13.2 It Takes Cooperation to Conflict

Conflict requires cooperation. This seems like a contradiction. After all, how can we cooperate with someone when we are in conflict?

Leda Cosmides and John Tooby have written extensively on the evolved psychology of group interactions – especially conflict. They argue that we evolved for alliance building because there is safety in numbers. Reciprocity builds cooperative social groups, and our natural tendency to define things as “safe” or “not safe,” leads us to define social groups as “my group (in-group)” and “not my group (out-group).” On the surface, there is no harm. After all, these distinctions allow us to remember on whom we can rely for favors, into whom we have already invested our energy, and with whom we are safe.

However, as part of this process, we also define with whom we compete. We are safe with those like us. We may not be safe with others. Unfortunately, few humans still live in a world where they are likely to come upon a large predator looking for a snack. That doesn’t mean this habit of ours simply goes away. Whether for mates, resources, territory, or social ideologies, our evolution has shaped us to defend against perceived threats, too.

Michael Moncrieff and Pierre Liénard studied how urban and rural environments influenced this in-group and out-group behavior. They looked at whether one’s social environment influenced their perceptions of others as “moral.” Working in Croatia, Moncrieff spent time interviewing and surveying individuals in the city and rural townships. The authors found that rural participants evaluated out-group members more harshly, and were more forgiving of mistakes made by in-group members. They also found that humans perceive their in-group members as more moral and capable of feeling guilty. Most importantly, they found it takes quite a bit of cooperation to work against an out-group.

The good news is that we are also behaviorally plastic. We are flexible. We can have new experiences, try new things, and meet new people who, through positive interactions, can reshape who we include in “my group.” This is actually the goal of corporate diversity trainings. Not to exclude anyone, but rather, to expand who we include, instead.

This understanding of our best and worst selves is now informing our considerations of artificial intelligence (AI). Listen to Cynthia Breazeal talk about ways that a group at MIT is working to create “social robots” to create AI that cooperates with each other, and us.

Interestingly, our desire to cooperate can also override these guarding and conflict mechanisms. Daniel Snyczer and colleagues found that humans will help complete strangers when certain criteria are met. First, if a person perceives the stranger as truly in need. Second, if a the receiver appears willing to sacrifice in the future. In other words, we are capable of forms of reciprocal altruism with complete strangers.

This begs the question: would we be willing to help an outgroup member, as defined by Montcrief and Liénard, if we perceive them as being truly in need and willing to sacrifice for us in the future? It is a question worth pondering and may explain why conflict resolution often begins by narrating the basis for one’s need be understood.