In the Light of Evolution VIII: Darwinian Thinking in the Social Sciences Brian Skyrmsa,1, John C
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FROM THE ACADEMY: COLLOQUIUM INTRODUCTION COLLOQUIUM INTRODUCTION In the light of evolution VIII: Darwinian thinking in the social sciences Brian Skyrmsa,1, John C. Aviseb,1, and Francisco J. Ayalab,1 norms are seen as a society’s way of coor- aDepartment of Logic and Philosophy of Science and bDepartment of Ecology and dinating on one of these equilibria. This, Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697 rather than enforcement of out-of-equilibrium behavior, is seen as the function of these Darwinian thinking in the social sciences was Evolutionary game theory was initially norms. Fairness norms, however, may involve inaugurated by Darwin himself in The De- seen by some social scientists as just a way interpersonal comparisons of utility. This is scent of Man and Selection in Relation to to provide a low rationality foundation for true of egalitarian norms, and of the norms Sex high rationality equilibrium concepts. A Nash of proportionality suggested by Aristotle. In (8, 9). Despite various misappropriations ’ of the Darwinian label, true Darwinian think- equilibrium is a rest point of a large class of Binmore s account, the standards for such ing continued in the social sciences. However, adaptive dynamics. If the dynamics converges interpersonal comparisons themselves evolve. toarestpoint,itconvergestoNash.Thismay Komarova(22),inanarticlethatcould with the advent of evolutionary game theory Social Dynamics (10) there has been an explosion of Darwin- nothappeninallgames,butitmayhappen equally well be in ,discusses ian analysis in the social sciences. And it has in large classes of games, depending on the the speed evolution of complex phenotypes in led to reciprocal contributions from the social dynamics in question. asexual populations. Initiation of new com- sciences and mathematics to biology. The However, another idea from evolutionary plex phenotypes may require changes in mul- theory of games had been created (11) as a biology shows that the dynamical point of tiple genes. Accumulation of all of the req- theory of interaction among rational agents view can be more subversive. That is the idea uisite mutations may require crossing a with a (tacit) presumption of common knowl- of population structure. Interactions are not fitness valley, which could take a very long edge of rationality. Evolutionary game theory always best modeled as random encounters time. Various factors may affect this time. broadened the scope of game theory by re- in a large population. There may be correla- For instance, spatial interaction (as mod- moving the rationality assumption, and re- tion, positive or negative, between the strat- eled by a contact process) can make a sig- – placing it with an adaptive dynamics of dif- egies that interact. Hamilton (17 19) and nificant difference. Social interaction among ferential reproduction. Social scientists soon Price (20) clearly saw that such correlations cells, modeled using division-of-labor games, saw that a whole array of other broadly lieatthebasisofevolutionaryexplanationsof can also accelerate the evolution of complex adaptive dynamics of imitation, social learn- both altruism and spite. Sources of such cor- phenotypes. There are applications to bio- ing, inductive reasoning with best response, relationforhumansarecentralareasofcon- film formation and to evolution of cancer. and so forth, were relevant and could be ana- cern for social sciences: interaction on a Christakis and Fowler (23) investigate how lyzed with similar tools (12). social network, homophily or heterophily in the formation of human social ties is sensitive Evolutionary game theory was brought to network formation, reputation and partner to genetic differences. Sociologists have long the fore by Maynard Smith (10), but its ori- choice in repeated interactions, formation known that humans are more likely than and dissolution of groups for collective ac- chance to make friends with others who re- gins go back earlier, even to Darwin himself — (8, 9). The idea of an evolutionarily stable tion, and honest and dishonest signaling. semble them phenotypically that the pro- strategy of Maynard Smith and Price (13) All are discussed in this colloquium. cess of friendship formation is homophilic. derives from the “unbeatable strategy” that Evolution of Social Norms There are various possible reasons for this: Onebeingthatthereissometendencyto Hamilton used in his analysis of sex ratios It is a commonplace in the social sciences ’ prefer genetically similar individuals, and that (14). Hamilton sanalysisisexplicitlygame that the values that are manifest in individual — genetic similarity is correlated with pheno- theoretic. The payoff in expected grandchil- decisions may reflect norms of the society — typic similarity, so that the phenotype serves dren of a sex ratio strategy depends of the in which the individual lives. Social norms strategies of all of the rest of the population. themselves evolve. They exhibit both com- This is a playing-the-field game in Maynard monalities and differences across cultures. This paper serves as an introduction to this PNAS supplement, Smith’sterminology.Hamiltonbuildsonthe This suggests that both biological and cul- which resulted from the Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium of the Na- reasoning of Fisher (15) in explaining human — — tional Academy of Sciences, “In the Light of Evolution VIII: tural evolution and coevolution play a Darwinian Thinking in the Social Sciences,” held January 10–11, sex ratios. Under reasonable assumptions, dif- role in their explanation. 2014, at the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of the National ferential reproduction drives the sex ratio to- In “Bargaining and fairness” (21) Binmore Academies of Sciences and Engineering in Irvine, CA. The complete ward that empirically observed. Fisher quotes discusses the evolution of fairness norms as program and audio files of most presentations are available on the Darwin from the second edition of the De- devices for selection between multiple equi- NAS website at www.nasonline.org/ILE-Darwinian-Thinking. This is scent of Man the eighth in a series of Colloquia under the umbrella title “In the (9), where Darwin says that the libria. Consideration of equilibrium outcomes Light of Evolution” (see Box 1). Papers from previous Colloquia in problem was unsolved. However, in the first in repeated interactions leads one to a bar- the series appear in refs. 1–7. ’ edition (8), Darwin gives essentially Fisher s gaining game. This game has an infinite Author contributions: B.S., J.C.A., and F.J.A. wrote the paper. argument (16). Darwin had, in a way, invented number of Pareto optimal equilibria. Achiev- The authors declare no conflict of interest. evolutionary game theory. The idea had to ing an efficient social contract requires se- 1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: fjayala@uci. wait until the present to come full flower. lection among these equilibria, and fairness edu, [email protected], or [email protected]. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1411483111 PNAS | July 22, 2014 | vol. 111 | suppl. 3 | 10781–10784 Downloaded by guest on September 30, 2021 response dynamics and adaptive dynamics Box 1. In the light of evolution. In 1973, Dobzhansky (37) penned a short com- are discussed. There is a generalization to mentary titled, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Most games with a continuum of strategies. There scientists agree that evolution provides the unifying framework for interpreting bi- is a generalization to population games— ological phenomena that otherwise can often seem unrelated and perhaps un- Maynard Smith’s playing-the-field games, intelligible. Given the central position of evolutionary thought in biology, it is sadly which include the sex ratio game of Fisher and ironic that evolutionary perspectives outside the sciences have often been neglected, Darwin. There is a generalization to multi- misunderstood, or purposefully misrepresented. Biodiversity—the genetic variety of player games. Asymmetric games are treated, life—is an exuberant product of the evolutionary past, a vast human-supportive re- including those in which players have several source (aesthetic, intellectual, and material) of the present, and a rich legacy to cherish moves in an extensive form game. and preserve for the future. Two challenges, as well as opportunities, for 21st-century The next two papers deal with dynamics of science are to gain deeper insights into the evolutionary processes that foster biotic individual learning. Erev and Roth (26) argue diversity and to translate that understanding into workable solutions for the regional that human learning dynamics provides a and global crises that biodiversity currently faces. A grasp of evolutionary principles good explanation of many of the experimen- and processes is important in other societal arenas as well, such as education, medi- tal findings of behavioral economics. Subjects cine, sociology, and other applied fields including agriculture, pharmacology, and who learn by reinforcement will, in some biotechnology. The ramifications of evolutionary thought extend into learned realms kinds of games, rapidly learn to play a Nash traditionally reserved for philosophy and religion. The central goal of the “In the Light equilibrium. However, in other kinds of of Evolution” (ILE) series is to promote the evolutionary sciences through state-of-the- games, including the infamous ultimatum- art colloquia and their published proceedings. Each