingly affected the function of the global system or moved human’s heart.

Nevertheless, in reality, bitter and sweet forces are interacting and applied to dynamic systems. The natural and social systems must be capable to balance them through an adaptable path if they wish to survive.  

In individual level, everyone experienced the impacts of these events. Some even forced further and got radical structural changes to transform the entire system with altering their lifestyle and resetting their mindsets.

My life was influenced by Japan’s tsunami, Fukushima nuclear disaster and Thailand’s floods. The former strained my emotions to its limit. My friends and family were directly exposed to the disasters. The latter tested both my physical and emotional capacity. Struggling for securing foods and drinking water, living in fear of flood reaches your place plus watching people’s lost, pushed me to limit.

The events, along with other personal experiences, force me to undertake an adaptation process which brought me a great life and mindset transformation. I got know myself and now feel free.

If you’re reviewing your 2011 to create hopes for 2012, I wonder, it would be useful to bring up some great words in this thinking process. They contributed in bringing off my life transformation. They may find your interest.       

}        Knowing is better than wondering (B. Franklin)

}        Never leave that till tomorrow (B. Franklin)

}        It is not the strongest of species that survive, nor the most intelligent, BUT the ones most responsive to changes (Ch. Darwin)

}        Changing paradigms is not easy. Too many have invested too much in the wrong models (J. Stiglitz)

}        If we are to survive, we must have ideas, visions, and courage. (A. Schlesinger)

}        Everything that matters in our intellectual and moral life begins with an individual confronting his own mind and conscience in a room by himself  (A. Schlesinger)

}        Do not watch, but see and listen. They open your mind and heart (the tale of Genji)

Have a wonderful year

Value Judgment and Progress

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

What we discussed in my earlier post “progress” on October 23^rd 2011and in the social scientists group, briefly covered origins for the idea of progress and its implication for society development.  Similar lines of inquiry might be pursued through other sociological literature, with the result of showing case studies that attempt to explain society, and particularly social advance. What was missed, explicit definition for the significant and essential characteristic of human beings, for striving after the accomplishment of certain life-purposes (E. Kant).. Such terms as "struggle," "conflict," "survival," and "adaptation stand for legitimate and highly important concepts in social theory, but concepts nevertheless which can give us no clue to the true nature of human progress.  

 

The definition of progress does not imply continuous, uninterrupted advance along a smooth path, but rather the halting, infrequent lunges forward which the actual page of history discloses (B. Woods). It is possible to assume an attitude on the subject of human evolution and denying all significance to judgments of better or worse, passed on human life conditions in different ages. No matter which standards or codes picked, the concept of social valuations is universal, and, indeed inevitable. It is decidedly worth while that they should be founded, not on narrow interests or artificial conceptions of life, but on a survey of the largest horizon of truth about humanity which it is possible

In contrast to the prevailing original idea of gradual and continuous progress, the orthodox idea of cycles of change existed in the fabric of the philosophies of east and their perceptions of progress. It means regular succession of changes seen in the movements of perfect bodies the return of the seasons, the course of growth and decay in the animal and vegetable world, as well as by periods of degeneration and decline visible in the history of nation. This idea also could survive long and worked well in that part of the world. (Fukuyama)

In social level, progress is essentially an idea of value and teleological idea (Flint). It cannot, therefore, be reduced to a formulation in terms of mechanism. The theory of natural selection is essentially a theory of the mechanics of a process. Evolution in general is a process from homogeneous to heterogeneous (Spencer). In social level, the progress is path-determined (Arrow) and the process’s goal must be set and judged to be good, and involving both the process and the judgment.

However one may still argue that with separating the process from the value judgment, the element of subjectivity appears which it may misguide societies toward a sound direction. The counter argument is “Societies, whose values have survived over the course of history, can set a series of values which suit and serve their space and time (context) as they have done”. This standpoint may fall short when the value judgment is supposed to be taken in a collective global scale (globalization). The problem lies in reconciling a standard of human values, which is valid not because it corresponds to a social actuality, but to a social need with that other dominant conception. So remote the global society ideal of life may be!

A great deal of efforts has been made by social scientists to develop a universal framework to explain the conditions of human development, though this universal framework is inconsistent where the value judgments, ethics and priorities are at play. As Bury highlighted, progress itself, does not suggest its values as a doctrine. So in social level, there may not be a supreme object of action toward the union of human thoughts.