>>>Mebbe we were interactive long before notions like mutual benefit occurred
>>>to us. I reckon the 'utility' we derive from cooperation isn't a choice we
>>>make; rather it *is us*.
>>
>>I think it's more complicated than that. We're inclined toward
>>cooperation. We are reluctant to engage in unprovoked "first
>>strikes" to grab more than what we regard as our fair share.
>>
>>But we are also very good at persuading ourselves that our fair
>>share is the lion's share. And we are also extremely eager to
>>engage in revenge--even extraordinarily self-destructive
>>revenge--when we feel that others have double-crossed us...
>
>It's a fundamental mistake to talk about what "we're" inclined
>toward without a discussion of the context (both natural and social)
>in which we make decisions, especially since that context helps
>determined exactly what kind of items is we want a "fair share" of.
>This kind of stuff is just the standard empty talk about unchanging
>human nature.
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>"...[W]hat is called globalisation is really another name for the
>dominant role of the United States." -- Henry Kissinger.
I think we were both situating ourselves at the
primate-group-politics level, which is a fine level to visit
occasionally when one is thinking about deep tendencies that can be
reinforced or masked by other layers that lie on top of it...
Brad DeLong
