I have often wondered if the word "social" really applies to human beings, given, as you have noted, that we are quite a bit less social than truly social animals like ants.
Maybe we should use the term "coalitional" for humans instead of social? (Or is there another term for it?) At least I find it a lot more appropriate and even sets my expectations more correctly.
The social insects are more akin to human families since most of the members of a colony or hive are unable to reproduce and, if they leave, unable to survive on their own or join another colony/hive. We can create a society of families but the social insects cannot do the equivalent; all ant colonies or beehives are in competition, or war, with each other.
I think social is fine when understanding it as meaning that our lives are inscribed in social settings and social interactions. "Communal" would be too strong and characterise the life of ants better.
I see, so on the ant-robbin continuum, we would say: communal (ants) >> social (humans) >> individualistic (robbins)? Just trying to understand the common terminology.
Thanks for this article, this subject seems never-ending in its applications. After all, as you say, our civilizations are essentially different networks of coalitions.
This makes sense because a human on his own is basically a very easy prey. We are not particularly fast or strong, we can’t fly or camouflage and we don’t have poison defenses or even a shell. Our only strength is that we can coordinate and communicate our shared knowledge and transmit it. But that turns out to be enough to basically win the Game of Life!
We don't need an appeal to evolutionary psychology here. Franklin's quote makes the point that coalitions are immensely beneficial to their members.
The relevant question is how to prevent defection. Obvious answers include - (i) punishing defectors, (ii) sharing the benefits so that no one has an incentive to defect and (iii) building group loyalty.
Only the third of these involves any deviation from self-interest. And granting this, we have the question - why be loyal to this group and not another? At one time, it seemed plausible to invoke kinship here. But that's not meaningful outside (at the most) first cousin relationships. And it seems clear enough that, in societies where these relationships are important, they reflect social rather than genetic links.
As with most EvPsych, the best interpretation is that we have a bunch of psychological charactistics inherited from the Pleistocene past, but these are expressed in ways so different that appeals to an evolutionary rationale are pointless
I have often wondered if the word "social" really applies to human beings, given, as you have noted, that we are quite a bit less social than truly social animals like ants.
Maybe we should use the term "coalitional" for humans instead of social? (Or is there another term for it?) At least I find it a lot more appropriate and even sets my expectations more correctly.
Thanks for a very informative article.
The social insects are more akin to human families since most of the members of a colony or hive are unable to reproduce and, if they leave, unable to survive on their own or join another colony/hive. We can create a society of families but the social insects cannot do the equivalent; all ant colonies or beehives are in competition, or war, with each other.
Hi Vin,
I think social is fine when understanding it as meaning that our lives are inscribed in social settings and social interactions. "Communal" would be too strong and characterise the life of ants better.
I see, so on the ant-robbin continuum, we would say: communal (ants) >> social (humans) >> individualistic (robbins)? Just trying to understand the common terminology.
It is not a common terminology (social can take different meanings), but these words would work well.
Thanks for this article, this subject seems never-ending in its applications. After all, as you say, our civilizations are essentially different networks of coalitions.
This makes sense because a human on his own is basically a very easy prey. We are not particularly fast or strong, we can’t fly or camouflage and we don’t have poison defenses or even a shell. Our only strength is that we can coordinate and communicate our shared knowledge and transmit it. But that turns out to be enough to basically win the Game of Life!
Indeed, Tooby and DeVore have called it the "cognitive niche". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubZ3d-g2lUc
Thank you for this post. It fills in a piece of the puzzle.
We don't need an appeal to evolutionary psychology here. Franklin's quote makes the point that coalitions are immensely beneficial to their members.
The relevant question is how to prevent defection. Obvious answers include - (i) punishing defectors, (ii) sharing the benefits so that no one has an incentive to defect and (iii) building group loyalty.
Only the third of these involves any deviation from self-interest. And granting this, we have the question - why be loyal to this group and not another? At one time, it seemed plausible to invoke kinship here. But that's not meaningful outside (at the most) first cousin relationships. And it seems clear enough that, in societies where these relationships are important, they reflect social rather than genetic links.
As with most EvPsych, the best interpretation is that we have a bunch of psychological charactistics inherited from the Pleistocene past, but these are expressed in ways so different that appeals to an evolutionary rationale are pointless