![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Fairness, in the abstract.
Jul. 5th, 2011 03:37 pmOkay, I'm up and about and the brain seems to be working. Why am I not doing something productive?
Never mind the question. Somebody -- I *think* it was![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jaylake -- linked me to http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/science/05angier.html , which posits that a human drive for fairness is adaptive and genetically inherited. I've had a deep and abiding concern for the health of my social organisms since at least age 4, if not earlier, and so my own overriding question is "What makes a social organism healthy, and why?"
Genetics cannot be a complete answer to that question, but it's often a good hint. I am not my genes, but genetic inheritance includes generations of testing via natural selection, and it makes obvious sense to take advantage of a good testing mechanism.
As the article points out, in many ways chimps are as smart as we are -- but one never sees a pair of chimps teaming up to carry a log. Hmm, yet chimps *do* hunt together -- perhaps they're simply not yet as far along in this trend as we are? The benefits of carrying the log are more indirect; hunting chimps start eating the kill while it's still twitching, so the reward there is very immediate. At any rate, the human ability to cooperate is what makes us as effective as we are, as it does also for such other examples as ants and bees.
The article describes an acceptance of *limited amounts* of unfairness -- it makes sense to reward harder workers and better performers -- but while toddlers will accept two-for-me-and-one-for-you, they'd rather destroy the game than accept five-for-me-and-one-for-you, even if then they don't even get their 'one.'
Not sure where I'm going with this, yet. Anyone else have a clue?
Never mind the question. Somebody -- I *think* it was
jaylake -- linked me to http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/science/05angier.html , which posits that a human drive for fairness is adaptive and genetically inherited. I've had a deep and abiding concern for the health of my social organisms since at least age 4, if not earlier, and so my own overriding question is "What makes a social organism healthy, and why?" Genetics cannot be a complete answer to that question, but it's often a good hint. I am not my genes, but genetic inheritance includes generations of testing via natural selection, and it makes obvious sense to take advantage of a good testing mechanism.
As the article points out, in many ways chimps are as smart as we are -- but one never sees a pair of chimps teaming up to carry a log. Hmm, yet chimps *do* hunt together -- perhaps they're simply not yet as far along in this trend as we are? The benefits of carrying the log are more indirect; hunting chimps start eating the kill while it's still twitching, so the reward there is very immediate. At any rate, the human ability to cooperate is what makes us as effective as we are, as it does also for such other examples as ants and bees.
The article describes an acceptance of *limited amounts* of unfairness -- it makes sense to reward harder workers and better performers -- but while toddlers will accept two-for-me-and-one-for-you, they'd rather destroy the game than accept five-for-me-and-one-for-you, even if then they don't even get their 'one.'
Not sure where I'm going with this, yet. Anyone else have a clue?
