FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2015142792> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2015142792 endingPage "160" @default.
• W2015142792 startingPage "159" @default.
• W2015142792 abstract "Most scholars of human cooperation fall into one of two groups: social scientists who study collective action, coordination, and other aspects of human cooperation without making use of evolutionary theory, and evolutionary scientists, including evolutionary anthropologists, who ground their studies of human cooperation in Darwinian theory. The theme of our recent book Meeting at Grand Central: Understanding the Social and Evolutionary Roots of Cooperation is that these two groups of scholars could learn a lot from each other. With this in mind, we recently hosted a Catalysis Meeting at the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent) on “Synthesizing the Evolutionary and Social Science Approaches to Human Cooperation.” The meeting was held April 5–7, 2013, at NESCent's offices in Durham, North Carolina. The separation between the evolutionary and social science approaches to cooperation has led to a wide range of problems. Because the two groups of scholars rarely read each other's work, redundancies have sometimes cropped up. For example, the basic idea behind the theory of reciprocity was invented and reinvented repeatedly by scholars working in both traditions.1 Similarly, the basic idea behind the theory of byproduct mutualism was discovered independently by both biologists and political scientists; economists have developed the closely related notion of positive externalities.2 In addition, both groups of scholars have independently come to appreciate the important role that reputation plays in fostering cooperation among humans. Even some terminology has been invented multiple times, potentially leading to confusion. For example, anthropologist Marshall Sahlins coined the phrase “generalized reciprocity” more than forty years ago to refer to sharing without account-keeping, and a group of biologists, apparently unaware of how the term is used by social scientists, recently coined it again to refer to a propensity to be generous when one has been the recipient of generosity from others.3, 4 Another type of problem created by this division is more difficult to identify and measure but arguably more important: How much potential research simply does not happen because the scholars in these two camps are so seldom in dialogue with one another? In part because of the different paths they have taken thus far, the insights offered by the two groups of scholars mostly complement rather than compete with one another. Evolutionary scholars have tended to be most impressed by how much humans cooperate, particularly with nonrelatives, as compared to most other species, and have proposed a wide range of models and mechanisms to help explain this pattern. Social scientists, in contrast, have been struck not so much by the frequency with which humans cooperate, but with the frequency with which they fail to do so as compared to the number of instances in which people would benefit from cooperating. Thus, political scientists, economists, and sociologists have examined such obstacles to collective action and coordination as free-riding and a lack of common knowledge. Our NESCent Catalysis Meeting focused on the identification of key questions in the study of human cooperation that would allow the two groups to work together. Including ourselves, thirty-two scholars attended. Our invitees represented a variety of disciplines (anthropology, political science, psychology, and biology), geographical locations (U.S., Japan, Hungary, Denmark, and Canada), topical interests, and career stages. We asked twelve mostly junior participants to give presentations; more senior scholars were cast as discussants and group leaders. Several speakers focused on the genetic underpinnings and psychological mechanisms behind cooperation. In that vein, Darren Schreiber (Central European University, Budapest) made a case for the adaptiveness of human behavioral flexibility, Jaime Settle (William and Mary) conveyed her finding that there are innate differences among individuals that shape the ways in which they respond to political contention, and Chris Dawes (NYU) showed how egalitarianism can facilitate cooperation. Several of the presentations examined the links between evolution and institutions. For example, Drew Gerkey (Oregon State) used his field work in Kamchatka5 to frame a discussion of different kinds of groups and the way they shape cooperation. Montserrat Soler (UC-Santa Barbara) used her data on an Afro-Brazilian religion called Candomblé to analyze the phenomenon of religious leadership, and Michael Bang Petersen (Aarhus University, Denmark) related social exchange and cheater detection theory to the phenomenon of the welfare state.6 Reflecting current scholarship on the central roles that moral judgments and reputations play in cooperation, Peter DeScioli (Harvard) argued that moral rules help coordinate the efforts of those who wish to punish wrongdoers, while Nicole Hess (Washington State, Vancouver) discussed the roles of gossip and reputation in fostering cooperation. Three of the participants examined various aspects of generosity, sharing, and exchange. C. Athena Aktipis (Arizona State) argued that risk pooling is enhanced when people simply give to those in need rather than keep accounts of debt; Shane Macfarlan (Missouri) spoke about labor exchange relationships in a community on the Caribbean island of Dominica7; and Wesley Allen-Arave (New Mexico) described his recent findings on the contributions of U.S. households to charity. Mark Moritz (Ohio State) provided a link between the conference's theme and the study of common pool resources by describing a system of cooperation among pastoralists in northern Cameroon in which no tragedy of the commons occurs despite open access to grazing.8 In addition to the twelve speakers and ourselves, eighteen other scholars also attended some or all of the meeting and took part in the wide-ranging discussions that occurred: Rolando de Aguiar (Rutgers), Jacopo Baggio (Arizona State), Frank Baumgartner (UNC- Chapel Hill), Mark Flinn (Missouri), Matthew Gervais (UCLA), Virginia Gray (UNC- Chapel Hill), Brian Hare (Duke), Patricia Hawley (Kansas), John Hibbing (Nebraska), Daniel Hruschka (Arizona State), Padmini Iyer (Rutgers), Carly Jacobs (Nebraska), Adrian Jaeggi (University of California, Santa Barbara), David Lowery (Penn State), Ben Purzycki (British Columbia), Richard Sosis (Connecticut), Masanori Takezawa (Hokkaido), and Jingzhi Tan (Duke). The meeting also included breakout sessions for working groups of four to six participants on six more specific topics within the overall theme. One group focused on the role that religion plays in cooperation.9-11 Another focused on systems of risk-pooling and food sharing.12-14 Two groups dealt with different aspects of coalitions and coalitional psychology, one focusing on the process of political agenda-setting and the other on morality, reputations, and cooperative partner choice.15-17 One group discussed the neurological, hormonal, and genetic underpinnings of institutions.18-25 One group discussed the emergence of social arrangements that facilitate cooperation in human groups. The meeting was a wonderful experience for us, and, we hope, for our participants as well. Possible outcomes of the meeting include new collaborations, applications for future Catalysis Meetings on more specific topics, and a general sense of excitement regarding the prospect of studying human cooperation in ways that combine insights from both the evolutionary and social sciences." @default.
• W2015142792 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2015142792 creator A5040627704 @default.
• W2015142792 creator A5070594719 @default.
• W2015142792 date "2013-07-01" @default.
• W2015142792 modified "2023-10-02" @default.
• W2015142792 title "Human cooperation at the national evolutionary synthesis center" @default.
• W2015142792 cites W1620516262 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W1978735054 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W2018835779 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W2030430287 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W2037110518 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W2048083139 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W2076328887 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W2077650526 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W2078405143 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W2092753077 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W2095872779 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W2100085735 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W2121450480 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W2137272823 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W2167736628 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W2172032849 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W3124221578 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W4210638051 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W4239874534 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W4249929982 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W4253318707 @default.
• W2015142792 cites W621231356 @default.
• W2015142792 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21360" @default.
• W2015142792 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24133689" @default.
• W2015142792 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2015142792 type Work @default.
• W2015142792 sameAs 2015142792 @default.
• W2015142792 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2015142792 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2015142792 hasAuthorship W2015142792A5040627704 @default.
• W2015142792 hasAuthorship W2015142792A5070594719 @default.
• W2015142792 hasBestOaLocation W20151427921 @default.
• W2015142792 hasConcept C137583809 @default.
• W2015142792 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2015142792 hasConcept C2779463800 @default.
• W2015142792 hasConcept C78458016 @default.
• W2015142792 hasConcept C8010536 @default.
• W2015142792 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2015142792 hasConceptScore W2015142792C137583809 @default.
• W2015142792 hasConceptScore W2015142792C185592680 @default.
• W2015142792 hasConceptScore W2015142792C2779463800 @default.
• W2015142792 hasConceptScore W2015142792C78458016 @default.
• W2015142792 hasConceptScore W2015142792C8010536 @default.
• W2015142792 hasConceptScore W2015142792C86803240 @default.
• W2015142792 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2015142792 hasLocation W20151427921 @default.
• W2015142792 hasLocation W20151427922 @default.
• W2015142792 hasOpenAccess W2015142792 @default.
• W2015142792 hasPrimaryLocation W20151427921 @default.
• W2015142792 hasRelatedWork W1997770566 @default.
• W2015142792 hasRelatedWork W2006264290 @default.
• W2015142792 hasRelatedWork W2034736453 @default.
• W2015142792 hasRelatedWork W2055925137 @default.
• W2015142792 hasRelatedWork W2061542922 @default.
• W2015142792 hasRelatedWork W2422215742 @default.
• W2015142792 hasRelatedWork W4235748225 @default.
• W2015142792 hasRelatedWork W4236969087 @default.
• W2015142792 hasRelatedWork W4250751887 @default.
• W2015142792 hasRelatedWork W4250812939 @default.
• W2015142792 hasVolume "22" @default.
• W2015142792 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2015142792 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2015142792 magId "2015142792" @default.
• W2015142792 workType "article" @default.