The Evolution of Punishment
From ScientificAmerican.com, the Roots of Punishment:
"[...] Hauert and co-author Karl Sigmund, a mathematician at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria, devised a mathematical model that determines how groups fare when collaborating on an activity. They reasoned that within any such community, there would be three types of individuals: cooperators, who do their fair share and are rewarded for their effort; defectors, who beg off but still benefit from the others' work; and punishers, who penalize the defectors.
After running multiple versions of their algorithm, with different variables adjusted in each trial, the researchers discovered that the punishers must dominate to sustain the success of a collective activity. But, ironically, they discovered that the effort-be it cutting carbon emissions or hunting bison-must be voluntary if punishers are to rule the roost. [...]"
"Essentially, we are looking here at a game between cops and robbers," says Sigmund. When the activity is compulsory, he explains, the robbers win; when it is optional, the cops win. "If there is a possibility for being a nonparticipant, then everyone becomes a cop," he says.
I can think of all kinds of situations in which this hypothesis produces interesting explanations of observable behavior--and for instance, this well explains why I couldn't stand teaching in a high school, but enjoyed a college & university learning environment.
"[...] Hauert and co-author Karl Sigmund, a mathematician at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria, devised a mathematical model that determines how groups fare when collaborating on an activity. They reasoned that within any such community, there would be three types of individuals: cooperators, who do their fair share and are rewarded for their effort; defectors, who beg off but still benefit from the others' work; and punishers, who penalize the defectors.
After running multiple versions of their algorithm, with different variables adjusted in each trial, the researchers discovered that the punishers must dominate to sustain the success of a collective activity. But, ironically, they discovered that the effort-be it cutting carbon emissions or hunting bison-must be voluntary if punishers are to rule the roost. [...]"
"Essentially, we are looking here at a game between cops and robbers," says Sigmund. When the activity is compulsory, he explains, the robbers win; when it is optional, the cops win. "If there is a possibility for being a nonparticipant, then everyone becomes a cop," he says.
I can think of all kinds of situations in which this hypothesis produces interesting explanations of observable behavior--and for instance, this well explains why I couldn't stand teaching in a high school, but enjoyed a college & university learning environment.