Category Archives: THE BOOK

What’s so good about being rational?

We are still planning THE BOOK, but we always turn to ideas for the graphic novel first and are constantly distracted by the wonderful artists that we are inspired by. That is, if we are not distracted by cooking and eating.

CDF (neatly cutting celery, chilli and chives):

The trolley problem has to feature.

choppingboardIt is not only visually striking but it will be useful to illustrate some facts about the notorious clash between emotion and reason in our social minds.

UF: Isn’t it strangely related to that other clash we are always struggling with? Between our egotistical and prosocial motives. Are we more rational when we are being prosocial?

Continue reading What’s so good about being rational?

So to recap: An out-of-control trolley is speeding down the line towards 5 railway workers who will all be killed. You can save them by diverting the trolley down a branch line, but this will result in one person being killed. Should you divert the trolley?

Most people answer, Yes. It’s the rational, utilitarian answer, and also pro-social, since it avoids killing 5 people.

CDF sharpens his knife with the consequence of such excruciating noise that UF has to temporarily leave the kitchen. When she returns, Chris is flattening a tiny chicken that’s almost split in half, and rubs it with herbs.

You can make a slight change of wording of the trolley problem: You can save the 5 workers by pushing the large man, standing next to you, onto the track, thus stopping the trolley, but also killing the large man. Should you push the large man?

Now, most people answer, No.

UF: So, what is going on?

CDF (carefully placing a layer of cut Brussels sprouts into butter foaming in a small heavy saucepan): Fortunately, there’s a brain imaging study to help us out. Volunteers in the scanner were asked to reflect on the suggestion that they should push the large man onto the track. They showed much higher activity in ‘emotional areas’ of the brain. It seems, if you don’t reflect you can more readily make the utilitarian choice – ‘utilitarian’ meaning ‘for the greater good’. Just do the arithmetic: the lives of 5 people add up to more than the life of 1. However, the emotional response to the thought of pushing a person onto the track is hard to ignore. It interferes with processes by which we might reach a utilitarian decision.

UF (turning up the gas flame while stirring vanilla custard): The emotions are brought to a boil by the extreme nature of the decision you have to make. They tell you that you can’t kill the large person next to you. But they also make you forget the five others. What happens if the outcome of the decision is less fraught?

CDF: There is the ultimatum game: Bob is given a pot of money to share with Liz. Bob offers a proportion to Liz. If Liz accepts, then both can keep their share. If Liz rejects the offer, then neither gets any money. The rational decision for Liz is to accept anything, since some money is better than none.

UF: In practice, Liz will get angry and reject offers when she feels they are insultingly low.

CDF: Rejection happens if Bob offers less than about a third of the pot. And now if you could get out of my way…

UF (taking her custard to the side and getting out sherry to dribble on some sponge fingers in dessert glasses): Just a moment…

CDF (drying his hands): Once again brain imaging comes to our rescue. As you suspected, rejection of offers is associated with activity in emotional regions of the brain.

UF: Even with these more trivial decisions, emotion is the enemy of reason. But wait, it’s not necessarily an irrational action. If we ignored emotion then we wouldn’t know what is good or bad for us. We make decisions by choosing the good and avoiding the bad. What is so good about being rational?

CDF (putting the chicken now covered in herbs into the oven): Talking of frontal lobes – the origin of reason in the brain: When the frontal lobes are damaged, decisions should become less rational.

UF (pouring the vanilla custard over morello cherries in the desert glasses): Don’t they?

CDF: When people with damage to prefrontal cortex play the ultimatum game they do become more irrational in their responses. They are strongly inclined to reject poor offers. But, here’s the rub: when they are presented with moral dilemmas, they select the more utilitarian scenarios, and they act more rationally than people with intact frontal lobes.

UF (sprinkling almond flakes on top of the custard): Well that’s a bit difficult to explain. How can frontal lobe damage cause people to be less rational in one situation and more rational in another?

CDF (opening a bottle of St Aubin, 2009): First, there’s a problem with the trolley problem: What people say they would do doesn’t necessarily relate to what they would actually do! In the ultimatum game people have to make real choices. But, as typically presented, the trolley problem is hypothetical.

UF: Let’s sit down and see what this wine tastes like.

CDF: And I can tell you about one problem with the trolley problem. It’s hypothetical.

The trolley problem in real life

 Attempts to explore the trolley problem in real life have proved controversial.

trolley1The latest activity from lawmakers comes just two weeks after a Senate bill introducing new trolley safety regulations died in committee. The bill encountered stiff opposition from industry lobby groups such as the National Railroad Association. “Trolleys don’t kill people,” said NRA spokesman Lane Stone, “moral philosophers kill people.”

(taken from here and here)

UF: (laying cutlery and large white napkins on the table): Didn’t our friend, Dean Mobbs compare hypothetical dilemmas with the same problem in real life?

CDF (opening the oven and springing away as his glasses get steamed up): Yes. This is the Pain vs Gain paradigm, which you can study in the lab. Participants get a pot of money and can either use this to prevent a companion from receiving painful electric shocks or keep the money for themselves.

UF: Surely, it’s clear what to do: You use all the money to prevent the shock to the companion.

CDF: Well, yes. In the hypothetical scenario 93% of the people said that’s what they’d do. But in real life this didn’t happen. All the participants kept some of the money for themselves, and all their companions suffered some shocks.

UF: So what trick are the emotions playing here? Where is our deeply prosocial nature; our predisposition to help others?

CDF serving up the chicken by cutting it neatly in half: People felt just that little bit more emotionally attached to their own benefit.

UF: Ah, this chicken is delicious. And it goes amazingly well with the blackened sprouts.

CDF: This version of cooking sprouts makes them almost edible.

UF: Lets face it. We are all moral hypocrites. We do things even though we say we wouldn’t. It’s tough following one’s moral principles.

CDF pouring more wine: Actually it’s also tough being a moral hypocrite. We have to justify our behaviour when we don’t follow our moral principles. One of the people in the Pain vs Gain experiment said, “I struggled with what to do. I wanted the money but I didn’t want to hurt him. I decided that he could take a little pain and I could make a little money.” We can always come up with hypocritical justifications.

UF (feeling benevolent after having been indulged in her inexplicable liking for sprouts): Sadly, looking after “Number One” often gets in the way of looking after your nearest and dearest others, let alone the greatest number of people.

Utilitarian judgements and the greater good

CDF: This brings us to the study by Guy Kahane at the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics.

UF (clearing the dishes away): I remember you saying what an excellent paper it was.

CDF: Yes indeed. Kahane and colleagues have explored what we have been talking about. They asked what kind of person endorses the utilitarian decision to kill the fat man next to him to save five lives. Was this a fine person thinking of the greater good? Not a bit of it. They found that this person is also likely to endorse behaviours such as tax evasion, doesn’t give money to charity and feels less of an identity with the group. This is a rational egotist.

UF: This brings me back to Liz rejecting low offers in the ultimatum game. She may actually have done a noble act serving the greater good. Maybe Bob will be taught a lesson and behave more fairly in the future.

CDF: Yes, people who reject low offers, are typically prosocial in other situations. Here being prosocial is linked to behaving irrationally, just as in Kahane’s study being egotistical is linked to behaving rationally.

UF (fetching the dessert glasses): I am interested in how the emotions feature in both types of people. Presumably emotions can be self-oriented or other-oriented.

CDF: I am interested in how making a rational choice doesn’t mean concern for the greater good. Rational means I can justify my behaviour to myself and to others, by showing that I have made the best choice.

CDF: This trifle is not bad. To continue: Being rational is about winning arguments, not about being good. The non-egotistical choice can also be considered rational, but it is a bit harder to justify to yourself: you have to believe that you or your friends will benefit later on. This is probably best in the long run, while the egotistical choice seems best in the short run.

What’s so good about being utilitarian?

UF: So, utilitarian judgments are just what we need when it comes to justifying our behaviour. Obviously it is better to save 5 at the expense of 1.

CDF: But emotional involvement is difficult to keep away. Consider the original dilemma proposed by William Godwin. If only one person can be saved from the fire, should we save Archbishop Fenelon or the chambermaid? Godwin –clearly ignoring the emotional component – concluded that we should save the Archbishop since he would contribute more to the greater good.

This is a utilitarian judgment, but is it a good judgment? Unfortunately all sorts of terrible things have been justified on the basis that the life of one kind of person is more valuable than the life of another kind of person. Here our strong emotional inhibitions may prevent us from entering into a nightmare scenario. I would not like to live in a society where less valuable people were routinely sacrificed for the greater good.

UF: Unfortunately people can get trapped in nightmare scenarios. Hurricane Katrina created Godwin’s dilemma in real life. Sheri Fink wrote about the terrible story of Memorial Hospital in New Orleans, when hospital staff were confronted with the need to evacuate the patients under most difficult circumstances. Imagine being surrounded by five feet of water, with no electricity, little in the way of food and medical supplies and temperatures indoors of 400C. And seven patients had died while being moved. Which patients should be given priority in the evacuation? The sickest and most vulnerable? Or should they be left behind, since they have ‘the least to lose’? The consequence of making the latter choice was arrest for second degree murder. Interestingly, amidst great public controversy, the case was rejected by a grand jury. They recognised the impossible dilemma that the staff faced.

CDF: I don’t know what decision I would make in such terrible circumstances, but I know I would want my rational attempts at self-justification to be tempered by emotion.

Trust and regret – guardians of our decisions. What can go wrong?

Vaccination has been in the news again. Amongst others, science writer Virginia Hughes has given thoughtful comments on why ordinary people mistrust scientists on this issue.

I take this as a lesson in how science communication and public engagement can go wrong. As a scientist I feel hurt not to be trusted. As a mother I can imagine what it’s like when you are told you should vaccinate your child. I have been there and I have learned from the episode when the use of the triple MMR vaccine was blamed for the increase in autism, when Andrew Wakefield was celebrated as a hero speaking out for parents. The pharma industry, government and scientists were all accused of bias. What basic cognitive processes are involved in the way we make the decision to vaccinate or not to vaccinate? How can these processes undermine scientifically based advice?science-megaphone-300x226 Continue reading Trust and regret – guardians of our decisions. What can go wrong?

Why doesn’t rational explanation as provided by scientific evidence speak for itself? Here’s where our social minds play tricks with us. We basically prefer the inaccurate message given out by a trusted person over the accurate message given by a possibly untrustworthy person. But perhaps these are not tricks. Although it pains me to say this, trust can be more important than scientific truth. Here’s why. Evolution has endowed social creatures, including human beings, with the predisposition to cooperate. And for cooperation to work we need to trust each other. Many animals show reciprocal altruism: ‘I scratch your back and you scratch mine’, and human beings go one step further by showing indirect altruism: ‘I scratch your back, and one of your kin will scratch the back of one of mine. Thus, people help each other without the explicit idea to get something in return, but perhaps with the implicit belief that someone else will give help at another time. Because this belief is unspoken, and because helpers are often anonymous, free riding becomes very tempting. And as we know, if there are too many free riders, trust and cooperation will collapse.

Evolutionary theorists suggest that cycles of cooperation and trust alternate with lack of cooperation and distrust. To reinstate trust both forgiveness and punishment are needed. For instance, if people are prepared to punish free riders, then this eventually reinstates trust in the group. This is called altruistic punishment because it actually costs the person who does the punishment. At the very least, he attracts the dislike of the person he punishes.

Trust weighs heavily in the decision to vaccinate or not. We remember vividly the old family doctor who once mentioned that vaccination was not a good thing. But why is our memory so good for messages that tell us not to vaccinate?

When our social mind makes a choice then trust and the person making a recommendation, are not the only factors. The big players are our emotions. Our brain is particularly responsive to any kind of threat. But even more important may be an emotion known as anticipated regret.

Imagine you are bidding in an auction, and you do not get the item you bid for. You will show disappointment. Now imagine you are told that your bid was only very slightly less than that of the successful buyer. You will show regret. You regret that you did not offer a slightly higher bid. It has been shown that in auctions where the final price is revealed, buyers offer higher bids, than when it is not. This is a sign of anticipated regret. We feel this emotion automatically as a result of internal computations, of which we are not aware. Now it has also been shown that you are more likely to feel regret when you commit an act and something bad happens. You won’t feel so regretful when you omitted to do something. This is the case when you decide not to vaccinate. You didn’t commit something that might turn out to be wrong. You just omitted something.

The MMR story is a story of lack of trust, and a story of the wrong kind of anticipated regret. It is wrong because it disregards the consequences of not vaccinating. Several factors contributed to the lack of trust. To begin with, there may be a predisposition to distrust scientists who are often portrayed as callous and more interested in abstract generalisations rather than the fate of individual people. The decision to vaccinate means you are allowing a temporary hurt to your child, while your overarching inclination is to protect your child from hurt. Why should you allow this hurt, when you have no personal memory of the severity of illnesses such as mumps, measles and rubella. Protecting your child from these almost mythical illnesses seems somehow less pressing than protecting your child from an immediate danger. So, when Dr. Andrew Wakefield, came forward as taking a stand against vaccination, his opinion fell on fertile ground. Further, the possibility that the package of a triple vaccination – a triple injury – might cause a brain disorder, such as autism, seemed plausible.

As so often correlation turned into causation: autism had increased recently; the triple vaccination was introduced recently; ergo, the triple vaccination caused the increase. In the UK the Medical Research Council immediately set up projects designed to answer the question whether indeed there was a causal connection. The answer was no, and the scientific advice was that the triple vaccination is safe.

In spite of this advice, nobody believed it. This was strange and needs further explanation. Why was the trust in Wakefield continuing, when there was at the same time a lack of trust in scientific advice? Here is where the concept of anticipated regret comes in. Parents were ‘playing safe’, or so they thought, by not giving their children a single triple short vaccine. In fact, playing safe was an act of omission, and this is less linked to regret than commission. However, if you choose not to vaccinate your child, then you are a free rider, because the protection remains as long as everyone else (or the vast majority) does vaccinate their child. In order to be effective 90% of the population has to be vaccinated. Many middle class people thought they were justified in becoming free riders for the sake of their child. In consequence there have been outbreaks of measles.

Here is the gist of an interview that illustrates the role of anticipated regret in the MMR story. Interviewer: “Would you let your child get the controversial MMR vaccine?” Father: “Certainly not. If I let my child get the MMR vaccine and he later becomes autistic, I will never forgive myself.” Interviewer: “What, if your child then contracted the measles and died?” Father: “This would be an act of God. I would be very sad, but not feel guilty.”

We all know the end of the story. Remarkably, the reason that MMR vaccination became acceptable again for parents had nothing to do with the restoration of trust in scientists. Quite the opposite. It became known that Andrew Wakefield had a commercial stake in the development of single vaccines. Now, people who previously believed him to be a brave hero who spoke against powerful lobbies, such as big pharma, lost their trust in him. Another reason in favour of vaccination is the increase in measles, mumps and rubella outbreaks. This reminded people that these diseases are very dangerous. There are still people who firmly believe that their child’s autism was caused by vaccination and nothing will weaken them in this belief. However, our social nature strongly inclines us to do what others do, and to value what others value.

Image credit New Media Science Communication

The last ferry from Esbjerg to Harwich: Why do we behave irrationally – or do we?

DSCF0114The Dana Sirena, the huge ferry, which has crossed the North Sea every day for uncountable years, will run no more. There is only one more journey and that will be to return from Harwich to Esbjerg – and that ‘s it. We don’t know who made the decision and we wonder what the arguments might have been. We are a bit sad and wonder whether this is a sign that our annual trips to Aarhus for the last ten years must come to an end sometime.

Waiting in the car to get on the ferry, we looked back at a lecture by Antonio Rangel, a few days before, which we much enjoyed. Rangel is a leading practitioner of neuro-economics, from Caltech, and he talked about some serious methodological issues in this field. It’s not about lack of replication, but about remoteness from real life. We have to face it, what people do in the lab just doesn’t transfer to the real world. Something crucial is being left out and not understood. People aren’t behaving as if they were optimal Bayesians. Continue reading The last ferry from Esbjerg to Harwich: Why do we behave irrationally – or do we?

UF: To be optimal our behaviour should be rational – no?

CDF: What economists and others mean by rational behaviour is that you choose the option that gives the highest benefit.

UF: This sounds okay, but people often seem not to choose what’s best for them.

CDF: Ah, this depends. Think of the famous Marshmallow experiment. You have to resist taking the one Marshmallow so that after a certain time you will receive two. But, is it always better to delay? Of course not. If the situation is unpredictable, then it is better to take the one Marshmallow than risk never getting any.

UF: So being impulsive is not always a bad idea.

CDF: You don’t choose a big reward option, if it is very unlikely to be achieved. To answer your question, people and other animals for that matter, don’t necessarily behave irrationally if they don’t do what is predicted by a formula to get them the highest value. The formula works in the lab where stakes are low and choices to be made occur with equal likelihood. Rangel argued that these situations are quite irrelevant to real life situations. What looks like weird behaviour from the theoretician’s point of view, turns out to be quite sensible when looked at in the right context. Maybe supposedly irrational people are maximising different variables compared to what the theoreticians think they ought to be maximising.

UF: So ‘crazy’ people aren’t irrational either?

CDF: Well, a very common idea is that everyone would behave like them if they had their bizarre experiences. Irrational behaviour means the model doesn’t fit.

UF: I see. The bizarre experiences are the proper context to explain the behaviour, which might be optimal. I like it, because once again we see how important it is to consider context. Do you have an example?

CDF: It always matters how something is framed. If someone says, “my glass is half-empty” this most likely means “please fill it up”. If someone says, “my glass is half-full” this means, “I’ve got enough for the moment”. So glass half-full and half-empty are not one and the same ‘value’. We find it incredibly easy to understand the meaning of utterances when we interact with others. We can calculate the value in a particular context quite fast.

UF: Isn’t it odd that when the questions are framed in a complex real life context, they become easy? It’s like a magic trick that shows us what the mind is really good at. It’s at home with complex computations that take into account what another person might know or not know. Strip the problems down to their logical essentials, and the computations become hard and result in errors.

CDF: The question is how does the mind do it? Models proposed by behavioural scientists and economists are extremely good at modelling very basic decision processes, but in social interactions other models are needed. Only if you have such models – and this will be after lots of behavioural experiments, – should you even begin to think of brain scanning. As Rangel said in his talk, brain scanning very rarely gives you any answers. You need a model first. It will not emerge from the data. If the data fit the model, then that means something.

UF: There is something else that I wish I understood better: What our ‘priors’ tell us, and what we pick up from current information are often at odds with each other. How do we deal with this?

CDF: There is a good example of how these two computations can be experimentally made to conflict, and in this case the priors win: In a trust game you learn over many rounds how people behave and this should give you a good idea of whether or not to trust that person. But you pay less attention to this learning process when the experimenter has planted in you some prior knowledge about the other person. For example, you read that Peter, the partner in your game, has recently been given a medal for rescuing a child from a fire, and has raised large amounts of money for charity. During the game, however, Peter behaves abominably and cheats. Yet, you remain trusting when all your unconscious processes want to tell you that you should distrust. Bad mistake.

UF: I can see how this relates to irrational behaviour: It is the personal and the subpersonal fighting it out with each other. But it is not always clear which type of knowledge you should use for the best: the prior knowledge that you have about the other person and their past deeds, or the information you currently extract from your interaction with them.

CDF: The prior knowledge you get from others will always come from a much larger database than your own direct experience. Perhaps that’s why we pay more attention to knowledge from others?

UF: Sometimes the priors can be too strong, and sometimes the bottom-up learning can exert too much influence. If there is a conflict that can’t be resolved, the decision is likely to be considered irrational.

CDF: Of course the priors are not fixed. They are constantly being altered by what happens in our real time interaction with the world and other people. Data from psychophysics tasks tell us that the decision you just made affects your next decision. How can I know what I like until I see what I have chosen? My behaviour tells me something – now I know what I should do next time.

UF: Is this similar to what happens when we follow the crowd and do what other people do? They may know something that we don’t know. We can benefit from their knowledge, as long as they have it. Like the traders on the stock exchange, who buy stocks that others buy. Perhaps they believe that the others have inside knowledge. This might sometimes even be true, but if it isn’t, stock market bubbles can be created. This certainly looks like irrational behaviour.

CDF: I think we have been talking about our favourite topic: Two systems and how they influence each other, System 1 and System 2, in Kahneman’s sense. Sub-personal and personal in Dennett’s sense. The influence of other people on us, and our influence on them occur both at the personal and the subpersonal level.

UF: But how does the influence of other people, say on the stockmarket, come about?

CDF: That’s what our book has to be about.

Meanwhile, after a long wait, we can drive onto the ferry. We spot a TV cameraman and a presenter in a long black coat, watching and commenting on the last journey of the old Dana Sirena from Denmark to England.

Our colleague from the Interacting Minds Centre at Aarhus University, Andreas Højlund Nielsen, told us about a 15 minute documentary film made by his sister-in-law, Mie Lorenzen. It is called ‘18 hours aboard the England ferry’. It will provide you with the tranquillity of a very calm transit.

DSCF0119

How to be smart

Are humans the smartest species? What does it mean to be smart?

CDF: I am very interested in your suggestion that we should think about specific packages of behaviour for different species that are determined, to some degree, by their environmental niche. This brings me to a question I have often thought about. We often assume that humans differ from other species simply because we are smarter. But what do we mean by smart? Perhaps I can anticipate your answer: What is smart in one niche might be foolish in another. For example, we assume that being able to delay gratification (not eating the marshmallow immediately) is smart, but it would be very foolish in a volatile environment where no one can be trusted.

Continue reading How to be smart

RR: Being smart must include surviving and producing surviving offspring – just think about the opposite.

CDF: In this sense, in the long run, bacteria will turn out to be far smarter than humans.

RR: There is more to being smart: we usually mean something specifically cognitive. Evolution involves adaptation but in a stable environment this can lead to specialization that becomes maladaptive when the environment changes. Being large may be advantageous because it means you may be able to overwhelm your enemies. But the package of being large means you take a long time to grow, produce a few offspring that need looking after and therefore you need to live a long time. This makes your species vulnerable to environmental fluctuations. Bacteria are smart because they reproduce very quickly and can adapt rapidly to environmental change. So, in the battle between antibiotic-wielding humans and bacteria, the bacteria tend to win. The mega-fauna did well in a stable environment, but do not cope well with human-induced environmental change and many will soon be extinct.

UF: I am glad that we are not giants.

RR: Humans are not giants, but they are mega-fauna. They are exceptionally successful as mega-fauna because their best adaptation is adaptability itself. Humans have adapted, behaviourally, to many different terrains and climates and have changed the terrain to suit themselves. They have also changed the climate, but haven’t quite adapted to that yet.

SmartTestSo it is cognitive and behavioural flexibility that makes humans smart. Cognitive flexibility allows humans to learn a lot which makes them even more behaviourally flexible and therefore even smarter.

 

UF: How on earth did humans evolve to have this adaptability? Can you briefly sketch out how this might have happened?

RR: We need to talk about selection and the Baldwin Effect.

This describes the way that learned products of cognitive flexibility  – good survival tricks – become genetically determined in a species by selection, rather than by inheritance of acquired characteristics. Here is an example: When proto-humans increased their communication skills as proto-speech, individuals with useful cognitive apps in this new social environment e.g. being good at remembering the order of sounds, being good at hearing inflections, would be favoured. This goes on over many generations and eventually a large collection of language-useful apps would be embedded in the human brain.

Now as to the mechanisms involved – this is complicated. We have to consider what genes do. Genes always compete against their alternative alleles and never do anything for the good of the species. But genes have the products of other genes, in their own body and other bodies, as part of their environment, such that complex competitions and co-operations will develop between genes. Picture how different personality types may win or lose depending on the environment. Sometimes pessimists survive catastrophe, and sometimes optimists advantageously exploit opportunities.  So a mixture of different cognitive styles (think collections of cognitive apps) will exist in a population in an equilibrium, which will fluctuate with environmental events.

Being a lot smarter than other people has survival value but it has one obvious disadvantage; in a social species being different can be difficult.

PunchLeaps&Bounds2ndMrsTanV104P273.5.5-100

Acknowledgements: ‘Culture-fair test’ modified Danish cartoon, source unknown; ‘Leaps & Bounds’, Punch Magazine vol 4 p 273 June 10th 1893

Are bees better than humans?

To distract me from dangerous goings-on outside my window, where men are cutting down tall trees, Chris & Uta have asked me about the social lives of marmosets. This is not really altruism on their part. They will use the information for their book.

CDF: We want to know about the origins of human social cognition. Where should we look? Bees and ants? Other primates?

Continue reading Are bees better than humans?

RR: I think you need to look at all and any species and work out the packages of behaviour that different species use.

UF: What do you mean by packages of behaviour?

RR: Behaviour, and social structure, depend on the constraints of environment and evolution and both boil down to reproductive success. Does the species have to get through a cold winter? Does the species live up trees? It is factors like these that will determine whether the species produces a large number of offspring with low parental investment or a low number of offspring with high parental investment. These strategies come as packages and much social structure follows therefrom.

UF: So, is reproductive behaviour, mating and nurturing the young, at the biological root of social behaviour?

RR: This is where we find differences between species, because of the constraints I just mentioned. Old World monkeys tend to have a hierarchical mating system. Here males compete with other males for access to large numbers of females – though it all gets complicated with alliances and pay-offs. New World monkeys tend to live in more or less monogamous families – though it all gets complicated with adultery and incest. New World monkeys tend to live up trees, like birds, which are also usually monogamous so perhaps trees matter.

UF: Are humans more similar in their mating strategy to New World monkeys?

RR: Humans exhibit different strategies in different societies depending on food supply and other external threats. We can infer a lot about Human ancestral social behaviour by the fact that males are slightly bigger than females. This size difference occurs in any species where males compete with other males for resources and for females. The ultimate aim here is to win wars, get rid of other males, and acquire as many available females as possible. Of course, the size difference in humans is not large compared to the difference in some species. This implies a long history of more family based behavioural packages as well.

UF: Mike Tomasello’s lab has a vast number of studies comparing the joint interactions of great apes and those that happen between human children. There are similarities, but one of the main differences seems to be that, while human social interactions are basically cooperative, those of chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utan’s are mostly driven by competition. Tomasello’s conclusion is that great apes are extremely limited in their cooperative capacities, and this is their essential difference to humans.

CDF: But unlike chimpanzees, Marmosets seem to be extremely cooperative, showing, for example, cooperative breeding. Is this true?

marmosets RR: Kin selection explains many aspects of superficially altruistic behaviour. Co-operative breeding in marmosets usually means assisting in the rearing of the offspring of relatives because of the family structure of groups of marmosets. But an owner of a captive breeding colony of marmosets will often attempt to cross foster a neonate when the breeding female of one family has had just one baby and the breeding female of another family has just had triplets. This is often successful because the family can’t be sure that the newcomer is not related to them (and marmosets aren’t very good at counting either). In the wild, quite a large troop will contain mainly related animals. So a certain amount of general co-operation could be sustained by kin selection.

Several additional explanations have been put forward to explain co-operative behaviour in co-operative breeding species such as marmosets. These are all plausible, but none are truly altruistic since they increase the reproductive success or survival of the protagonist.

* Helpers that have cared for other infants have greater reproductive success when they become parents than individuals that do not have previous infant care experience. This is undoubtedly the case for marmosets.

* Unrelated helpers can gain the benefits of living in a social group, such as communal foraging or protection against predators. This requires the unrelated individual to be accepted by the group and this usually only occurs when the incomer arrives as a potential breeding partner.

* Males that display involvement with infants are more likely to obtain subsequent mating with the female they assist. This is unlikely since the male is usually assisting in the rearing of his own offspring (so has access to the dominant female) or his own sibs. The dominant female suppresses ovulation in her daughters and thereby prevents incest in the rest of the family.  “No hanky-panky please.”

UF: Social learning is something that happens in almost all animal species. It seems possible to us that this learning has shown a sort of step change in evolution in humans. This is to do with learning by deliberate teaching, a two-way process. Is this plausible? How would evolution explain such a step change?

RR: The difficulty in getting a hand-reared orphan animal to be accepted by, mate with and rear offspring with, members of their own species shows how important social learning is for survival. Evolution will favour parents who behave in such a way that offspring learn social behaviours. In New World monkey species, the fathers and older siblings contribute to the rearing of the next litter and, in captivity, offspring reared alone by just their mother are rarely able to rear offspring themselves. The difference between ‘behaving in such a way that learning in offspring occurs’ and ‘teaching offspring’ is one of intention by the parent and so the step change (if there is one) will lie in the evolution of several cognitive ‘apps’, e.g. ‘appreciation of the existence of the future’, such that intentions can develop. New ‘apps’ have emergent functions made from the amalgamation of smaller ‘apps’.

UF: I love your use of the term ‘app’ for a special cognitive adaptation!

CDF: The importance of learning by teaching is that it offers a mechanism for culture to accumulate over generations. Culture seems to be the one specialised niche for humans.

RR:  Intentionality will always speed up cultural development, but animals have cultures too. Diet and food-finding practices are cultural in that they differ between groups of the same species.

The trees are down now! Good. I can go out again.

CDF & UF: Thank you, Ros. We’ll be back and quiz you more about processes in the evolution of behaviour.

Photo acknowledgement: 

http://evoluahomosapiens.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/sagui-de-tufos-brancos-callithrix.html

Introduction to THE BOOK

For some years, Uta & I have been saying that we will write a book together about social cognition. Now, thanks to the Institute Jean Nicod, this has become a certified commitment. We have written many papers together, but never a book. You might ask, will this be the end of a lovely relationship?

This is what we have agreed on so far: I am trying to create a structure for the book; Uta said she would like to do the colouring in. In the previous post she has provided her overall view of what the book will be about, in what she calls the blurb. Continue reading Introduction to THE BOOK

Now for the structure: I need to choose some constraints that will determine the contents of the book and the order in which these contents will be presented. This structure will highlight the message that we wish to communicate and also indicate how our book on social cognition differs from others. We need severe constraints because so much is now being published on social cognition. Almost nothing was published prior to 1990, but in 2013 over 6000 papers appeared.ScogPubs

We have chosen a biological framework, so that our constraints come from considerations of evolution and brain function.

EvolutionThe most obvious evolutionary constraint is to consider human social cognition against the backdrop of social cognition in other animals from bees to apes. We will highlight a common thread of mechanisms for social cognition in animals, but also identify something special about human cognition, which enabled the emergence of language and cultural institutions.

We will also take account of theories, pioneered by John Maynard Smith, about the evolutionary mechanisms enabling the emergence of social interaction. This approach involves the application of game theory to the evolution of cooperation and to the emergence of the transfer of information between creatures, via cues, signals & communication.

BrainAll these processes of cooperation and communication are mediated by the brain, which is itself shaped by evolution and experience. I realise that any conclusion as to how the brain works is ‘radically premature’, but believe that our cognitive models should be consistent with what we know about the brain. Brains are essentially prediction machines. HohwyIn other words we use our brains to learn about the world in order to predict and thus modulate what will happen to us in both the short-term and the long-term. This is essentially a Bayesian account of brain function characterised as a continuously operating hierarchy of loops linking the evidence of the senses with beliefs about the nature of the world, while, at the same time, acting upon the world to justify these beliefs. The beauty of this model of brain function is that the same basic principle can account for low-level perception, for example explaining various visual illusions, while also explaining high levels, such as how we might read the intentions of others from their movements.

The structure of the bookGiven these background constraints based on considerations of the brain and of evolution, I am planning to structure our book in terms of learning and information transfer. Here are the sections I have in mind, with some of their contents.

What are we learning about? We need to learn about the nature of the world and how to deal with it. There are four worlds that we can learn about.

  1. The physical world of objects
  2. The biological world of agents (other creatures, other people)
  3. The social world of groups
  4. The mental world of ideas

With the exception of the physical world of objects, there is a social aspect to all these worlds. There is also the special problem that arises when we try to learn about other agents: while I am trying to learn about you, you may well be trying to learn about me. We are not just observing, we are interacting.

How do we learn?

  1. By direct experience (trial and error) – we explore the world by ourselves
  2. By observing what others do – we observe others exploring the world
  3. By communication with others – we explore the world with others

Learning from others and with others requires effective information transmission: This transmission can take the form of cues, signals or communication. In the case of cues, information is transmitted which is useful to an observer. The receiver, but not the sender, has evolved to take advantage of a cue. This is sometimes called public information. In the case of signals, the information is useful to both sender and receiver. Both sender and receiver have evolved to take advantage of a signal. In the case of communication, the signal is sent (and received) intentionally, i.e. it is recognised by sender and receiver as a signal. This is a form of explicit metacognition.

Learning from observing others depends on cues and signals. Learning with others requires communication.

800px-Auklet_flock_Shumagins_1986The emergence of groups and other complex entities:  Information exchange can create complex entities. From very simply rules of individual behaviour, large, cohesive groups emerge, such as swarms, shoals, and flocks. Simple rules at the individual level can also create complex interactions such as pack hunting behaviour in wolves. The emergence of these complex entities can be explained on the basis of simple responses to cues.

In the same manner more abstract groupings and interactions can emerge from responses to signals and communication at the individual level. For example, groups such as institutions, and concepts such as meaning emerge from individual communication. It is this intentional signalling that is the special feature of human social cognition and enables the development of culture.

SeeleyBookAre bees better than humans at making decisions?  Honeybees communicate to one another via their waggle dance. This enables bees to make group decisions about where to go to find the best nesting site. This group decision-making ability is far beyond the capability of an individual bee. The mechanisms by which individual bees interact to make a group decision turn out to be very similar to those involved when individual neurons interact within the mammalian brain to enable decision-making. So just as the swarm is much more capable than the individual bee, so should groups of humans be more capable than the lone individual.

Perhaps this is sometimes the case, but more often I wonder what has gone wrong.

How do we go from here?  From now on, as both Uta and I write these various sections, we will post summaries like this. Through your comments we hope write a better book. We want to explore the world of social cognition with others.

Blurb for THE BOOK

What makes us social?

All animals are social. Their brains have mechanisms that evolution fashioned over millions of years. They are largely hidden in the manner of built-in instincts. Like other instincts they run on auto-pilot and require little effort. But social life even in flies is not all automatic and instinctual. There is learning and there is social learning. Social learning is essentially learning from others and thus avoiding making your own mistakes. The question is whether human beings have some extra mechanisms that make them even more social than other species. One reason for supposing it is that humans have created culture. Culture provides a mostly visible structure that guides learning in distinct and sophisticated ways. Culture makes learning from others even better than just observing others: you can learn from people who are no longer there, indeed you can read books and visit buildings that go back many generations.

In this book we will consider both the automatic forms of being social in different species and we will try to probe into those forms of being social that are a hallmark of human beings. Continue reading Blurb for THE BOOK

Human beings often do not appreciate the automatic forms of being social, precisely because they are automatic and unconscious. Remarkably, humans can reflect on some of these processes in a conscious fashion. And this reflection may lead them to suppress social instincts, for better or worse. It is not at all clear whether it is possible to become conscious of our instinctive social tendencies. For example, we generally do as others do; we like things that others like – even when we think we act completely independently and have a unique taste in the things we like. Actually, we are very particular about distinguishing ourselves from others, but who the others are is another question. There are those in our inner circle, the in-group, and there are the others, the out-group.

Of all the tricks that the brain has equipped human beings with, the ability to understand and influence each other, is perhaps the most remarkable. The trick works unconsciously, but it also works at a conscious level. It allows humans to think that they can explain and predict behaviour. We will show that this is largely an illusion. However, it has given rise to a complex folk psychology. This makes us comfortable in believing that we know why we are doing something and why others do or do not behave in similar ways. Our explanations of the causes of behaviour are not couched in popular laws of physics, but in popular laws of psychology: We do things because we want to do them, because we believe it is the right thing to do, because we suspect that another person is trying to deceive us. We use persuasion to change others’ psychological states.

We are rarely at a loss to explain, after the fact, why somebody did to us what they did. Even if we know we are simply making up stories that make sense of behaviour, we cannot resist them. And we have an insatiable appetite for hearing about such stories in newspapers, in books and films. These examples let us replay and imagine what makes people ‘tick’. They also give us hints about how to gain friends and influence people. In this book we show how scientific psychology and neuroscience has helped us to understand this social appetite, what it does for us and how we try to control it.

We show that many of the automatic mechanisms of the social brain in humans are the same as those in other animals. However, the control of the mechanisms is undoubtedly more accomplished in humans than in most other species. Still, this control sometimes seems to work against us, as witnessed in conflict, in greed and selfishness, as well as in the breakdown of trust. It is also apparent  in our story telling to justify failed interactions with others. We hope that scientific knowledge of how these processes work  will improve control when our dark selfish and noble altruistic nature collide.