tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7378568575885387942.post1157607058006506672..comments2024-02-18T18:59:06.164+00:00Comments on Econosophy and other musings: Cooperation and Competition: Mother and ChildTobyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16258136994278139356noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7378568575885387942.post-37143223292201340742011-01-01T08:21:24.843+00:002011-01-01T08:21:24.843+00:00Hadn't heard of that book. It sounds really fa...Hadn't heard of that book. It sounds really fascinating, I shall check it out.<br /><br />I first read of mirror neurons in "The Spirit Level", I book I recommend often. In an essay I wrote on crime I quoted a passage: <br /><br />“For a species which thrives on friendship and enjoys co-operation and trust, which has a strong sense of fairness, which is equipped with mirror neurons allowing us to learn our way of life through a process of identification, it is clear that social structures which create relationships based on inequality, inferiority and social exclusion must inflict a great deal of social pain.”Tobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16258136994278139356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7378568575885387942.post-55568037232420786102010-12-31T19:01:13.562+00:002010-12-31T19:01:13.562+00:00"Cool that you picked out the mirror neurons ..."Cool that you picked out the mirror neurons before checking out the vid!"<br /><br /><br />Well a lot of people have talked about mirror neurons for a while. I saw something about that at least a year ago. I think Frans deWall from Emory ( a primatologist) has talked about them and their link with empathy in primates. Really cool stuff.<br /><br />I cant remember where I saw someone talk about autism and its possible relationship to mirror neurons.<br /><br />About expanding our circle of empathy and religions role in facilitating/hindering, have you read Robert Wrights book "The Evolution of God"?<br /><br />He talks about how we can explain the holy texts' wildly divergent views of god as mirroring the societies views of their "enemies". As they grow more empathic of their enemies you see the texts preaching love and tolerance, as they encounter an enemy that they view as being in a zero sum relationship with you see the texts which sound more militant and intolerant. Fascinating read.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7378568575885387942.post-91361787453655964262010-12-31T17:14:27.875+00:002010-12-31T17:14:27.875+00:00"Capitalism is not great at developing empath..."Capitalism is not great at developing empathy it seems."<br /><br />I'll drink to that! If capitalism encourages anything, it's sociopathy. It is itself sociopathic, since it prioritizes money/profit above all else. Nice guys finish last. Empathy is for losers.<br /><br />Cool that you picked out the mirror neurons before checking out the vid!Tobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16258136994278139356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7378568575885387942.post-69604209669162000742010-12-31T13:52:07.293+00:002010-12-31T13:52:07.293+00:00I wrote my response before watching the video. Wh...I wrote my response before watching the video. What a great video. You've posted some other stuff by that guy I think. ThanksGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7378568575885387942.post-6468300311121000382010-12-31T13:38:38.261+00:002010-12-31T13:38:38.261+00:00Totally agree about empathy. It does seem at times...Totally agree about empathy. It does seem at times though that we have an empathy shortage (at least here in USA).<br /><br />I think empathy is a developed response. Mirror neurons appear to be at the heart of empathy and we all are born with the capacity to develop our mirror neurons (except for certain levels of autism) but they DO need to be developed. Maybe exercised is a better term.<br /><br />Nurturing at a young age can set our empathic development on the right or wrong path it seems.<br /><br />Capitalism is not great at developing empathy it seems. The winners seem to become more and more entrenched and protective of "theirs"Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7378568575885387942.post-46897632461340209642010-12-30T15:41:30.286+00:002010-12-30T15:41:30.286+00:00How do we get that circle to expand. With empathy,...How do we get that circle to expand. With empathy, the human ability which has been expanding that circle since forever. See this:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7gTobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16258136994278139356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7378568575885387942.post-64517668097932025172010-12-30T14:24:22.428+00:002010-12-30T14:24:22.428+00:00It seems that security is what most people are see...It seems that security is what most people are seeking, in one form or another. There just seems to be different solutions to the security problem. <br /><br />Even the most ardent individualist, when it comes down to it, will seek others like him in an attempt to increase his personal security. Only the truly insane will insist on being a true lone wolf.<br /><br />We all seem to have a circle of influence which we protect. Its the size of the circle that seems to be variable. I hope for one day the circle is global. Others simply see their circle as "The McCoys" or maybe "Alabama" and eventually "The USA" How do we get the circle to expand?Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7378568575885387942.post-10246152046463064192010-12-30T06:23:45.714+00:002010-12-30T06:23:45.714+00:00I thought about your analogy over night and can...I thought about your analogy over night and can't see an effective counter-argument. It's one of those arguments that's so simple, you wonder if it's missing something really obvious. I like it. I think it's effective.<br /><br />The thing people react to when they hear arguments they've been conditioned to interpret as 'socialist,' is the imagined giving up of individual sovereignty, as if each of us is a lord of his or her destiny, a lone warrior fighting his or her heroic battle to be free from all tyranny. The truth is far from that romantic, liberal myth, but we have millions, if not billions, addicted to it. Shaking them from it will most likely take total systemic collapse. <br /><br />But make that argument where you can, since all such efforts are seeds for the future.Tobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16258136994278139356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7378568575885387942.post-47516846842989227402010-12-29T12:29:49.857+00:002010-12-29T12:29:49.857+00:00I agree that our vocabulary and language leave muc...I agree that our vocabulary and language leave much to be exploited by those with a bent to do so. It also leaves much to be taken advantage of by those with purer motives.<br /><br /> I've been thinking that a possible way to demonstrate the advantage of looking out for others rather than leaving every man for himself might be a simple mathematical relationship; Ask the question "Would you feel more secure in an environment where one person is looking out for you or where 100 people are looking out for you? Looking out only for yourself leaves you with only one person looking out for you. Do the math"<br /><br />Being selfish turns out to be way more expensive and ineffective.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7378568575885387942.post-20688479070675844562010-12-28T18:10:41.228+00:002010-12-28T18:10:41.228+00:00Cool stuff Greg, thanks for laying that out so cle...Cool stuff Greg, thanks for laying that out so clearly. <br /><br />I still feel though that "selfish" was a very unfortunate choice of word. Why not something like 'impotent' or 'blind?' Bruce Lipton's theory goes in that direction, away from 'gene as central controller' to 'gene as reactionary,' and thus renders the 'selfish' angle utterly redundant, meaningless even. We would not think to call a badly timed (from our point of view) storm 'selfish,' any more than a falling piece of masonry, so why then a double-helix producing protein under orders from environmental stimuli?<br /><br />The other element of this that I haven't touched on is the phenotype, which is supposed to be competitive/selfish regardless of how much cooperation its constituent genes and proteins are practicing. Dawkins might say that the 'selfishness' of the gene finds its voice in the selfish behaviours of the phenotype. But I feel it is precisely at the phenotype level, at least in sufficiently complex animals, where 'moral' cooperation begins to emerge, which is in fact the type of cooperation that ought to be of interest to economists. Here Kropotkin is especially interesting, since he wrote before the gene had been identified. <br /><br />Anyway, whatever the errors of that choice of word, what is increasingly clear is, as you point out, the genius of nature's dynamic balance, and how competition and cooperation relate to one another, need one another even.Tobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16258136994278139356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7378568575885387942.post-13311274281792156582010-12-28T15:35:15.936+00:002010-12-28T15:35:15.936+00:00Another enjoyable post on a subject near and dear ...Another enjoyable post on a subject near and dear to me.<br /><br />I think part of the problem with critiques of the "selfish gene" reductionists lies in a flawed definition of selfish. Or at least in a flawed definition of how that selfishness is achieved.<br /><br />I dont think Dawkins ever saw the selfishness of the gene as pure self preservation at the expense of other genes. He was using a metaphor of selfishness to explain that a genes only "goal" is to produce a protein. The success of the protein depends on how it interacts (cooperates) with the proteins that are coded for on neighboring genes. The "human" is a collection of proteins that emerges from the cooperation of millions of selfish genes. The human is then capable of perpetuating those genes even further.<br /><br />The "genius" of the selfishness of genes is that it requires a high, maybe the highest, form of cooperation to pull off. <br /><br />Selfish, as Dawkins uses it, is not a bad word. It is a bad word as it is usually expressed in too many homoeconomicus'. <br /><br />Realizing that the only way to be successfully selfish is to be unapologetically cooperative is the most ingenious trick of nature I think.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.com