|Appears in Collections:||Economics Letters (Published in a Journal)|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Models inconsistent with altruism cannot explain the evolution of human cooperation|
|Author(s):||Myrseth, Kristian Ove R|
Wollbrant, Conny E
|Citation:||Myrseth KOR & Wollbrant CE (2016) Models inconsistent with altruism cannot explain the evolution of human cooperation. Commentary on: Bear A, Rand DG (2016) Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113(4):936–941. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517780113. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113 (18), pp. E2472-E2472. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602463113|
|Abstract:||First paragraph: The article "Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation," by Bear and Rand (1), uses game theoretic models to examine the role of intuition and deliberation in human cooperation. The premise is that dual processes characterize human social decision making: "(i) automatic, intuitive processes that are relatively effortless but inflexible; and (ii) controlled, deliberative processes that are relatively effortful but flexible" (1). The objective is to "provide a formal theoretical framework for considering the question of whether prosociality is intuitive or whether it requires self-control," and the article concludes that "evolution never favors strategies for which deliberation increases cooperation" (1). However, the evolutionary model suffers from a serious shortcoming; it precludes the survival of altruistic individuals—thought to represent a major share of human populations (2). It is therefore not suitable for addressing whether human cooperative behavior is intuitive.|
|Rights:||The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|Myrseth Wollbrant 2016 PNAS.pdf||Fulltext - Published Version||510.18 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Permanent Embargo Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.