Term
| Prisoner's dilemma essay - paragraph 1 |
|
Definition
The term “Prisoner’s dilemma” describes any situation in which two individuals may choose to cooperate (cooperate) for a greater pooled gain, but may also choose to betray the other (defect) for the greatest individual gain at the other’s expense. A cooperator whose opponent defects receives the smallest reward (penalty), and a defector whose opponent defects receives an intermediate reward. |
|
|
Term
| Prisoner's dilemma essay - paragraph 2 |
|
Definition
| In a true prisoner’s dilemma, it is in each player’s best interest to defect. Defecting has the possibility of greatest gain, and protects from recieving the penalty. Though greater combined gains can be earned through cooperation, neither player has any incentive to do so, as each seeks to maximize his own gains. |
|
|
Term
| Prisoner's dilemma essay - paragraph 3 |
|
Definition
| Prisoner’s dilemmas are played out daily in nature, and evolutionary theory predicts “always defect” should evolve as the default strategy in single iterations of prisoner’s dilemma. |
|
|
Term
Prisoner's dilemma essay - paragraph 4
(on reciprocal altruism) |
|
Definition
The theory of reciprocal altruism explains a successful strategy of cooperation can evolve in multiple iterations of prisoner’s dilemma, if certain preconditions are met. |
|
|
Term
Prisoner's dilemma essay - paragraph 5
(requirements for altruism) |
|
Definition
Reciprocal altruism (an “agreement” between organisms to cooperate) can emerge only if both organisms can recognize the other as a likely cooperator or defector. Remembering the results of past interactions with an individual is required to make this determination. Therefore, reciprocal altruism can only be a successful strategy in animals possessing both the capacity to recognize individuals and remember past interactions. |
|
|
Term
Hamilton's rule of inclusive fitness (1)
Defining inclusive fitness, and expectations regarding |
|
Definition
Inclusive fitness is the ability to pass along one’s genes to future generations, including copies of those genes residing in one’s relatives. Hamilton’s rule of inclusive fitness predicts one will then be willing to aid a relative provided the costs of the help are not too great to the giver, and the reproductive benefit to the shared genes in the recipient is not too small. |
|
|
Term
| Hamilton's rule of inclusive fitness (2) Formula and definition of variables |
|
Definition
| Hamilton’s rule of inclusive fitness describes this relationship as C < r x B, where C is the cost of the help to the giver, r is the proportion of genes shared between giver and recipient, and B is the reproductive benefit of the help to the recipient. As long as C remains less than r x b, Hamilton’s rule expects altruistic aid to be given. |
|
|
Term
Hamilton's rule of inclusive fitness (3)
Two predictions of hamilton's rule |
|
Definition
| Therefore Hamilton’s rule predicts a nearer degree of relatedness to the recipient should increase one’s willingness to be altruistic. Also, when choosing between equally related possible recipients, the giver will help the relative with the greatest future reproductive value. |
|
|
Term
Hamilton's rule of inclusive fitness (4)
Evidences (2) of hamilton's rule in humans. |
|
Definition
| Hamilton’s rule holds true when examining the value of goods bequeathed in wills, and to whom the goods are given. Nearer relatives with greater reproductive value consistently receive larger sums. Additionally, grandparents seem to apportion care to grandchildren in an almost perfect relationship with how closely they expect the grandchild is related. |
|
|
Term
Burnham and Phelan's short-term reward theory of happiness. (1)
Defining reward theory |
|
Definition
Short term reward theory, proposed by Burnham and Phelan, states that human brains have evolved modules to reward success with rapidly dwindling feelings of happiness. In order to feel happy, humans strive again and again for a brief chemical reward from the brain. The briefness of the reward prevents complacency, and engenders further striving. |
|
|
Term
Burnham and Phelan's short-term reward theory (2)
Dangers of complacency, advantage of strife |
|
Definition
Ever-striving evolved because complacency (or not striving) would have been evolutionarily disadvantageous in the EEA (the environment in which humans evolved over many eons). Human ancestors who constantly strove to acquire were more likely to have stores useful in surviving unexpected famines than those who did not, and passed on genes for striving to modern humans. |
|
|
Term
Burnham and Phelan's short-term reward theory (3)
On lack of progress |
|
Definition
| Short term reward theory also explains that modules in the brain have evolved to punish failure (or lack of progress) with feelings of unhappiness in order to prevent further failures and encourage striving. Feelings of unhappiness also diminish rapidly, so as not to impose evolutionary risk by long-term debilitation. |
|
|
Term
Burnham and Phelan's short-term reward theory (4)
On expectatons, and meaning of feelings. |
|
Definition
In determining whether to reward or punish, the brain operates on the expectations an individual has. If the result of a given event is better than expected it rewards, and if it is worse it punishes. Because the brain rewards or punishes based only on progress, and because these are tied to expectations rather than actual situation, one’s mood is a poor indicator of absolute success. |
|
|
