GAME THEORY IS FOR ALIENS
In previous chapters I described various psychological aspects of
social interaction: for instance, models of moral feelings as an adap-
tive strategy, and cheater-detection as a way of maintaining coopera-
tion. In each case I made use of concepts that are constantly used in
biology and psychology, such as "strategy," "signaling," "defection,"
"utility," etc. Now this way of describing social interaction strikes
most people as rather alien. That is, we understand the arguments, in
a fairly abstract and intellectual way, but what they describe is just not
the way we feel when we are engaged in social interaction. [249]
For instance, the principal strategy that social scientists observe
among human cooperators is a mixture of positive moral feelings
toward cooperation together with a very strong angry reaction to
cheating, as well as anger toward people who do not punish cheaters.
However, when we engage in cooperative endeavors with people we
are not aware that we are adopting a conscious strategy; we just feel
that they are intrinsically "good," "reliable," "nice people," or alterna-
tively that they are "devious," "unreliable," "creepy," etc. We do not
see our dispositions as a benefit-driven strategy, even in the long run.
To take another example, people tend to cluster in solidarity-
based groups. In some societies this kind of group is given for free,
as it were, in that you are born in a particular lineage or village. You
then tend to cooperate with your kin and kith and mistrust outsiders.
But we are not limited to such groups. In most large settlements or
institutions, where thousands or millions are thrown together, peo-
ple tend to recreate small-scale solidarity networks. After a few
months or years in a company or in a town, people identify a number
of people whom they talk with, whom they can trust in case of need,
as well as a number of neutral outsiders and some potential enemies
who should not be trusted. Sociologists now find that these networks
are of the same size and involve similar emotions, regardless of the
country, language, size of the institution or town, and other differ-
ences. Again, however, people often do not think of such networks as
coalitions at all. They just find that in their institution, company,
neighborhood, some people are intrinsically likeable and others less
so, some people seem trustworthy and others do not. How all this is
evaluated in terms of cooperation and trust is not quite accessible to
conscious inspection.
WHYRITUALS?