Neuroanthropology

For a greater understanding of the encultured brain and body…

Archive for April 30th, 2008

Wednesday Round Up #9

Posted by dlende on April 30, 2008

Tit-for-Tat, Game Theory and the Like

Michael Shermer, The Doping Dilemma
The rationality of doping—through game theory

Jim Rilling et al., The Neural Correlates of the Affective Response to Unreciprocated Cooperation
Anterior insula, left hippocampus, and left lingual gyrus light up when you are getting screwed (pdf)

Jim Rilling et al., A Neural Basis for Social Cooperation
Cooperating in the Prisoner’s Dilemma game lights up the reward centers! (pdf)

Jake Young, The Ruthlessness ‘Gene’ –or- Four Caveats in Interpreting Behavioral Genetics Studies
The Dictator Game, genes and mechanism, and media sensationalism

Ken Binmore, Review of Axelrod’s The Complexity of Cooperation
The tit-for-tat strategy is over-rated

Wendy Grossman, New Tack Win’s Prisoner’s Dilemma
Social recognition and team play wins hands-down…

Tully, Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem
Social choice theory, ranked preferences, and the failure of individual-based theories

Research Digest Blog, How Group Cooperation Varies Between Cultures
“students from less democratic countries like Saudi Arabia, Oman and Belarus tended to punish not only free-loaders, but also cooperative players, with the result that cooperation in their groups plummeted”

Joseph Henrich et al., Costly Punishment Across Human Societies
Pdf of the 2006 Science paper on the cross-cultural propensity to punish cheaters based on ultimatum and third-party punishment games

Mark Gimein, The Eligible-Bachelor Paradox
“How economics and game theory explain the shortage of available, appealing men”—grab hold of a good one and don’t let go…

Aging: Evolution and More

Neuroscientifically Challenged, Trying to Make Evolutionary Sense of Menopause
Good summary of previous debates, plus coverage of a new theory: avoiding female reproductive competition

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Decision Making, Evolution, Links | Leave a Comment »

Face recognition training and stereotyping

Posted by gregdowney on April 30, 2008

Stimuli from McKone et al. 2008Dave Munger has just put of a great post over at Cognitive Daily, one of the sites I read pretty religiously: With a little training, we can recognize other races as well as our own. Dave discusses a recent article in Perception by a team led by Elinor McKone in which subjects were trained to recognize faces from ethnic groups other than their own and then subjected to very difficult recognition tasks. Turns out that people can get pretty good at this task, which many of us don’t do very well if we’re not ‘trained.’

I’m not going to go over the same turf that Munger does (not least of all because I won’t do it as well as he does), but I will copy his conclusion:

In other words, memory for different-race faces can be trained to work in the same way it does for same-race faces, even in a difficult peripheral-vision test, in a relatively short period of time. It doesn’t take years of immersion in a foreign culture, just an hour or so studying pictures (albeit hundreds and hundreds of them!).

This suggests that humans have a general pattern for recognizing faces that is adaptable even to unfamiliar faces. McKone et al. argue that we recognize same-race faces holistically, instead of feature by feature. Initially when we see a different-race face, we attempt to remember it using individual features, much the same we remember a animal or other object. But after some training, we learn to recognize even different-race faces holistically, which can be more accurate, but which doesn’t work as well when faces are upside-down.

Briefly, the research runs against the tendency to see the psychological or neural effects of social conditioning (like living in socially segregated environments) as the cause of social conditions. That is, there’s a tendency to want to argue that humans are innately racist, sexist, biased, hostile to those different, hierarchical, or whatever…. This kind of research tends to be essentialist and usually appeals to some sort of ‘genetic programming,’ but typically with no genetic evidence or even a plausible account of this social attitude might emerge from the genes, neural chemistry or any other biological mechanism.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 134 other followers