9.7 Being Social Is Rewarding, Too
181
changing our behavior, too. In fact, most people have empathy (compassion) in that
they feel for others. Empathy is reflected by emotions and expressed to others by
gestures and facial expressions. It even seems that all humans on our globe share
some fundamental facial expressions (anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and
surprise). According to Paul Ekman (*1934), these expressions are universal, as they
are independent of language and culture.
12 However, our social desires go further
than that. For example, we seek social recognition.
The main reason for the propensity of humans to network is that we are fundamentally social beings. In some sense, we are “networked minds”. The increasing
tendency of many people to form networks using social media such as Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp underlines and reinforces this. It has even the potential to fundamentally change the way our society and economy work. Social
networking through information and communication systems can stimulate our
curiosity, strengthen our social desires, and support collective intelligence.
9.8 The Evolution of “Networked Minds”
It’s interesting to ask why humans are actually social beings at all? Why do we
have social desires? And how is this compatible with our hypothetical selfishness
and the principle of the survival of the fittest? To study this, together with Thomas
Grund and Christian Waloszek I developed a computer model which simulates the
interactions between utility-maximizing individuals exposed to the merciless forces
of evolution. Specifically, we simulated the “prisoner’s dilemma”, a special kind of
social dilemma. Here, two actors engage in a social interaction where it would be
favorable for everyone to cooperate, but non-cooperative behavior is tempting and,
hence, cooperative behavior is risky.
In such scenarios, the selfish “homo economicus” would never cooperate, as noncooperative behavior yields a higher payoff than cooperation in every single decision.
This undermines cooperation, and the result is a “tragedy of the commons”: the most
favorable situation—where everyone cooperates—does not occur naturally, because
it is unstable, and the resulting outcome is undesirable. The reasons are similar to
why free-flowing traffic breaks down when a road is too busy.
In our own computer simulations of the prisoner’s dilemma, we distinguished
between the actual behavior of simulated individuals (cooperative or not) from their
individual preferences.
13 We assumed that the preferences result from a trait called
“friendliness”, which governs how much somebody considers the consequences of
the own actions on others. To be consistent with mainstream economics, the computer
agents representing individuals were assumed to maximize their utility function,
12 Ekman et al. [11], Ekman and Friesen [12], Ekman et al. [13].
13 Grund et al [14], Helbing [15].
181
changing our behavior, too. In fact, most people have empathy (compassion) in that
they feel for others. Empathy is reflected by emotions and expressed to others by
gestures and facial expressions. It even seems that all humans on our globe share
some fundamental facial expressions (anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and
surprise). According to Paul Ekman (*1934), these expressions are universal, as they
are independent of language and culture.
12 However, our social desires go further
than that. For example, we seek social recognition.
The main reason for the propensity of humans to network is that we are fundamentally social beings. In some sense, we are “networked minds”. The increasing
tendency of many people to form networks using social media such as Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp underlines and reinforces this. It has even the potential to fundamentally change the way our society and economy work. Social
networking through information and communication systems can stimulate our
curiosity, strengthen our social desires, and support collective intelligence.
9.8 The Evolution of “Networked Minds”
It’s interesting to ask why humans are actually social beings at all? Why do we
have social desires? And how is this compatible with our hypothetical selfishness
and the principle of the survival of the fittest? To study this, together with Thomas
Grund and Christian Waloszek I developed a computer model which simulates the
interactions between utility-maximizing individuals exposed to the merciless forces
of evolution. Specifically, we simulated the “prisoner’s dilemma”, a special kind of
social dilemma. Here, two actors engage in a social interaction where it would be
favorable for everyone to cooperate, but non-cooperative behavior is tempting and,
hence, cooperative behavior is risky.
In such scenarios, the selfish “homo economicus” would never cooperate, as noncooperative behavior yields a higher payoff than cooperation in every single decision.
This undermines cooperation, and the result is a “tragedy of the commons”: the most
favorable situation—where everyone cooperates—does not occur naturally, because
it is unstable, and the resulting outcome is undesirable. The reasons are similar to
why free-flowing traffic breaks down when a road is too busy.
In our own computer simulations of the prisoner’s dilemma, we distinguished
between the actual behavior of simulated individuals (cooperative or not) from their
individual preferences.
13 We assumed that the preferences result from a trait called
“friendliness”, which governs how much somebody considers the consequences of
the own actions on others. To be consistent with mainstream economics, the computer
agents representing individuals were assumed to maximize their utility function,
12 Ekman et al. [11], Ekman and Friesen [12], Ekman et al. [13].
13 Grund et al [14], Helbing [15].