RoR: Forum

MEM: Myself, I considered the nuanced meaning of "punish" to include simple shunning and exclusion.

I agree 100%, Mike. After Ed explained this, it was these very subtle forms of justice, i.e. "punishment," that immediately came to my mind, too.

Post 21

Tuesday, November 27, 2012 - 6:28pm

ahh, Kyle - are you performing in KICKASS 2?

Post 22

Tuesday, November 27, 2012 - 7:20pm

Mike,

If you logically remove the offender as an element in the set, then the model fails.

Can you expand on that? In these evolutionary models (where interacting agents reproduce and what you look for is "natural selection"), there is a "mutant" factor -- the stepping stone of evolution or natural selection -- introduced so that you make sure that all types of characters are represented, even though only some types of characters flourish over time. That means that the absolute number of each type of character -- unconditional trader, justice-minded trader (punisher), oh-so-terrible defector, etc. -- will change over time, reflecting their relative fitness in the group. In light of that, your statement doesn't make sense to me.

Beyond that, it is observably true that many self-identifed Objectivists still have the paradigms of religious conservativsm for their models of justice. I suggest many alternatives.

I take it you mean my focus on retributive justice, as against the other 4 kinds of "justice":

1) retributive (where a punishment fits the crime)
2) reformative (where a punishment fits the man)
3) preventative (where a punishment prevents crime the most, meaning that petty thieves would be put to death -- because that would be how you prevent crime the most)
4) restitutive (where a punishment may fit the crime, but it does not have the same effect on every man -- and the rich would have more incentive to commit at least some crimes)
5) distributive (where a punishment fits the petty, person whims of a would-be totalitarian tyrant who seems to think that he has been given special insight into what you "deserve")

You know, you can call it "religious" or whatever, but the fact is that it was Rand's view, too -- so you are sort of engaging in a fallacy by calling it "religious" in an effort to dismiss it. It's fine if you disagree. That's what discussion is for. But don't misrepresent me or Objectivism in the process. Just say that you disagree and give some reasoning.

That Red Hook quote, to me, is just a Red Herring. Sure, it leads away from the retributive sense of justice (and towards other kinds of "justice"), but it doesn't tally up the merit of these alternatives. It just offers them without justification or reasoning. And the second quote about 'corporate justice' is a Red Herring, too. This is because the dynamics of corporations differ from that of general society. The reason for the difference is the investment in the people. A corporation may have a lot of money invested in you and your work may be lucrative for them. When that is so, they will not prosecute -- but this is no surprise and it doesn't say anything about justice in general society.

It is almost like being merely just a re-negotiated contract (after discovery of, say, some variable unknown at the time of the original signing).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/27, 7:23pm)

Post 23

Tuesday, November 27, 2012 - 7:31pm

Tres,

I'm putting you down [shuffles in the background] ... for ... number 6 then.

:-)

p.s. I should've explained myself much better initially.

Dean,

Damn glad to be of service. I look forward to your article.

Ed

Post 24

Tuesday, November 27, 2012 - 7:39pm

Mike,

I believe that Ed Thompson himself, given a different context, would condemn Gintis as a utilitarian or perhaps a post-modernist.

Funny you should mention that, because something very much like this already happened in another recent thread.

:-)

I'll engage the rest of your post subsequently.

Ed

Post 25

Tuesday, November 27, 2012 - 8:09pm

Mike,

That said, I do question the theoretical underpinning of this article which is that you cannot have justice without popular consent.

But that seems too strong a statement. In this 2010 study, all they say is that you are unlikely to find sustainable punishing stemming from a "Lone Ranger" (yes, they use that term!). Here is their reasoning:

Rare punishers do not have the benefit of outnumbering their targets, so the cost of punishing a free-rider is substantial. Moreover, they usually bear this cost alone rather than sharing it with other punishers ...

Punishers who are willing to punish alone (� = 0) cannot invade a population of all nonpunishers unless the benefits from cooperation are so large that a single punisher can recoup the costs of signaling and punishing everyone else in the group. Here, we assume that this "Lone Ranger" condition is not satisfied so that only punishment by two or more punishers pays.

So they are just stating the assumption that the relative fitness of one guy who fights men in black masks -- wait, didn't the Lone Ranger wear a black mask? ... okay, whatever -- they were just stating the assumption that the relative fitness of one guy who fights crooked men ... will not be higher than the relative fitness of pushovers who are willing to trade value with anyone and everyone who approaches their virtual kiosk. But that's where they cut-off the assumption. Once you get 2 Lone Rangers -- wait, you cannot have "2" Rangers who are also "Lone" ... whatever -- once you have the Lone Ranger and Tonto, then the business of punishing can get off of the ground because the risk/cost of punishment is cut in half and then becomes outweighed by the gained benefits of group cooperation.

Here is an imagined (mock) rundown of the situation:

-------------------------------------------------------
Benefit from trade without any free riders = 9/person
Benefit from trade along with free riders, but free rider behavior is hampered or mitigated by the proper punishment of them = 6/person
Benefit from trade along with free riders, unchecked by any punishment = 3/person

Cost of not engaging in trade at all = -1/person

Cost of being a lone punisher = -4/punisher
Cost of being a punisher who is intelligently coordinating with just one other punisher = -2/punisher
Cost of being a punisher who is intelligently coordinating with 3 other punishers = -1/punisher
-------------------------------------------------------

You can see from these numbers that a lone punisher will lose 4 units of transferable utility, but will gain 6 units of transferable utility (net gain = 2). When contrasted against the value gained by being a person who always trades and never punishes (net gain = 3), you can see how in the long run, it doesn't pay to punish. However, if there were just one other punisher, then each punisher loses 2 units and gains 6 (net gain = 4), which is a relative fitness that is better than someone who trades with everyone who has a heartbeat. This is the reason that there is evolutionary 'natural selection' for punishers* within human society (because gained cooperative outweighs the risks/costs of punishing).

Ed

*Keep in mind that "punisher" here really only means re-orienting your behavior toward people who defect against you (or others). It's only about treating people differently because of how good or how bad they are (rather than treating everyone the same, no matter who they are or what they have done to you or others whom you care about). The opposite of "punish" here is simply "moral indifference."

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/27, 8:22pm)

Post 26

Wednesday, November 28, 2012 - 1:25pm

Ed, we have some serious problems with vocabulary, which you suddenly introduced

MEM If you logically remove the offender as an element in the set, then the model fails.
ET: Can you expand on that? In these evolutionary models ...� each type of character -- unconditional trader, justice-minded trader (punisher), oh-so-terrible defector, etc. --�will change over time, reflecting their relative fitness in the group. In light of that, your statement doesn't make sense to me.

All I meant was that for any�retaliation to work, the individual under penalty must perceive themself as a member of the community or else this cannot be called a "defection."� Your four-fold parsing creates false dichotomies.�Whether the punishment fits the crime or not, if it does not fit the perpetrator, it is not punishment, it is warfare. The purpose of punishing a defector is to bring them back into the fold.� Otherwise, all you have is warfare: violence against someone not in your group.�I have given this all a lot of thought with classes in corrections, community corrections, and theories of justice, including miscarriages of justice and wrongful convictions.� The unremediable nature of wrongful punishment in capital cases speaks against the taking of a life.� However, the fact remains that you really cannot take anything back.� You cannot metaphysically reverse the arrow of time.� Punishment qua punishment is problematic.� Removing yourself (shunning the defector) is the first response.

As for your peculiar language, are you claiming that the behavior of trading is inherited and mutually exclusive to the behaviors of defecting and also of punishing defectors? For one thing, following Jane Jacobs, the unconditional trader would be a primary defector.� The basic assumption of any group is to exclude outsiders - else it is not a group - but the trader necessarily is open to aliens.�

ET: You know, you can call it "religious" or whatever, but the fact is that it was Rand's view, too -- so you are sort of engaging in a fallacy by calling it "religious" in an effort to dismiss it. It's fine if you disagree. That's what discussion is for. But don't misrepresent me or Objectivism in the process. Just say that you disagree and give some reasoning.��

I dismiss it because it is religious, based on faith contrary to fact, and the more it fails, the greater its claim to evidence.� You fallaciously refer to Ayn Rand's views on this, not as a citation of authorty but as an appeal to authority.�Consider that you are offering something called "altruistic punishment" i.e., carrying out a vengeful act that brings you no gain.� That should set off warning bells in the mind of an Objectivist.

Regarding your Post #25, everything you said is based on social action. If you walk out of a store because the clerk is rude, rather than making�a purchase which would be to your advantage, you have incurred a cost of punishment. And we do these things all time, we made personal choices to make ourselves happy regardless of the economic gain or loss.� That fact points to a basic fallacy even in Austrian economics. People will engage in fruitless behaviors to alleviate boredom.�In fact, it is a mult-trillion dollar industry, perhaps 90% of the value in everything.� You worked in medicine.� Was any of the equipment ugly? If it was purely and truly functional and only functional and nothing more, it would look different and cost less ... and no one would buy it.� These kinds of considerations knock the foundation from the academic collectivists who posit the meaningless scenarios about non-existent people.�

(Edited by Avalon Vorpal on 91/68, 44:85jpm)

ET:That Red Hook quote, to me, is just a Red Herring. Sure, it leads away from the retributive sense of justice (and towards other kinds of "justice"), but it doesn't tally up the merit of these alternatives. It just offers them without justification or reasoning. And the second quote about 'corporate justice' is a Red Herring, too. This is because the dynamics of corporations differ from that of general society. The reason for the difference is the investment in the people. A corporation may have a lot of money invested in you and your work may be lucrative for them. When that is so, they will not prosecute -- but this is no surprise and it doesn't say anything about justice in general society.

Redhook keeps the offender within the community. Also, in particular, they get away from the idea of "the" offender. While we do have predators among us, most instances of interpersonal conflict are between persons with previous history. Resolution cannot come from punishing one without addressing the actions of the other. This is another example of how traditional (religious) thinking is limiting. Like another case of Bastiat's Broken Window, the traditional religious view sees only one actor and call that person the aggressor and issues punishment.

As for the corporation, you are absolutely correct: that is precisely the reason why we can hope for improvements in social arrangements that come from the commercial mode. The corporation has an investment in its employees. Likewise, each of us is nominally valuable to "society" but in a democracy that devolves to each of us being co-equally replaceable. A change in paradigm would bring justice out of the political realm and into the commercial mode.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/28, 6:29pm)

Post 27

Wednesday, November 28, 2012 - 7:20pm

Mike,

All I meant was that for any retaliation to work, the individual under penalty must perceive themself as a member of the community or else this cannot be called a "defection."

But in studies like these, defection in any given two-party trade agreement (two-party value exchange) is always an individual act. Here is an imaginary example:

Sally offers Bob an apple for his orange.
Bob agrees and proceeds to give his orange to Sally, expecting to receive the apple in return.
Sally takes the orange, refuses to give Bob the apple, and then flees.

In the case above, there was a lack of "mutually beneficial cooperation" between the 2 interacting agents. This is because one of them -- Sally -- acted as a defector. Now, if Sally tries to live among a whole lot of people like Bob -- people committed to "mutually beneficial cooperation" -- and she continues to act as she did, then she would be a "free-rider."

So you start with some kind of a defection, some kind of fraud, and then, extended through time, someone who attempts to perpetuate the fraud earns herself the moniker: free-rider. On this view, free-riding is simply the sum of several, subsequent defections. It takes a defection to step outside of what is called "mutually beneficial cooperation" (consenting to trade your time, energy, creativity, etc. for someone else's time, energy, creativity, etc.), and if you run a bunch of such defections up in a row, you are then attempting to be a free-rider.

On those terms, a free-rider would be defined simply as a habitual defector. Now, if Sally didn't perceive herself as a member of Bob's community, that doesn't make her action something other than a defection (all broken agreements are defections), And if Sally repeated this behavior with several members of Bob's community -- always trying to free-ride -- it wouldn't matter where she came from. In fact, the whole point of studies like this is to see which kinds of characters can invade and populate different groups. Research questions might be: Is there any strategy that works in all groups? Is there natural selection against punishing defection, or is there natural selection pressure for punishing defection? Are there strategies that, when followed by most members, make a population go extinct really fast? Are there strategies that are so robust that they are impossible to invade and dominate? Cool stuff like that.

Whether the punishment fits the crime or not, if it does not fit the perpetrator, it is not punishment, it is warfare.

But when I talk about punishment that fits the perpetrator, I'm referring to the intended reform of the perpetrator. Someone somewhere gets themselves into the position of being able to know which services that society should provide for a strong boost in well-being of the perpetrator -- a boost strong enough that they give up their perpetrating ways -- and then they "administer" the needed things to the perpetrator. However, the pithy way that you word it could be interpreted to mean that the perpetrator has to willfully agree to the punishment, or else it means war.

That doesn't sound right, though. So is there a better interpretation of what you said?

The purpose of punishing a defector is to bring them back into the fold.

My retort is that that is rationalistic a priori reasoning (or it is just Begging the Question). I would argue that it is also altruistic. Note how the effort you expend on the perpetrator will increase with their decrease in morality -- people who are so bad that we need to spend a lot of time and money reforming them.

Otherwise, all you have is warfare: violence against someone not in your group.

That "extremely-parochial" view is not necessarily true for humans, though it is true for many animals of differing species. In contrast to animals of differing species, humans have a harmony of interests which can supercede this slippery-slope slide into tribal warfare that you mention. Arguing that something is not in the immediate, personal, short-sighted, narrow-minded "interest" of the perpetrator -- i.e., that he claims he shouldn't be punished because he just simply doesn't feel like being punished for what he did -- doesn't dent the actually harmony of interest. Arguing that, because he disagrees, there must be war, is not a reason to throw out the concept of a harmony of interests. Admittedly, that is an ungenerous perspective regarding what you are saying -- and more feedback from you might fix a potential straw-man on my part, which finishes with:

But that kind of thinking would require every human everywhere to agree with every human everywhere -- in order for there to be a harmony of interests; which is absurd.

Removing yourself (shunning the defector) is the first response.

I agree.

As for your peculiar language, are you claiming that the behavior of trading is inherited and mutually exclusive to the behaviors of defecting and also of punishing defectors?

First let's look at what the authors assumed, and then I'll add my 2 cents. The authors assumed that being a punisher or not was "genetic" (not "chosen"). They did this in order to track the fitness of punishing in an evolutionary sense. However, with regard to cooperating or defecting, they left that open as a choice-point steered by the level of expected punishment. While this approximates reality, it doesn't perfectly correspond to reality. In reality, some people will not defect against others even if there is no possibility of (external) punishment. This is because, for humans, there is often a psychological "casualty" taken upon ourselves when we betray others. Otherwise, I agree with how the researchers ran the study.

the unconditional trader would be a primary defector. The basic assumption of any group is to exclude outsiders - else it is not a group - but the trader necessarily is open to aliens.

I would challenge that one part about a group having to remain it's original size by always excluding outsiders -- rather than, say, growing -- in order to be called a group. It seems too rationalistic.

I dismiss it because it is religious, based on faith contrary to fact, and the more it fails, the greater its claim to evidence.

And the great irony of that, is that it was said without evidence.

:-)

You fallaciously refer to Ayn Rand's views on this, not as a citation of authorty but as an appeal to authority.

Mike, but you set-up your line of reasoning by saying "self-identified Objectivists ...", which insinuates that perhaps it is not truly Objectivist to take the retributive/retaliatory view of justice or of punishment. My argument was that it is and I mentioned it was Rand's view ... and you call that an appeal to authority? ...

---------------------------------------------
Jim: Selfishness and altruism are opposites.

Bob: Hmf! Many self-identified Objectivists still have the old and stale "beatnik" paradigm that altruism cannot be selfish.

Jim: But it's not "beatnik" -- it's what Rand herself said.

Bob: That's an Appeal to Authority fallacy!
---------------------------------------------

:-)

Consider that you are offering something called "altruistic punishment" i.e., carrying out a vengeful act that brings you no gain.

You're missing the point of this study (which shows that there is a net gain from punishment) and using the imperfect terminology of game theory researchers and then placing it on me. I don't agree with the terminology, have said so any number of times, and have even penned a mediocre-quality article on the subject. So cut me some slack please. This business of taking an idea, however bad, and then giving it the kind of respect that you sometimes do, is frustrating to me. The punishment in this study was not "a vengeful act that brings you no gain", so I don't know where you are coming from. It's almost like you want to argue about floating abstractions instead of tying the debate down to what actually happened here (and why what it is that happened might be something important for humans to know/learn about).

If you walk out of a store because the clerk is rude, rather than making a purchase which would be to your advantage, you have incurred a cost of punishment. And we do these things all time, we made personal choices to make ourselves happy regardless of the economic gain or loss.

I don't have any kind of a snappy comeback for this gem. Rather, it seems like some awful good insight on your part, and something that I am not sure that I have ever thought about before. I gotta' give this more thought ...

That fact points to a basic fallacy even in Austrian economics.

If Menger or perhaps von Mises was here, I'm sure he'd look you in the eye and say to you: "Mister, them's fightin' words!"

:-)

If it was purely and truly functional and only functional and nothing more, it would look different and cost less ... and no one would buy it. These kinds of considerations knock the foundation from the academic collectivists who posit the meaningless scenarios about non-existent people.

Okay, okay, so you don't like some of the people engaging in this kind of research. I agree with you. I don't like some of them either. For all the skill they possess in being able to focus a microscope or titrate a solution, they often have picked up -- via social metaphysics -- some pretty stupid and harmful ideas. But forget about them for a moment and look what they are producing. Surely, not all models are fruitless. What about my Sally/Bob model of coordinated trade above? That wasn't meaningless, was it?

Didn't it place the social situation into a neat and clean abstract form that could be studied and improved upon (to make it even more applicable, or even more informing of, the problem of living a real life on earth)?

A change in paradigm would bring justice out of the political realm and into the commercial mode.

An interesting point to ponder ...

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/28, 7:33pm)

Post 28

Thursday, November 29, 2012 - 6:58pm

Michael wrote:

I put up with governmentalists who think in terms of "perpetrators" and "the community." Perps are in an of the community, by definition -- and we are all culpable at some time.

So, you have gone back to being an anarchist - a non-governmentalist?

I for one don't equate myself with robbers, murderers, or any other "perpetrators" who violate individual rights - I'm NOT culpable.
-------------

I did not think in terms of beating up people in dark alleys - i.e., becoming an aggressor myself - but in terms of my own actions to influence the next outcome.

There is nothing wrong with thinking in terms of influencing future events, but if someone is punishing a person that violated rights in a situation where there is no other punishment coming, that is not being an "aggressor" but rather a "retaliatior."
----------------

...it is observably true that many self-identifed Objectivists still have the paradigms of religious conservatism for their models of justice.

So? Many self-identified Objectivists still have the paradigms of religious conservatism for their models of personal responsibility - True? The fact that Objectivists arrive at one or two conclusions (via reason) that religious folks hold (via faith) doesn't mean anything, does it? It is kind of a sneaky smear of any Objectivist who holds one of the models of justice you decided to label religious.
--------

I didn't care that much for this poll. I know that my response to it isn't in sync with game theory or Ed's intentions, but it is worded as if the number of people who join an activity could determine its justice. Justice isn't going to depend upon the people count. In one circumstance justice might be served by one private person or a crowd, and in another circumstance it wouldn't matter if one person or many people were involved - it would be unjust. The proper response would be to insist that government do its job. The proper role of government is to create that optimum environment for individual rights - this means the citizens delegating their rights to both force used for self-defense and for retaliation. I would be opposed to vigilante actions (lone wolf or groups) where the government can be made to do its job. But if for whatever reason government isn't and WON'T do it's job then there can't be any objection to citizens acting within their rights (individually or as private groups). Justice will never be a matter of group agreement or vote or whether the act was done by government or by a private entity.
------------

I think that for this poll question - as it is worded - one has to use the term 'punishment' to mean a retaliatory use of force - not just shunning or ignoring, which would be taking the easy way out.
------------

A change in paradigm would bring justice out of the political realm and into the commercial realm

Justice is already a broader abstraction than either politics or commerce. According to Ayn Rand, justice is "...the act of judging a man�s character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion." (I'd modify that a bit to include outcomes as related to the character of the individuals involved, i.e., it is just that good men should prosper.)

If we are talking about perpetrators (and I mean those initiating force, fraud or theft) then justice will involve politics - even if it only is to back up commercial mechanisms (like mediation).

Post 29

Thursday, November 29, 2012 - 7:49pm

Lol I was told by a police officer in Canada years ago that if someone broke into my house and I shot him to make sure I had fired 2 "warning shots" into the roof or floor as well. In other words we do not have the right to just kill him, but if you fired a warning shot or two then he is obviously nuts and then self defence in a lethal manner is "warranted". He of course was implying that no one would be able to tell that the first shot was in fact in him!

Post 30

Friday, November 30, 2012 - 10:24am

Steve, I am not an anarchist.

A couple of months ago, I was guarding a hotel that was hosting a wedding reception. One woman hit another and then the husbands jumped in. This was an old family problem that just erupted again. Your ideas about perpetrators and rights violators are simplistic.

I do agree with you that the premises of this poll are flawed.

Jules, police officers know no more about the law than priests do about religion. If you care, read the law for yourself and decide. If you are still unclear, pay a lawyer to explain it to you.

Post 31

Friday, November 30, 2012 - 10:38am

Not to worry Michael they have now made legal gun owners criminals if they dare defend themselves at all. You must store your guns/rifles in a gunsafe, have trigger locks in place and have ammo stored seperately.

So if you manage to un lock your safe, unlock your trigger locks, remove rifle, go to the separate part of the house your ammo is locked up, load your gun THEN shoot crazy ass crackhead you might not have broken any "safe firearms storage" laws. Catch 22 being that it would be impossible so therefore you are guilty of breaking the law and WILL be charged.

Slashing his carotid with a kitchen knife is ok though!!
(Edited by Jules Troy on 11/30, 10:40am)

Post 32

Friday, November 30, 2012 - 11:33am

I read an article in the November issue of Backwoodman Magazine (http://www.backwoodsmanmag.com/) about outdoor survival training and they used slingshots, like the classic Wrist Rocket. (Saunders Archery here). These guys, however, made their own from tree woods. From a tree branch on a tree blind, they say you can take out a deer with a full-draw .50-cal shot to the head. I dunno... But the slingshot is silent... Also, you know, a crossbow would work, also. Just saying... if you do not feel safe in your home, you have options other than a gun. Plus, as we say, it is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

Weighted nets... sprays... even vinegar in a PowerSoaker... And you should consider a shield.

I have kevlar gloves.

Street Guard� FR with KEVLAR�
This progressive glove design offers excellent protection from cuts and sharp objects over the entire hand and features a 9 oz. KEVLAR� interlock liner in the inside of the hands and goatskin offers superior abrasion and tear-resistance over cowhide, and is known for its natural fire-resistance capabilities.

Goatskin leather palms
Extreme Grip� nonslip cradles for a sure grip and positive weapon control
KEVLAR� back provides excellent cut-resistant, heat and flash protection
Hook and loop closure

You see, all this talk about fighting people in alleys, and Lone Ranger attacks, and stuff, it is just so primitive. The thinking is wrong. It is the paleolithic view of the "taking syndrome" that you have to take someone's life when they threaten you. The threat you feel is your own responsibility, as, after all, feelings are not tools of cognition.

Post 33

Friday, November 30, 2012 - 3:45pm

Michael,

Alright... you are not an anarchist... then why do talk about 'putting up with governmentalists' - what am I missing here?

Post 34

Saturday, December 1, 2012 - 5:06am

Steve, sorry for the personal slang. By "governmentalist" I meant someone who looks to the government for the solution of every problem. That includes so-called "anarcho-capitalists" who simply replace government functions with imaginary market functions. "What about the roads? Who would provide public education? ..." You know, as F. A. Hayek said often, once you open up an area of human action to markets, you cannot predict much of what really will happen.

Moreover, as you and I agreed in the thread "A Policemans' Lot is not a Happy One" the dichotomy between politics and commerce defines much of how people interact with each other. Clobbering people (shooting them; imprisoning them) because they are "rights violators" is the political mode, even if carried out for a profit. It is not the commercial way to solve the problem.

Granted that some people are at war with society. When accused of being defectors (aggressors) they do not want to re-establish their status. They flee from arrest, and engage in shoot-outs to avoid capture. Generally, however, the police carry out many, many warrants for arrest without firing a shot. Most people want to belong to their group. They show up in court. They pay fines, go to jail or prison.

Post 35

Saturday, December 1, 2012 - 5:25am

Ed, allow me to clarify just one point about outsiders and groups. Groups can and do grow by bringing in outsiders. I belong to the local coin club. It is not a hereditary group. We must bring in outsiders to grow. But once they become members, they are within the group.

At ANA conventions, you must be an ANA member dealer to have a dealer table, but the public is welcome and encouraged to attend,whether or not they become members. However, how a "defector" is treated depends on their status within or beyond the group.

ANA members take each other to arbitration. I have an interest is ancient Greek coins and I am recognized for that. If I offer a coin to a dealer and it turns out to be misidentified or misattributed with a faulty provenance,and if I hold my ground on my claims, he takes me to the ANA for arbitration. If I am not an ANA member, the dealer is stuck with the purchase, period.

It does not work the other way around. Non-members can bring complaints about members to the ANA. About ten years ago now a dealer was stripped of his membership because of complaints. Nothing was proved. Nothing needed to be. By the Charter, complaints alone are enough for judgment. He is still in business, but outside the group. The ANA has no way to punish him now. For them to pursue this would be a kind of war.

However, as I said, he is still in business. Other ANA member dealers and ANA member collectors still patronize him (apparently). That is the Commercial Syndrome identified by Jane Jacobs: collaborate easily with aliens. Your study is entirely political. It fails to identify the fact that punishment serves to reconcile the defector with the group.

People here jumped right in to dark alleys, wearing masks, and beating other people up for being "rights violators." I hear deafening silence about the fight at the wedding reception. And as noted by others here, you can and do act alone often, to "punish" (negatively reward; fail to reward) "defectors" in commerce. That speaks against the foundations of this study.

Post 36

Saturday, December 1, 2012 - 2:02pm

Mike,

As I understand you, you are talking about group dynamics specifically when there are 2 levels - a group within a group, or a group within a larger community of individuals. There is the ANA member, and the person off of the street. For these 2 kinds of peoples, there is a different set of rules. If you defect as an ANA member against an ANA member, you got to arbitration, not unlike a joust between 2 knights. If you are a lowly pauper, then you just solicit the king to have the knight's knighthood status removed and this is promptly done.

It may be hard to be an ANA member, you will only ever be able to settle things via arbitration (unless you deal with the public, in which case you are stuck with the deals you strike). On top of that added risk, your membership may be lost because of a random person off of the street. I would like to know why that is how that system was set up. What purpose does it serve to treat people differently like that? What value is obtained? It doesn't sound right to me but I am ignorant of it, so I will refrain from making a conclusion about it.

Even still, I don't see how you can say this information speaks against the foundation of the study, which was run in order to investigate how it is that punishment could have ever evolved by natural forces. It really does sound like your coin-dealing dynamics are a special accident (unimportant in the normative sense). Maybe you could elaborate? ...

Ed

Post 37

Sunday, December 2, 2012 - 10:25am

Ed, last night, I watched several lectures on the evolution of the mind and the brain by Stephen P. Hinshaw of UC Berkeley (Great Courses from The Teaching Company). So, I understand better your viewpoint here about the evolution of punishment from its so-called "natural state."

ET:I don't see how you can say this information speaks against the foundation of the study, which was run in order to investigate how it is that punishment could have ever evolved by natural forces.

But we have ethnographic studies of large apes and other animals to show the same behaviors. In fact, Hinshaw warns against the very kind of experiment here where some people are taken to a room and given an arbitrary task not explained to them so that researchers can observe some other behavior. Hinshaw seems to avoid his own opinions, but does say that "nature versus nurture" is shallow as each affects the other. This is consonant with Objectivism.

ET:"your membership may be lost because of a random person off of the street. I would like to know why that is how that system was set up. What purpose does it serve to treat people differently like that? What value is obtained?"

Please understand, also, that while mere complaints (it takes two) can be sufficient for expulsion, the ANA is not draconian. The ANA is 121 years old and is the junior numismatic organization, the ANS in NYC being about 50 years older. The social forms we have are themselves evolutionary outcomes in the commercial tradition.

The ANA recognizes dealers as a special classed privileged by its asymmetic information; and so the ANA seeks to protect the uneducated public, including collectors. Dealers and collectors are different classes of members and dealers are held to a higher standard of action. Both pledge to be forthright with non-members.

I was the engine behind the Michigan State Numismatic Society Code of Ethics (scroll down from here). We have one code for member dealers and member collectors alike on the theory (my theory) that we all buy and sell; and dealers also collect; and dealers are often at a disadvantage vis-a-vis collectors. Collectors specialize; dealers are forced to be generalists. Most of the standard reference books whether on stock certificates, wildcat bank notes, Large Cents, Three Cent Nickel and Silver, medieval German, Lincoln Cent Errors, whatever or whatever, come from collectors. Dealers do write, but basically, the skills and interests are different. So, this code protects everyone equally.

ET:"As I understand you, you are talking about group dynamics specifically when there are 2 levels - a group within a group, or a group within a larger community of individuals."

Every group meets this definition. Any group that comes into contact with an outside individual or another group is like this: if they join your group, then your negative reinforcements are punishments within the group. If they stay out and you attempt to punish them, you have war, because they deny the validity of the punishment.

ET: It really does sound like your coin-dealing dynamics are a special accident (unimportant in the normative sense). Maybe you could elaborate? ...

Trading is older than agriculture, perhaps 10 times older. Hunter-gatherers engaged in trade, not for personal gain (despite claims by the very similar theories of Karl Marx and Carl Menger), but as ritual gift exchange. The behaviors associated with gift-exchange have deep roots, perhaps going back to giving meat to females now for sexual access later. ("Women marry providers.") Numismatics is a huge, largely unregulated market in the buying and selling of money (Kitco from Forbes here). I know nothing more pure, more abstract in the actual, real human action of exchange. As I have said here and here on my blog, if economists knew numismatics, they would avoid blunders when pontificating about what money "should" be.

Post 38

Sunday, December 2, 2012 - 1:12pm

Thanks for the elaboration, Mike.

But we have ethnographic studies of large apes and other animals to show the same behaviors.

I take it you mean parochial, ingroup dynamics as opposed to outsiders where, say, a pack of chimps attacks another pack (pseudo-warfare among animals). In cases like that, chimps within a group treat each other with a measure of respect, but kill outsiders. It's like territorialism, but a territorialism of individuals rather than of spacial areas. I agree that this behavior goes on in the animal kingdom but I believe humans can and often do transcend it.

On the popular daytime talk show, Oprah Winfrey (or The Oprah Show, or whatever), some racists -- both current and former -- were interviewed. This was the show where the Big O surprised the neo-Nazi family on stage in front of everyone by showing real-time video footage of the green room -- where their children were playing with black children. A formerly-racist parent admitted to Oprah that [he or she, I can't remember which] decided to stop being a racist after [his or her] young toddler pointed at a black man on TV and yelled the N-word.

That was a wake-up call for [him or her].

Humans have wake-up calls, animals don't -- so there is a limit to extrapolating from data on animals. We don't have to be so territorial or group-based.

In fact, Hinshaw warns against the very kind of experiment here where some people are taken to a room and given an arbitrary task not explained to them so that researchers can observe some other behavior.

Okay, but this study was performed differently than that. Instead of getting people to interact, they took some notes on how it is that people interact, and then wrote a computer program capable of modelling human interaction indefinitely (e.g., for thousands of generations). Now, no model of human interaction is perfect, but they get better every day. This model was better than all previous models. The next model might be even better than that. Good models incorporate human flexibility, foresight, value-seeking, conflict, etc.

Please understand, also, that while mere complaints (it takes two) can be sufficient for expulsion, the ANA is not draconian.

But they deal in really old coins and, to me, that's draconian. Okay, that wasn't a very funny joke. You can't fault me for trying.

:-)

What I want to know is if dealers are forced to be generalists (because different people bring different coins, etc. for them to evaluate) and if collectors are free to be specialists -- such as a specialist in old Greek currency -- and you crafted a code of ethics encompassing both groups (even though collectors can fool dealers because of their superior expertise), then don't you see how you can have 2 groups of people playing by the same rules? Now, if dealers got raw deals and called out the collectors who hoodwinked them -- these collectors wouldn't claim that as an act of war (a punishment with which they do not agree). So you can have one set of rules for more than one group of people -- perhaps for all groups of people.

Every group meets this definition. Any group that comes into contact with an outside individual or another group is like this

Haha! Good point. Okay, but I'm arguing from the bottom up -- rather than starting in the middle with an advanced group such as ANA. From this bottom, there is no further, larger group to come from. You can only ever be in a basic group or be a transient loner in the vast universe. At this foundational level, there will be people interacting in groups, and there will be outsiders just visiting or possibly "invading" these groups (possibly non-violently, like the socialists invaded our US government). As generations pass, only good groups remain -- groups centered around some measure of justice. To imagine this foundationally, try to envision that there is never a possibility to have a separate group form within these groups.

There is only the loner (a transient outsider or a disgruntled member of another group) and then a basic group of one kind or another. It could be many groups, but not groups within groups. This would prevent the ANA. for example, from forming inside of one of these computer models, because the specialized concrete values sought by the ANA are not evolutionarily important or life-sustaining. The value of the ANA is largely psychological, like the value of music. The value of the ANA or of music may one day be shown to lead to evolutionary reproductive success, but these studies are still performed on a level that is much more basic than that -- much more tied to physical survival.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/02, 1:18pm)

Post 39

Monday, December 3, 2012 - 1:39pm