Generosity Leads to Evolutionary Success, Biologists Show - Polidicks

[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130902162716.htm[/url] [IMG]http://images.sciencedaily.com/2013/09/130902162716.jpg?1378214310[/IMG] [QUOTE][B]With new insights into the classical game theory match-up known as the "Prisoner's Dilemma," University of Pennsylvania biologists offer a mathematically based explanation for why cooperation and generosity have evolved in nature.[/B] Their work builds upon the seminal findings of economist John Nash, who advanced the field of game theory in the 1950s, as well as those of computational biologist William Press and physicist-mathematician Freeman Dyson, who last year identified a new class of strategies for succeeding in the Prisoner's Dilemma. "Ever since Darwin," Plotkin said, "biologists have been puzzled about why there is so much apparent cooperation, and even flat-out generosity and altruism, in nature. The literature on game theory has worked to explain why generosity arises. Our paper provides such an explanation for why we see so much generosity in front of us." The Prisoner's Dilemma is a way of studying how individuals choose whether or not to cooperate. In the game, if both players cooperate, they both receive a payoff. If one cooperates and the other does not, the cooperating player receives the smallest possible payoff, and the defecting player the largest. If both players do not cooperate, they receive a payoff, but it is less than what they would gain if both had cooperated. In other words, it pays to cooperate, but it can pay even more to be selfish. In the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, two players repeatedly face off against one another and can employ different strategies to beat their opponent. In 2012, Press and Dyson "shocked the world of game theory," Plotkin said, by identifying a group of strategies for playing this version of the game. They called this class of approaches "zero determinant" strategies because the score of one player is related linearly to the other. What's more, they focused on a subset of zero determinant approaches they deemed to be extortion strategies. If a player employed an extortion strategy against an unwitting opponent, that player could force the opponent into receiving a lower score or payoff. It quickly became clear to the Penn biologists that extortion strategies wouldn't do well if played within a large, evolving population because an extortion strategy doesn't succeed if played against itself. "The fact that there are extortion strategies immediately suggests that, at the other end of the scale, there might also be generous strategies," Stewart said. "You might think being generous would be a stupid thing to do, and it is if there are only two players in the game, but, if there are many players and they all play generously, they all benefit from each other's generosity." In generous strategies, which are essentially the opposite of extortion strategies, players tend to cooperate with their opponents, but, if they don't, they suffer more than their opponents do over the long term. "Forgiveness" is also a feature of these strategies. A player who encounters a defector may punish the defector a bit but after a time may cooperate with the defector again. Stewart noticed the first of these generous approaches among the zero determinant strategies that Press and Dyson had defined. After simulating how some generous strategies would fare in an evolving population, he and Plotkin crafted a mathematical proof showing that, not only can generous strategies succeed in the evolutionary version of the Prisoner's Dilemma, in fact these are the only approaches that resist defectors over the long term.[/QUOTE]

I think it is important to note that, while selection can favor generosity in some circumstances, behavioral ecology has noted selfish individuals benefit in just as many if not more circumstances. It would be great if selection always favored altruism, but most of the time it does not.

it's actually really easy to see generosity in nature bees just look at bees. The little bastards KILL THEMSELVES to protect their homeland! And they are everywhere

[QUOTE=imptastick;42066433]I think it is important to note that, while selection can favor generosity in some circumstances, behavioral ecology has noted selfish individuals benefit in just as many if not more circumstances. It would be great if selection always favored altruism, but most of the time it does not.[/QUOTE] In one on one you are correct, however as noted in the study if applied to a wide population it fails because everyone is trying to extort each other and therefore nothing gets done.

[QUOTE=Whiterfire;42066499]it's actually really easy to see generosity in nature bees just look at bees. The little bastards KILL THEMSELVES to protect their homeland! And they are everywhere[/QUOTE] The death of a single bee does not harm them as a whole. They are many and we are but few. Fear them.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42068465]The death of a single bee does not harm them as a whole. They are many and we are but few. Fear them.[/QUOTE] [I]What is a drop of rain, compared to the storm? What is a thought, compared to a mind?[/I]

[QUOTE=Reshy;42068396]In one on one you are correct, however as noted in the study if applied to a wide population it fails because everyone is trying to extort each other and therefore nothing gets done.[/QUOTE] In communal species this is correct, but when you look at territorial species it most definitely is better to be selfish. In many species, an individual benefits the most when they can claim a disproportionate territory for themselves. Even though the population may benefit if resources were distributed more evenly; doing so would decrease an individuals breeding advantage. Hence selection favoring the selfish.

[QUOTE=imptastick;42068564]In communal species this is correct, but when you look at territorial species it most definitely is better to be selfish. In many species, an individual benefits the most when they can claim a disproportionate territory for themselves. Even though the population may benefit if resources were distributed more evenly; doing so would decrease an individuals breeding advantage. Hence selection favoring the selfish.[/QUOTE] Again depends, if you're so selfish that you prevent females from getting enough food to reproduce you're going to die out very quickly. Hence supporting generosity, at least enough that it doesn't impact the species survival.

[QUOTE=Reshy;42068808]Again depends, if you're so selfish that you prevent females from getting enough food to reproduce you're going to die out very quickly. Hence supporting generosity, at least enough that it doesn't impact the species survival.[/QUOTE] In most territorial scenarios males see females as a resource and vice versa. Their allowance of females to feed within their territory is a subset of their "greed". Just using bird species as an example a common distribution model is as follows: males arrive before females and claim the best spots (Fighting other males), then females disperse based on male territories. Their reproductive success is reliant on being greedy when it comes to resources. If a male is greedy enough he may even achieve even greater reproductive rates because the benefits of a really good territory outweigh the cost of polygyny, a greedy male will get multiple mating partners. An ideal breeding situation is only assured through the maximum amount of greed the male has the ability to maintain. Similarly from the female point of view the female will pick the very best territory and given the opportunity will chase any other female away. In both the case of the male and female the benefit of the individual is placed above that of the total population. I spent a good percentage of my behavioral ecology course studying situations like this. [editline]3rd September 2013[/editline] I should say though, that altruism is not rare either. Dolphins have been noted to attack preditors to save other individuals. Many animals signal others when observing a preditor even if it puts them at greater risk. One of the ones I find the most interesting: some turkeys go their entire life without breeding because they spend all their time assisting relatives obtain mates. Basically they are one of nature's greatest literal wing men.

[QUOTE=imptastick;42068937]In most territorial scenarios males see females as a resource and vice versa. Their allowance of females to feed within their territory is a subset of their "greed". Just using bird species as an example a common distribution model is as follows: males arrive before females and claim the best spots (Fighting other males), then females disperse based on male territories. Their reproductive success is reliant on being greedy when it comes to resources. If a male is greedy enough he may even achieve even greater reproductive rates because the benefits of a really good territory outweigh the cost of polygyny, a greedy male will get multiple mating partners. An ideal breeding situation is only assured through the maximum amount of greed the male has the ability to maintain. Similarly from the female point of view the female will pick the very best territory and given the opportunity will chase any other female away. In both the case of the male and female the benefit of the individual is placed above that of the total population. I spent a good percentage of my behavioral ecology course studying situations like this. [editline]3rd September 2013[/editline] I should say though, that altruism is not rare either. Dolphins have been noted to attack preditors to save other individuals. Many animals signal others when observing a preditor even if it puts them at greater risk. One of the ones I find the most interesting: some turkeys go their entire life without breeding because they spend all their time assisting relatives obtain mates. Basically they are one of nature's greatest literal wing men.[/QUOTE] Well, I think it's well known that dolphins display many signs of being relatively advanced.

[QUOTE=Irkalla;42071124]Well, I think it's well known that dolphins display many signs of being relatively advanced.[/QUOTE] Absolutely, they are one of the few species outside of the great apes to pass the mirror test.

Though it's worthy to note that if people keep being greedy it will come to a point where being generous is the winning strategy.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;42071482]Isn't being greedy the way to go?[/QUOTE] Yes and no [QUOTE]It quickly became clear to the Penn biologists that extortion strategies wouldn't do well if played within a large, evolving population because an extortion strategy doesn't succeed if played against itself.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;42071482]Isn't being greedy the way to go? Take the prisoner's dilemma for example: If you take the nice way out, you get a average payoff, or nothing If you take the selfish way out, you get a huge payoff, or nothing Either way you have a 50/50 chance (in theory, definitely not in practice, since everyone will think this way), but being selfish will get the best rewards.[/QUOTE]Then again, isn't the prison itself a player that should be considered? If you have two hardcore anti-establishment types and they're being offered a deal to flip on the other, chances are both of them will refuse on principle. Their hatred for the establishment outweighs their desire for immediate freedom. I think the environment and the player's personal feelings on the situation add a very important variable. Now, as to how that would play into evolutionary success, I don't know. Maybe the prisoner's refusal to play along could be an example of random and sudden migration of different species, ultimately saving them. A collective, "fuck this shit, let's go somewhere else" decision that spontaneously happens and we can only guess on the cause.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;42074264]Then again, isn't the prison itself a player that should be considered? If you have two hardcore anti-establishment types and they're being offered a deal to flip on the other, chances are both of them will refuse on principle. Their hatred for the establishment outweighs their desire for immediate freedom. I think the environment and the player's personal feelings on the situation add a very important variable. Now, as to how that would play into evolutionary success, I don't know. Maybe the prisoner's refusal to play along could be an example of random and sudden migration of different species, ultimately saving them. A collective, "fuck this shit, let's go somewhere else" decision that spontaneously happens and we can only guess on the cause.[/QUOTE] Besides if I remember correctly if they both refuse to testify against each other they go to jail for a few months on lesser charges. If they both sell each other out they both go to jail for the full duration. Cooperation is preferable in this circumstance.

I think the problem is that in nature individuals are rarely truly equal in ability. Stronger/cleverer animals can be selfish simply because the others can not stop them. Look at Leks, the best males take the best territory and so attract the most females. There is no reason not to be selfish because they can take that position by force. Or look at humming birds, if food is scarce rather than share and ensure the entire population gets just enough to survive the stronger bird will chase away others and take it all for itself. Or for an even harsher example, some species of seals often commit siblicide so that they can feed with less effort for a longer period of time. Surely it would be better for the population if you allow your younger siblings to live. But being selfish gives them an advantage so they take it.

[QUOTE=imptastick;42077956]I think the problem is that in nature individuals are rarely truly equal in ability. Stronger/cleverer animals can be selfish simply because the others can not stop them. Look at Leks, the best males take the best territory and so attract the most females. There is no reason not to be selfish because they can take that position by force. Or look at humming birds, if food is scarce rather than share and ensure the entire population gets just enough to survive the stronger bird will chase away others and take it all for itself. Or for an even harsher example, some species of seals often commit siblicide so that they can feed with less effort for a longer period of time. Surely it would be better for the population if you allow your younger siblings to live. But being selfish gives them an advantage so they take it.[/QUOTE] Humans tend to smash what we expect from creatures instinctively in both the best and worst of ways.