Once you are dealing with hominids, which may be the most important example, indeed “enforcement” may well be important. There is a growing lit on how reciprocal altruism ultimately depends on punishment of free riders, that is, enforcement.
Really? I’d thought that was generally understood—that was the whole point of Tit for Tat, after all, that it could both reward cooperative behavior and punish defection. One without the other is useless: kindness without cruelty is weak, cruelty without kindness self-destructs.
But the point I’m trying to get across isn’t about altruism, but group-friendly behavior in general. Altruism is an important subcategory, certainly, but there’s a wider case to be made.
And Eliezer is STILL wrong in his earlier quoted statement. Why am I not surprised?
Really? I’d thought that was generally understood—that was the whole point of Tit for Tat, after all, that it could both reward cooperative behavior and punish defection. One without the other is useless: kindness without cruelty is weak, cruelty without kindness self-destructs.
But the point I’m trying to get across isn’t about altruism, but group-friendly behavior in general. Altruism is an important subcategory, certainly, but there’s a wider case to be made.
And Eliezer is STILL wrong in his earlier quoted statement. Why am I not surprised?