This article explains why humans cooperate through altruistic behavior and how altruism evolved, using the eusocial species hypothesis and the prisoner’s dilemma. It discusses that people with similar dispositions can be highly rewarded when they come together to cooperate, and that this is a strategy that favors the development of society and the survival of individuals.
With the exception of a few self-sufficient mutants hiding out in the mountains and living off the land that we see on TV every once in a while, almost everyone has to experience some kind of interaction with people other than themselves in their lives. As social animals, we rely on each other and cooperate with each other to survive. And if we could divide the attitudes of individuals in these relationships with others into two broad categories, they would be selfish or altruistic. Which strategy is more conducive to survival: putting one’s own interests first, or putting the interests of others first?
According to the evolutionary mindset summarized by the theory of natural selection, the selfish position would be the one that individuals should take in order to survive and thrive, and the altruistic ones should have been culled out and not survived. However, there are plenty of examples of altruistic behavior in modern society, and most people have some level of altruism. How did altruistic people who don’t look out for their own survival survive and evolve? Among the many hypotheses that have been proposed to explain the evolution of altruism, there is an interesting one called the “eusocial species hypothesis.” In this article, we’ll look at how the phrase “eusocial species,” which literally means “playing nice,” can explain the evolution of altruism.
Before explaining the eusociality hypothesis, let’s take a look at the Prisoner’s Dilemma, which is essential to understand when studying selfish or altruistic choices and their consequences. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a situation where two prisoners are isolated from each other and are offered a confession to the police. The police make the following offer to both prisoners: “If you both confess, you will both be sentenced to five years in prison. If you both continue to deny it, you will both be sentenced to one year in prison. But if one confesses and the other denies, the one who confesses will not be sentenced, but the one who denies will be sentenced to seven years.” How would the two prisoners be wise to behave in this situation? Of course, the ideal scenario would be for both prisoners to deny the charges to the end, so that they would both only be sentenced to one year, but this is very unlikely to happen in practice. Why? Let’s look at this charge from Guy’s perspective: if he denies it, he’ll get a year in jail, but if he confesses, he’ll go free. Similarly, if Eul confesses, Kwak will get a favorable outcome, as he will serve two years less in prison. In other words, Kwak will always get a better outcome by admitting the charge (confessing) and betraying Eul. This applies to Eul as well, and the end result is, ironically, that they both confess to the charges and are both sentenced to five years in prison.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma can also be used to illustrate the Yu Yu Sangjong hypothesis, which we’re about to explore. The first premise is that, as we learned in the paragraph above, in the Prisoner’s Dilemma, the selfish choice is to confess to the charges and the altruistic choice is to deny the charges. Let’s assume that both prisoners strategically make the same choice. If they both deny the charges, or if they both confess, the situation ends with both of them being sentenced to a year in prison (if they act altruistically). On the other hand, if they both confess (acting selfishly), they will both be sentenced to five years in prison.
A generalization of this theory is the idea that cooperative people can get high payoffs when they interact and selfish people get low payoffs when they interact. In other words, if you have a group of people with the same strategy and similar choices, the group as a whole will benefit when those strategies and choices are altruistic and cooperative. In other words, in an environment of similarly disposed people, cooperative behavior is the best option and will be maintained and evolved. Altruistic people will stick together to continue interacting with altruistic people, and selfish people will go through a process of isolation and extinction. As this repeats itself, altruistic people will survive, and our society will have a good environment and conditions for cooperative behavior.
Even if eusociality is the right way for altruistic people to survive and evolve, in order for this to happen, people need to know whether the other person is selfish or altruistic when they meet them, because even if they have altruistic tendencies, if the other person is selfish, the relationship will not be effective. This effectively explains why people closely observe the tone of voice, facial expressions, and behaviors of others when interacting with them. By observing these, we can determine the other person’s selfish or altruistic tendencies and attitudes, which can determine the success or failure of the interaction. For example, in business negotiations, it’s important to understand the other person’s attitudes and tendencies. Once you know whether the other person is trustworthy or cooperative, you can better strategize your negotiations.
So far, we’ve discussed one way to explain why altruistic behavior has evolved: the eusocial species hypothesis, which effectively explains how altruistic behavior has survived and evolved. We saw this in a simple way by borrowing the Prisoner’s Dilemma, which showed that altruistic people can survive by interacting with similarly inclined people.
However, the eusocial hypothesis can’t take us to utopia – a problem that can be attributed to a simple lack of diversity. While some problems are best solved by interactions between morally similar people, there will always be problems that require moral diversity, where many different kinds of people with different dispositions can offer different opinions about the good and find effective solutions. This means that a group of only altruistic people may not be able to solve these problems efficiently. In other words, a group where all the members are altruistic or selfish will have limited progress, and it will take some mixing of people with different qualities to create a new society.
Finally, given the complexity of human society and the diversity of situations, the eusocial species hypothesis is a useful tool to explain the evolution of altruistic behavior, but it’s not the end-all be-all. Human interaction and cooperation is determined by a variety of factors and can vary depending on individual circumstances. We will need the wisdom to understand and apply these theories comprehensively. In the process of finding a balance between altruistic and selfish behavior, we will be able to build a better society.
