Tag: Competition

Categories
32. Evolution from a Social Systems Perspective (Part 1)

Evolution from a Social Systems Perspective

This article generalizes the principles of biological evolution so that their broader application can be seen more clearly, particularly in the context of human society and cultural evolution. I will begin with the definition of some general terms, then use these terms to describe general evolutionary principles.

Definitions

A living holon is any organism, any group of organisms, or any group of groups that work together with a common purpose. Human holons are a subset of living holons. They include individual people and organisations of all types from clubs, through businesses and nations, to the global community.

The principles of evolution apply to living things such as bacteria, trees, and people, and some of their artifacts such as factories and computers. They do not apply to other non-living things. This is because living things and their artifacts are derived from a design which can change. Other non-living things, such as planets, rocks, etc. may be derived from a design, but it does not change.

The design of something comprises the information necessary to create the physical manifestation of that thing. Thus, the genome of an organism can be regarded as its design and the phenotype as its physical manifestation.

Culture includes the values, norms, knowledge, and beliefs that govern the behaviour of a living holon. So, the culture of a living holon can be regarded as its design, and the set of behaviours or society of that living holon as its physical manifestation.

The genome of an organism and the culture of a living holon are passed on from generation to generation. Both are also subject to evolutionary change. Randon mutation can occur in the genome due to the influences of viruses, radiation, copying errors, and so on. Random mutations can also occur in culture due to new norms, values, knowledge, ideas, and beliefs.

Satisfiers are those external things that increase the level of satisfaction of the needs of a living holon. Contra-satisfiers, on the other hand, reduce that level of satisfaction. All living holons are motivated to acquire satisfiers and avoid contra-satisfiers. Random mutations in the genome or in the culture of a living holon make it either more or less able to acquire satisfiers or avoid contra-satisfiers.

The status of a satisfier or contra-satisfier can be any one of the following: absent; latent, i.e., promised or threatened; precarious, i.e., present but not necessarily so in the future; or entrenched, i.e., present and likely to remain so. This discussion concerns satisfiers and contra-satisfiers that are precarious or entrenched.

The principles of evolution apply to populations of living holons in the following ways.

Evolution under the effect of contra-satisfiers.

When a contra-satisfier that impacts on a living holon’s ability to survive and procreate is applied to a population of living holons, then those most able to avoid it are more likely to survive and procreate than those least able. This ability to avoid the contra-satisfier stems from the design of the holon, i.e., its genome or culture. Thus, genetic or cultural attributes that enable avoidance of the contra-satisfier are selected for, and the proportion of those better able to avoid it steadily increases. Advantageous genes or ideas will propagate through the population and disadvantageous ones will expire.

Evolution under the effect of shortages of satisfiers.

When a shortage of a satisfier that impacts on a living holon’s ability to survive and procreate is applied to a population, then those best able to acquire the satisfier are more likely to survive and procreate than those least able. Again, through natural selection, the proportion of those better able to acquire the satisfier steadily increases.

The evolution of cooperation.

Although this is not always the case, one way of becoming better able to acquire a satisfier is to form a co-operative group, and thus, a shortage of satisfiers can also lead to the evolution of cooperation. By acting together, it may be possible for more than one holon to acquire a mutual satisfier or avoid a mutual contra-satisfier from the environment. When the members of a holon act together in this way, they exchange satisfiers with the holon’s control component or leader. This often takes the form of information flowing upwards and instructions flowing downwards. It is also possible, but not necessarily so, for them to exchange satisfiers with one another. In this way, a cooperative group, and thus, a higher-level holon is formed which follows the same general laws as the original holons. Thus, the higher-level holon can act cooperatively with others to form yet higher-level ones. If holons benefit more, in terms of their survival and procreation, by acting together rather than independently, then the former are more likely to survive and procreate than the latter. So, the genetic or cultural attributes which lead to cooperation will steadily propagate through the population over time.

However, cooperation will of course fail if it does not lead to the desired result.

We tend to focus on our failures, and this obscures the fact that human beings are extraordinarily cooperative. Were this not the case then our societies which comprise millions of people, and sometimes even billions, would collapse.

This is the basis of multi-level selection theory, i.e., the survival and procreation of an organism depends on the survival of cooperative groups or holons to which it belongs. Furthermore, multi-level selection theory applies not only to individual organisms but also to higher level holons. The survival of any higher level holon also depends on the survival of yet higher level ones to which it belongs. Such holons are formed by their culture, and so, multi-level selection theory also applies to cultural evolution.

The existence of leaders with dark personality traits can also be explained by this process. The lower the level of a holon the more it contributes to the survival of the organisms that comprise it. Leaders with dark traits may be perceived as beneficial to the survival of that holon, and thus, the organisms that comprise it, even this is at the expense of potentially higher level holons. However, evolution cannot predict the future and the highest level holon, humanity, is now at risk from dark leaders. So, such leadership must not be allowed to continue if we are to survive.

Competitive co-evolution.

It is possible for two populations of living holons to compete to acquire the same satisfier or  avoid the same contra-satisfier. In this case, both populations evolve to become ever more capable. Ultimately, one may succeed and the other may expire. But until that time, neither fully succeeds because of the evolution of the other, and ongoing evolution causes the two to become ever more specialised.

As in the case of predation, where two populations A and B are involved, it is also possible for A to provide B with a contra-satisfier and for B to provide A with a satisfier. In other words, what may be a satisfier for one may be a contra-satisfier for the other. Evolution will result in population A becoming better able to acquire the satisfier and population B becoming better able to avoid the contra-satisfier.

Finally, as in the case of conflict, it is possible for the two populations of living holons to deliver contra-satisfiers to one another. Evolution will result in both being better able to deliver them, but also in being better able to avoid them. Ultimately, however, one party is likely to prevail and the other to expire.

Cooperative co-evolution.

Cooperation comprises the exchange of satisfiers between two parties. If the two parties have different functions, and the receipt of a satisfier from the other party affects their ability to survive and procreate, then cooperative co-evolution will occur. Genetic or cultural traits that better enable one party to acquire the satisfier from the other will propagate through the population. Genetic or cultural traits that enable one party to deliver the satisfier to the other more efficiently, i.e., using fewer resources, will also propagate through the population. Over time, this can result in both parties becoming highly specialised and dependent on one another.

Categories
10. Culture and Interaction Style

Culture and Interaction Style

Culture

Culture is learned and comprises values, norms, beliefs, knowledge, and symbols. It is, therefore, information. A culture can be shared by the members of any organisation small or large. Culture, especially values, along with inherited predispositions affect a person’s behaviour, and thus, the “style” of interactions between and within organisations. The style of interaction also affects the culture of an organisation and there is, therefore, a degree of feedback between the two.

The social environment in which an organisation operates has a strong bearing on its culture. However, not all organisations operate within a single environment. Some, for example, operate globally. Furthermore, not all individuals or organisations concur with the culture that prevails in their environment. Leaders of an organisation also have a strong influence over its culture. These factors can result in conflicting values, the consequences of which will be discussed in a future article.

Interaction style

Organisations are predisposed to interact in one of three basic styles: co-operation, for example, helping one another over the finish line in a race; positive competition, for example, running as fast as we can to be first over the line; and negative competition, for example, kicking the legs out from one another on our way to it. This predisposition is based on past experience and  learning from others in the community but actual interaction style also depends on circumstances.. In the case of co-operation and negative competition, the two organisations interact directly with one another. Co-operation involves an equitable exchange of satisfiers; negative competition involves an exchange of contra-satisfiers. However, in the case of positive competition, the two organisations do not interact directly, but rather with a third party. This is usually a precursor to co-operation between the third party and the successful competitor.

In practice, the predispositions of organisations are often a mix of the three interaction styles, each predominating in different circumstances, as shown in the diagram below.

The style of interaction is usually, but not necessarily, defined by the attitudes of the component organisations or individuals directly involved in the interaction and te circumstances. However, more senior leaders can have an influence through their leadership style, the culture they promote within the organisation, and their distance from the interaction.

Interactions can be vertical, i.e., between individuals or organisations above and below one another in a hierarchy. They can also be horizontal, i.e., between individuals or organisations at similar levels, but on different branches, of a hierarchy. Thus, for example, the interaction between a manager and a junior member of staff is vertical, and the trade between nations horizontal.

Vertical Interaction Style

Vertical interaction is a special case of interaction in general. True leadership and followership are co-operative, but this form of interaction does not always exist between senior and junior individuals or the components of organisations. A leader must be accepted by followers to gain their willing support. If the leader is appointed by a bottom-up process, i.e., if followers agree their leader, then co-operation will normally ensue. However, if a leader is appointed by a top-down process, then co-operation is not inevitable, and positive or negative competition may occur. Examples of top-down appointments include not only appointments made by senior managers, but also business takeovers and the invasion of nations.

In positive competition, the two parties do not interact with one another but compete for satisfiers from a third party. An appointed leader and an unwilling follower may, for example, both compete for recognition by a more senior person.

In negative competition, contra-satisfiers are exchanged but the leader or parent organisation is normally in a more powerful position, and thus, able to coerce the follower with threats of contra-satisfiers. Fortunately, extreme examples of such behaviour are now largely illegal, but mild versions persist in many organisations.

The style of vertical co-operative interaction varies on a scale. At one end is the personal contract, i.e., trading of personal benefits, such as power, wealth, and influence for support. At the other end of the scale is Rousseau’s social contract, which states that followers are willing to give up some of their rights in the communal interest. However, the definition of communal interest can vary, and so the social contract can be defined in several ways. Thus, this definition should be revised as follows: people are willing to support a leader, and thus, give up certain rights if that leader acts in a way that delivers benefits to:

  • the individual supporter (personal contract);
  • the supporting team (team contract);
  • the sub-organisation (sub-organisational contract);
  • the organisation (organisational contract);
  • the super-organisation (super-organisational contract);
  • the nation (national contract);
  • humanity (species contract); or
  • the ecosystem (environmental contract).

The style of contract sought and offered will depend on the follower’s and leader’s attitudes. In general, the weight given to each type of contract, i.e., its relative influence on their interaction style, generally decreases from personal, to social, to species, to environmental. This decrease is consistent with the multilevel selection theory of evolution. We place greatest weight on immediate personal interest, but do not neglect our longer-term interests gained communally. The actual weights applied by an individual or organisation depend on their attitude. Generally, those with a right-wing attitude will place greater weight on the personal contract, and less weight on other contracts, than those with a left-wing attitude.

Categories
02. Competition and Co-operation

Competition & Co-operation

According to ecological theory, the population of a species will grow until it becomes constrained by the available resources. These resources then become insufficient to satisfy the needs of all members of the species, and they will compete for them. This is a natural evolutionary process and applies as much to humanity as it does to any other species.

However, competition is of two types: negative and positive. Negative competition involves preventing a competitor from achieving their aims. In a running race, for example, competitors who engage in negative competition will attempt to trip one another up. Clearly, when taken to extreme, this can lead to conflict. Positive competition, on the other hand, involves each competitor striving to be superior to the other. In the example of a running race, each strives to be first to reach the finish line.

Counter-intuitively, positive competition can lead to co-operation, and thus, to human organisation. This form of competition reveals the most competent individual for a particular task. Other competitors, providing they are not engaging in negative competition, recognise that the task is best carried out by that person. They also recognise that there is benefit in excelling in their own niche and trading its outputs with those who most efficiently occupy others.  For example, whoever is best at hunting will be recognised as the hunter, whoever best at fishing recognised as the fisherman, and the two will trade fish for meat to the advantage of both. Thus, an efficient “division of labour” emerges, with everyone doing what they do best, and each task being done by whoever is most competent to do it. In the absence of negative competition, trust also emerges, and everyone benefits through a process of trade.

Leadership is just one necessary task in human organisation. In general systems theory it is referred to as requisite hierarchy. It involves organizing the tasks carried out by a group of people to achieve a common goal, identifying who is most suited to each task, amicably resolving any disagreements, and discouraging any negative competition. The most competent leader is also revealed by positive competition. Through a process of trust and trade, e.g., fish and meat for leadership effort, the others come to accept him or her. With a leader and a division of labour in place, an organisation can be said to have formed.

Clearly, positive competition is socially beneficial, and negative competition socially harmful. In the running race, positive competition results in it being won in the shortest possible time, i.e., most efficiently. Negative competition, on the other hand, can lead to it never being won at all, if the participants descend to trading blows at the halfway point. Obviously, the benefits of positive competition described above seem rather idealistic. In practice, all human beings continuously balance their immediate interests with their longer-term interests gained from the support of a co-operative group. We all engage in both positive and negative competition to varying degrees. So, there are many ways in which human organisation can fail and I will discuss some of them in future articles.

Historically, humanity has extensively engaged in negative competition. Like many animals, early man competed aggressively for territory and the resources it contained. However, again like many animals, co-operation probably originated in small family groups. Unlike other animals, however, a virtuous circle, or positive feedback loop, developed.  When two organized groups engage in positive competition, they begin to co-operate, and form a yet larger organized group. This, in turn, leads to ever greater skill and efficiency in acquiring resources and, thus, ever greater population. The process scales up. Thus, tribes formed kingdoms, kingdoms formed  nations, and nations formed cultural groups, until we arrived at the world we see today.

Some, who feel that they cannot succeed in positive competition, will resort to negative competition. So, to reduce this within organized groups, norms, i.e., codes of acceptable behaviour, and methods of enforcement were established. In smaller groups, such as tribes, this would have been the word of the leader. However, as the membership of organized groups became ever larger, it became necessary to generalize and formalise these norms as laws, and to delegate their enforcement. In the world today, laws exist in all nations. Enforcement also exists, to a greater or lesser extent, and this has a strong bearing on a nation’s success or failure.

Negative competition has always existed between organized groups, from the tribal to the national scale. Hence the wars that we have seen in the past. It could even be argued that the two go hand in hand, because positive competition would result in tribes and nations merging to form larger organized groups. To a large extent this negative competition still exists today and, although they are becoming rarer, wars continue to take place. Unfortunately, control over negative competition between nations is still in its infancy, and many of the existential threats that humanity faces are global in nature. Suggestions as to how to take this forward are, therefore, given in a future article.