Herbert Gintis, Darwin and modern science, Thu 9 July

Towards the unification of the behavioural sciences
Professor Herbert Gintis (New Mexico, USA / Budapest, Hungary)

Summary: Despite their distinct objects of study, the human behavioural sciences all include models of individual human behaviour. Unity in the behavioural sciences requires that there be a common underlying model of individual human behaviour, specialized and enriched to meet the particular needs of each discipline. Such unity does not exist, and cannot be easily attained, because the various disciplines have incompatible models and disparate research methodologies. Yet, recent theoretical and empirical developments have created the conditions for unity in the behavioural sciences, incorporating core principles from all fields, and based upon theoretical tools that transcend disciplinary boundaries. This presentation sketches a set of principles aimed at fostering such a unity. They include: (1) geneculture co-evolution as a unifying dynamical tool; (2) evolutionary and behavioural game theory as transdisciplinary lexicons for communication and model-building; (3) the rational actor model, rooted in evolutionary biology but developed in economic theory, applied to all the human behavioural disciplines; and (4) the treatment of strategic dynamical systems as complex adaptive systems with emergent properties.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Darwin
• evolution
• Herbert Gintis
• human
• behavioural sciences
• behaviour
• gene
• culture
• coevolution
• game theory
• communication
• disciplinary
• boundaries
• academia
• modern
• science
• professor
• cambridge university
• darwin festival
• 2009

[Xbizkitl]

I have never seen anyone as well read as this man...

[geoden]

@Muuzip99 Is that a serious question?

[izationalizer]

Gintis is so awesome. Even his Amazon reviews are brilliant and a pleasure to read. I'm neither an economist nor a behavioral psychologist--I study rhetoric and composition--so this might sound odd, but every once in a while, when I'm writing a dissertation chapter (or something) and my brain grows exhausted and befuddled over a particular problem, I'll stop and read the latest Gintis reviews on Amazon. They're invariably concise and incisive, and always seem to reinvigorate my intellect.

[distopiadnb]

It remains to be seen where all this hype on altruism will eventually lead, especially in normative terms. Humans are altruists and not selfish... and so? It is an extremely general statement, really as general as the opposite one. The difference being that under the enlightment vision of individuals there is still relevant space for altruism to be modelled, pace Gintis, while "altruistic" ancient societies force their component to be so. The final take on capitalism is pure ex-marxist naiveté.

[behold755]

This planet needs more extremely intelligent people like Herbert Gintis.

[matchingpennies2]

The cultural evolution revolution doesn't really get any coverage here, alas...

[Neanderthalcouzin]

I've actually watched this about 4 times.

It's really strange to read comments on creationism or religion for this video. Did those people watch the talk?

[Alkhemist10]

compelled to assume in order to account for the phenomena of light &heat." Matter? "In perfect strictness, it is true that chemical investigation can tell us little or nothing, directly, of the composition of living matter." Energy? "The energy is that which is only known to us by its effects." matter is passive, if you know what the law of inertia negation is, you know an object at rest tends to stay at rest, so what is the superior active force in matter if not what man calls "god"?

[Muuzip99]

Where is God's place in his theory? God sets the morals.

[fatandslat]

"even when nobody's looking people are moral"

not really 'anonymous', not really 'consequence-free'. experiment design ignores observer effect. subjects perform to self-opinion, reputation norms, and moral influence overestimated. gintis himself acknowledges the 20% of absolute self-interested agents. preference structure (including virtue, egalitarianism) is adoptive normative, not predisposed.

also i disagree w assertion that only humans have moral lives, or capable of transmitted culture.