Amartya Sen highlights a prominent
problem with the rational choice model in economic theory. In modern economics,
there is a widely-held assumption that rationality appropriately approximates actual
human behavior. Humans behave rationally, and as a result, act to maximize
their self-interest. While Sen acknowledges this assumption as a better
alternative “to assuming any particular
type of irrationality” in characterizing actual behavior, he maintains that by portraying human motivation in strictly
narrow terms, this fixation on rationality causes economics to deviate from its
original intention of characterizing actual human behavior (Sen 11). To accurately
capture actual human behavior, Sen urges economics to expand its narrow
characterization of human behavior and incorporate “ethical considerations that
shape human behaviour and judgment” (Sen 9). In an attempt to include these
moral sentiments, Sen posits that in portraying human behavior, “The real issue
is whether there is a plurality of motivations, or whether self-interest alone drives human beings” (Sen 19).
Robert H. Frank expands Sen’s
argument as he concedes that there is “a plurality of motivations.” Frank argues
that cooperation is a driving factor behind human motivations. He furthers his
argument by incorporating a Darwinian framework, which “views our goals not as
ends in themselves, but rather as means in our struggle to acquire the
resources needed to survive and reproduce” (Frank 4). While the Darwinian conception
initially seems to characterize human behavior in only self-interested terms,
which would correspond with Sen’s idea that “self-interest alone drives human beings,” Frank expands this framework to
indicate that cooperation guides our behavior. To gain the necessary resources
for survival and reproduction, humans understand that they are better off
working with others, rather than solely relying on themselves. He argues that with cooperation, “People can
often promote their own narrow ends more effectively by pursuing certain goals
that are in clear conflict with self-interest” (Frank 4).
Even though Frank establishes that
human behavior is driven by self-interest and cooperation, I left to question whether
self-interest or cooperation plays a larger role in determining human behavior
or if these two qualities direct our motivations in an equal capacity.
Furthermore, while Frank clearly shows how cooperation is maintained by sympathy,
he also leaves us to wonder if self-interest presupposes cooperation. If cooperation
originates due to self-interest, it could be argued that “self-interest alone drives human beings” and cooperation
is simply self-interest in disguise as one factor among the “plurality of
motivations” (Sen 19). Since self-interest drives our motivation, we are
inclined to cooperate to further our self-interest. Thus, cooperation could just
be a means to achieve our self-interest more efficiently.
Tierra,
ReplyDeleteI really like your blog post! While reading the excerpt from Frank, I too wondered whether sympathy could actually be a manifestation of self-interest or to what extent sympathy and self-interest overlap in driving human behavior. As you note, Frank argues that many human relationships and actions span beyond the rational choice model. He instead uses a Darwinian approach to enrich his understanding of observable human behavior. Frank argues that there are a multitude of physical traits, emotional signals, and other factors that “promote the development of sympathetic bonds between individuals” and these factors “predict an increased likelihood of cooperation” between two people (18). But why are individuals sympathetic in the first place? Frank responds by putting sympathy back into the Darwinian model: “A moral emotion won’t be favored by natural selection merely because it motivates cooperation. It must motivate cooperation in such a way that cooperation pays” (19). Thus, Frank notes that individuals must get something out of cooperating. It is beneficial for another person to be sympathetic towards others, and therefore, this trait has been favored by natural selection.
But if sympathy “motivate[s] players to cooperate even though they would receive higher payoffs by deflecting,” why would a person exhibit sympathy if they will get less out of the transaction since individuals are concerned with maximizing their needs for survival and reproduction? (20). Frank asserts that it is because “Evolutionary psychology… views our goals not as ends in themselves, but rather as means in our struggle to acquire the resources needed to survive and reproduce” (4). Sympathy must have conferred another benefit that immediately captivated positive results, such as more effective parenting or the possibility of being less tempted by immediate interactions. Sympathetic persons “would still find the gains from defecting attractive, but their allure would be mitigated by the prospect of the immediate aversive psychological reaction that would be triggered by defecting” (23). People who experience sympathy would be more likely to develop bonds of sympathy under recognized circumstances and would therefore fare better in certain circumstances where mutual benefit can be achieved.
So to get back to your question, Tierra, about the relationship between the Evolutionary model Frank proposes and self-interest, I agree that there is a lot of overlap between these two modes of driving behavior. It is often in our self-interest to cooperate with one another, form close ties with others, and rely on these bonds for benefit. As Frank states, “the search for a reliable trading partner is not a quest to identify an indiscriminately trustworthy individual, but rather a process of creating conditions that make us more likely to elicit cooperative tendencies in one another” (13). We are more likely to survive and reproduce if we cooperate in a manner allowed for by sympathy and it is certainly in our self-interest to do so. Therefore, the problem with rational choice models is not that individuals pursue selfish goals, but that their allowance for self-interested interaction is naked and narrow. Cooperation is sustained by sympathy amongst trading partners because it helps individuals benefit under the right set of circumstances.