THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PROPERTY INSPECTION INDUSTRY

 I, Al Austin, am as far as is known the only Independent inspector in the whole greater Houston Area who is willing to publicly sign a pledge of independence.

WWW.Do-Dligent.Com Home Page
General Information Company Info Store Standards-Practice Free Stuff Legal Resale Properties New Construction Environmental
Items Covered Services Offered Contact Us Client Comments Products associations Special Coupons Copy Rights profiles month 1 foundation Environment Inspections
The Process Why Inspect? Company Profile Spotlight features Operate assoc. links cooperation Special Help Dome  2  3 4 Framing Flooding
Selection Process Question & Answers Compare for Yourself Independence Support CD more links Negotiate Due Diligence Castle photo collection  6 build out Disclosure
In Your Interests

Insurance Inspections

Qualifications Site Map New DVD & checklists Lemon Law Truth Disclosure 1  2  3 9 final  
Discounts  more? Thanks to You Mission Vision Sponsorship History mini-inspection Report 4 5 6 7 Foundation extra  
Information General Inspection   Guarantee           Resale Inspections Photos set 1  New Home Inspections Inspection Services

 

 

FAIRNESS

by John H. Lienhard

Today, we put teeth in the Golden Rule. The University of Houston's College of Engineering presents this series about the machines that make our civilization run, and the people whose ingenuity created them.

More and more, scientists are talking about cooperation as a primary survival mechanism. The idea has gained momentum ever since early Darwinians went off the deep end, with all their talk about competition. Remember Tennyson's, "Red in tooth and claw?" Well, maybe that's not how things really work.

Early evidence in favor of cooperation was pretty anecdotal. But now, in Science magazine, Gretchen Vogel summarizes current studies of cooperation. And she takes an odd turn with it.

For forty years, we've been catching on to the fact that cooperation is more than altruism -- that it actually promotes genetic survival. Baby baboons are far more likely to survive when their mothers are socially involved with one another. Cooperation makes members of a species more attractive as potential mates. And so forth. Just how that understanding transmits within a species is not entirely clear. But data keeps adding up.

Watch people queuing behind a ticket counter. Almost all of us are scrupulous about keeping our place in line, even with strangers we won't see again. Yet the queue brings up another side of our seeming instinct for cooperation. Elbow your way into a queue and you'll soon learn just how highly others prize cooperation. We detest the elbowers. Strong as our innate belief in cooperation is, our resentment of violators is even stronger. Think about your own resentment of unfairness. People who violate the tenets of cooperation threaten the well being of everyone else.

In one set of experiments, behaviorists gave pebbles to monkeys. The monkeys learned to exchange their pebbles for cucumbers. Then, experimenters began rewarding certain monkeys with grapes, which they far preferred to cucumbers. The monkeys who didn't get grapes responded by refusing to eat their own cucumbers. Other experiments show the same kind of reaction among humans.

My mother called that "Biting off your nose to spite your face." And, unless you're some sort of saint, you've done it too. I know I often react to unfairness in ways that do not profit me one bit.

The Science article offers one profoundly disturbing example: Suicide bombers who sacrifice their own lives to punish perceived unfairness. One scientist glumly observes that we raise cooperation to its pinnacle as we join together to wage war. When that happens, two sides each go to the ultimate extreme. On each side you see strong cooperation in the cause of correcting the other side's unfairness.

So, another scientist remarks, "A test for fairness is probably hardwired." Well, so is the other side of the coin -- cooperation. Our whole human enterprise is woven, not just around cooperation, but also around protecting cooperation -- enforcing the Golden Rule. That fairness instinct is something that we unleash now and then. And when we unleash it, we do so at our own peril.

I'm John Lienhard, at the University of Houston, where we're interested in the way inventive minds work.


G. Vogel, The Evolution of the Golden Rule. Science, 20 February, 2004, pp. 1128-1131.

For more on the theme of cooperation, see The Subtle Texture of Cooperation.



 

Cooperating Monkeys
Cooperating Monkeys (from Popular Zoology, Steele and Jenks, 1887)

 

THE SUBTLE TEXTURE OF COOPERATION

For the HISD Schools of Excellence Conference, 8:30 and 10:30 AM, Wednesday, August 12, 1998, George R. Brown Convention Center

by John H. Lienhard

Mechanical Engineering Department

University of Houston,

Houston, TX 77204-4792

713-743-4518


 

The matter of cooperation is laced through with mixed messages and false leads. I don't have the slightest doubt that cooperation is what will save public education today. And public education needs saving. A variety of forces, most of them technological, have hurled new questions at your work -- questions that are far more complex than they seem to be on the surface.

A question like, "What should be the role of the Internet in tomorrow's classroom," absolutely drowns in the complexities it brings with it. For the Internet is not just playing a role in the classroom. It is altering the very fabric of human discourse as we've known it all our lives. But among its many mischiefs the Internet is also altering our gut-level understanding of the word cooperation. So let's explore the meaning of that word and the important kindred word generosity. I promise you some surprises as we do that exploration.

I'll begin by adding a forbidden word -- a word that does not mean what you first might think. I want to begin with a word that puts a special spin on cooperation and generosity. That word is anarchy.

The person who did most to define anarchy as a positive social force was Petr Kropotkin. Kropotkin was born a Russian Prince in 1842. His father trained him for the Tsar's court. But young Kropotkin had read Darwin's new book, Origin of the Species. He wanted to be a scientist. He hated court politics. So he quit and joined a Cossack regiment in Siberia.

 


Petr Kropotkin, from Memoirs of a Revolutionist, 1899

There he was free to study life in a natural environment. For five years he served as a geographer and naturalist. The Siberian wilds gave him far better lessons in social organization than the Russian court had. He joined the Imperial Geographical Society in 1868 and made more trips. In 1870 he turned down the cushy post of Society secretary and left St. Petersburg again. This time he went to Europe to study anarchy. When you and I hear the word anarchy we think of malicious chaos. But what anarchists point out is that individuals organize society by working together cooperatively and voluntarily.

Imperial Europe didn't like the idea that imperial rule is unnecessary. So Kropotkin spent time in jails. He finally found a haven working in England as a science writer. Meanwhile, Darwin's influence grew. Tennyson called nature "red in tooth and claw." In 1888 Huxley wrote a harsh essay on the survival of the fittest: The Struggle for Existence. We started seeing our lot through distorted Darwinian lenses. We started believing that life is nothing but a blood sport.

Both capitalists and the new Marxists bent Darwin to fit their ends. Kropotkin reacted with articles. He showed that cooperation is our primary survival strategy. He wrote:

Life in societies enables the feeblest animals, the feeblest birds, and the feeblest mammals to resist, or protect themselves from the most terrible birds and beasts of prey;

Kropotkin showed how acts of mercy and mutual support were part of all insect, animal, and human societies. In 1902 he wove his studies into a powerful lucid book. He called it Mutual Aid.


Photo by John Lienhard

Kropotkin had supported the Russian revolution. But, as Marxists turned up their own Darwinian rhetoric, he withdrew. Before his death in 1921 he wrote to Lenin, "Vladimir Ilych, your actions are [unworthy of your ideals]." And today we're learning that Kropotkin's modes of cooperation are far more subtly active in our ecology than we'd once thought. We find new hope in his words,

[A society] which organizes itself without authority is always in existence. [It is] like a seed beneath the snow.

It really is you and I who shape our world and who will save our world. Our cooperation and interaction have far more to say than any form of leadership does. We form our world simply by working together and by cherishing one another.

I believe with all my heart that leadership is an illusion. We choose leaders and hold them up as banners -- reflecting our mutual aspirations. But it is not they; it is you and I who determine our future. I once had a violist friend who took over a youth orchestra. One day at lunch I asked him how it was to be a conductor. "Oh, John," he answered,

It's wonderful. It doesn't take long. When you lower your baton in a downbeat a wonderful sound comes at you. Very soon you begin to believe that it's you who's making that glorious sound.

It is you and I who have always made that glorious sound. It is you and I who always will. Make no mistake about that.

And below the communal nature of any enterprise that we create together, there must ride a kind of generosity. That generosity must bind us in the enterprise. The animals tell us about that kind of generosity. Remember Edgar Allan Poe's poem, The Raven? Poe says,

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,

I find it very interesting that Poe seems to see a dimension of charity in his sinister bird. And there is such a dimension. A recent American Scientist article talked about ravens trying to survive a cold northern winter. Carrion is rare and precious. What does a raven do when he finds a carcass? Hoard the treasure for himself? Eat his fill and fly away? What really happens is a surprise. The raven circles the find without landing. Then he flies away. A few days later he's back with forty companions and they fall upon the meal. By the time the carcass is finished, over a hundred ravens have shared it. Biologists move into the New England forests to study this action. It's completely reproducible. They're not sure how ravens communicate their find, but their generosity in the midst of hardship is absolute.

Darwin originally suggested just the opposite -- that self-sacrifice acts against the survival of the fittest. Now survival proves to be more complex. Seeing to the survival of the group assures survival of the species. The individual also knows that, because he shares, he will eat when a companion finds food.

It is a system based on trust. It's the world we all wish we could live in. These biologists do their work methodically, systematically, measuring a hundred cases with tagged birds. The results come back with unerring consistency. And I go back to read Kropotkin's radical Mutual Aid, published in 1902.

Out of Kropotkin's years in Siberia observing animal behavior, he brought stories about birds sharing in exactly the same way. Then he quoted an ancient Greek source: A sparrow comes to tell other sparrows that a slave has dropped a sack of corn. And they all go off to feed upon the grain. Kropotkin was horrified by the violence of Darwin's early followers. He wrote,

They have made modern literature resound with the war-cry of woe to the vanquished, as if it were the last word of modern biology.

Now biologists are rediscovering what Kropotkin and the ancient Greeks already knew: the fact, obvious once you see it, that generosity is our primal survival strategy.

By the way, Edgar Allan Poe missed the point when he cried to the Raven, "Leave no black plume as a token ... Leave my loneliness unbroken." The poor man could've learned how needless his self-made loneliness really was from that remarkable and generous bird.

So you see how it strikes me as impossible to talk about cooperation without bringing in the related matter of generosity. That cooperative generosity defines the human species. Our survival depends upon it. I think you'll find it helpful if we take a moment to visit an African lake where two anthropologists, Malcom Smith and Robert Layton, have studied a strange kind of fish called cichlids.

The cichlids in the lake come in 200 different species. They're all pretty similar. Only their lips, jaws, and teeth have evolved differently. Some have evolved into fin eaters, some into worm eaters. Some cichlids eat snails. Each cichlid fish has evolved into a tiny niche of the ecology. That kind of subdividing is pretty common. That's why we count 40,000 species of fish, birds, and mammals.

So why haven't we splintered like that? Humankind is only one species. One young hunter can chase down a rabbit. Another can spear a fish. Yet we haven't specialized into one race of rabbit catchers and another of fish spearers. Why are we alike in all but the most minor features -- things like hair diameter and skin color? We're not like the fish in that African lake. We've faced every environment on Earth. We've had every chance to divide into specialized subspecies.

The answer lies in the eerie texture of human sharing. We share in complex ways no other animal does. Back in camp, the rabbit chaser and the fish spearer exchange food. We've done that as long as we've existed. Of course it helps that we're very omnivorous. We eat almost anything. If it lives, we've eaten it at one time or another. More important, we've also shared it. But: Our sharing goes far beyond food. For example, most societies have taboos about mating across lines of clan, ethnicity, or race.

Yet the important thing about those taboos is that we break them. Intermarriage is another kind of sharing that holds our species together. Then there's the most important dimension of sharing of all. We share the techniques for gathering food and fulfilling other needs. One cichlid fish had to develop its own specialized jaw for crushing and eating snails. We share our knowledge of snail catching, of rabbit chasing, of fish spearing.

That's what technology is. Techni--ology is the lore -- the ology, the science -- of technique. Technology is our primary act of sharing. Technology shapes us into one body instead of a thousand subspecies. We're bound in a unique and instinctive tether of generosity with our technologies right at the core of that generosity. We are bound into one system. Kropotkin was right. Generosity and mutual aid is our primal survival mechanism.

We need an example here. So let's look at one form of cooperation you're all involved in. Let's look for a moment at committees. Committees get pretty poor press. A camel, says the old canard, is a horse invented by a committee. In our search for creative excellence, we instinctively look to the individual, not the corporate body. Yet that can mislead us. So let's look at Thomas Jefferson and the way the Declaration of Independence got written.

John F. Kennedy once called a gathering of intellectuals at the White House, "the greatest assembly of brain-power since Thomas Jefferson dined here alone." A genius Jefferson surely was, but he was a complex and inconsistent genius.

Go back to drafts of the Declaration of Independence: They're all in Jefferson's hand, but crossed out and added to as Congress debated. It was a completely cooperative enterprise. Jefferson originally included a passage about slavery:

[The King] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating ... a distant people ... carrying them into slavery, or [a] miserable death in their transportation hither...

So far so good, but he went on to say,

[The King] is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase ... liberty ..., by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them.

What a frightfully mixed message! He blames slavery on the King. Then he blames the King for stirring up the slaves. That passage didn't survive.

Nor did a remark about the British: "...manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren." Line by line, the excesses got pared away. Lesser changes gradually establish the verbal rhythm and balance that moved the Englishman, G.K. Chesterton, to write,

America is the only nation ... founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic, and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence, perhaps the only piece of practical politics that is also theoretical politics and also great literature.

But it is literature that flowed from both Jefferson and Congress. Another majestic document, our Constitution, followed a few years later. It was the work of Congress and a steering committee.

The King James translation of the Bible was made by a Royal task force with over fifty members. Now there is a perfect formula for mediocrity! Yet the King James Bible stands today as the English language at its finest. So what about that horse designed in committee?

There is truth in that image. Creative excellence must come to rest on individual commitment. But the King James Bible and the Constitution were both put together by individuals cooperating on a product they believed in passionately. When cooperation and compromise are undertaken with that seriousness of purpose, great works follow. If we said less to our students about the Famous Names and more about that powerful process of determined cooperation, we'd see more greatness in all our institutions.

So what is the enemy of accomplishment when we work together? It is to forget that we have to be anarchists. The enemy of accomplishment is obedience. With obedience, cooperation goes out the window. I'd better explain that. Late in the winter of 1974, I arrived at the Serbian Orthodox Cathedral in Belgrade, Jugoslavija, covered with snow. I was singing there with the Patriarch's Oktet and I'd made it to the service despite a blizzard. One old singer, seeing I'd come miles in bad weather, nodded and said to me, Dobri Vojnik! That was Serbian for Good Soldier. The Slavic term Dobri Vojnik is seldom uttered seriously. It suggests one who is slavishly, and even foolishly, devoted to duty.

Dobri Vojnik went international in 1921 when a radical Czech named Jaroslav Ha�ek wrote a book that was an instant classic, a WW-I novel titled The Good Soldier �vejk. Ha�ek's masterpiece tells of the innocent �vejk, Mr. Everyman, haled into the army on the side of the Germans.

�vejk looks to be the totally cooperative soldier -- filled with aggressive enthusiasm. He obeys all orders just as they're issued, completely and without question. Of course no army can exist when its troops do that. �vejk just about brings the army to its knees.

�vejk is not the only such literary hero. Benjamin Britten's opera Billy Budd tells of a sailor who radiates good-hearted obedience. In the end the British Navy instinctively responds to Budd by destroying him.

�vejk, on the other hand, knows perfectly well what a destructive force his obedience is, and he wields it like a scalpel. In that, he echoes the Taoist philosophy of "yield and overcome." He knows perfectly well that unquestioning cooperation will destroy your enemy.

It was obvious to me during my time as an enlisted man that armies absolutely depend on people who disobey orders. No authoritarian organization can avoid issuing orders that're muddled and self-defeating. Armies depend on people who say No to authority. When soldiers fail to do so, the result might be simple confusion, or it might be a major atrocity. God help any lieutenant whose NCOs haven't the wits to cover his blunders by disobeying. The old MASH series on TV played that theme with stinging accuracy.

Think for a moment what it means to issue an order. It is to specify an outcome, to predict a future. But modern science makes it crystal clear that the future cannot be predicted. Tiny imperfections in an initial state of affairs always magnify in time. That's why we can't predict weather in the long term. That's why we can't predict our own futures. And that's why any commander had better hope his subordinates have the wits and courage to disobey.

Yet organizations tell their people to pull together, embrace corporate goals, and support common themes. Organizations routinely perish because of that. Hierarchical systems are doomed without disobedient and dissident members.

So read The Good Soldier �vejk as you try to shape the school system. To survive, it must run on the creative, out-of-step individualism of its members. Disobedience is the primary survival trait of any organization.

Now back to my theme of cooperation. Let me ask you: Was �vejk cooperating with the army? Of course he wasn't! That kind of cooperation is what causes committees to come up with camels when they set out to design horses. True cooperation is far more demanding. It requires us to have a moral center of gravity.

Let me offer you an even more complex example of cooperation -- let's look at the disturbing riddle of the Prisoners' Dilemma: Two prisoners have committed a crime. Now they're held in separate cells. Each can either confess and plead for a light sentence, or claim innocence and blame the other. If one blames and one confesses, the blamer fares well and the confessor suffers. If each blames the other it goes hard for both. In aggregate, they do best when each confesses.

Now: You and I are those prisoners. Oh, we may not be in jail, but the same moral dilemma comes up all the time in everyday life. I think of times two students have handed me identical tests. How do students behave when you confront them with that kind of evidence?

The Prisoner's Dilemma is mired in questions of honesty and compassion -- as well as self-interest. And remember: Most participants have to deal with each other afterward. Since the pair does best when both confess, the Dilemma blurs the line between the best interests of the individual and of society.

Philosophers, psychologists, and mathematicians have all wrestled with the implications of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Now computer modelers and animal behaviorists are in the act. They set up dizzying arrays of games and tests to learn how both people and animals react to such a bind.

Those experiments make one thing clear. In the long run, I do best when I confess -- when I opt for cooperation. But when I do, I lay society open to the one person who exploits things to his own advantage. That person poses a terrible threat to cooperative behavior. (Notice something here, by the way: Notice that the Raven has solved the Prisoner's Dilemma.) The point is that cooperation is not only difficult behavior, it's also risky behavior. But it remains our best bet.

Now, I said when I began that my message this morning would be complex. The subject of this meeting is unity. And you can't have unity without cooperation. But cooperation is not the simple matter that it first appears to be. Cooperation is a discipline. Make it an easy way out, and you'll harm education.

To you administrators, I cannot say too strongly: The teacher who questions you and argues with you is not the enemy. The person who'll bring you down, and who'll bring the students down with you, is the teacher who learns your wishes and serves those wishes. To you teachers, I cannot say more strongly: Cherish each other. Serve your colleagues' best interests and, like the raven, you'll all prosper.

Our theme at this meeting is unity. And unity means joining with one another in a common high purpose. As we work that purpose out, let's remember the King James Bible committee. Let's remember the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Those people were unified in purpose but never, never, walked in lockstep. They fought, they argued, and they compromised.

In the end, Ben Franklin, his skin sore from the chafing of compromise, said of our new constitution, "Altogether it is as good a Constitution as we could have produced." He did not come out claiming to have forged a masterpiece. But it was a masterpiece, because it had every member's soul woven into it.

Now, with all that by way of introduction, let me get to my point: We certainly need to seek unity through cooperation. But I hope it's clear at this point that I do not regard cooperation as easy business. Real cooperation, the kind we enter with our individuality, our minds, and hearts all in high gear -- that kind of cooperation is a discipline.

But it is also an adventure. Think for just a moment what it will mean if we can figure out how to engage each other all the way -- not just on the surface. If you and I can manage that with one another, then maybe we can do it with our students. And that is what we're all here for in the first place.
 


SOME SOURCES

Most of what I say here, I've said at other times, and in other ways, on my daily radio program, The Engines of Our Ingenuity. The program is distributed without charge on the NPR Satellite Feed to any station that wishes to air it. A full set of transcripts and a searchable index may be found at: http://www.uh.edu/engines The transcripts include a great deal of reference material. A few sources specific to what I have said here follow:

Kropotkin, P., Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, (with an introduction by George Woodcock), New York: Black Rose Books, 1989.

See also the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Kropotkin.

Heinrich, B., and Marzluff, J., Why Ravens Share. American Scientist, Vol. 83, No. 4, July-August, 1995, pp. 342-349.

Smith, M. T. and Layton, R., On Human Nature. The Sciences, New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, January/February 1989, pp. 10-12.

Ellis, J. J., Editing the Declaration. Civilization, July/August 1995, pp. 58-63.

A good account of the King James Bible translation is to be found under "Bible" in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Ha�ek, J., The Good Soldier �vejk and His Fortunes in the World War (tr. Cecil Parrott). New York: Thomas Y. Cromwell Co., 1974.

 

Two of the many websites dealing with �vejk are:

Beardsley, T., Never Give a Sucker an Even Break. Scientific American, October 1993, p. 22.

Frohock, F.M., Rational Association. Syracuse: Syracuse Univer-sity Press,1987.

COOPERATION

by John H. Lienhard

Today, we ask about cooperation. The University of Houston's College of Engineering presents this series about the machines that make our civilization run, and the people whose ingenuity created them.

The other day my wife said, "John, you say so much about individuality. What about cooperation?" She caught me short. I am sure to my bones about invention, about the pure creative act, about the leap in the dark. I have no doubt at all that creating something new is a joy we can share only after we've done it.

So where does cooperation fit? It's such a basic virtue among civilized people. It has to play a part in the primary human enterprise of invention. It does play a major role. Look back through the history of invention. James Watt always kept up running conversations with circles of inventive friends. So did Newton, Edison, and Aristotle. Ben Franklin's early work came out of a group that grew into the American Philosophical Society.

The great creative people have always moved into orbits with each other. Some deep-seated certainty tells us that we give each other ideas. And we do. Have you ever said something dull and ordinary, only to have your listener hear a great truth? Invention often comes out of reprocessings like that. Collective invention is more of a norm than a rarity. In fact it leads to terrible acrimony when people fret over the useless question, "Who thought of it first?"

Cooperation means joining our efforts toward common goals. Deny the worth of that, and you can be labled insane. Yet our minds are solitary places. Students often ask why they shouldn't do homework cooperatively. The answer is that cooperation to get the homework finished will do only that -- and not a jot more.

Inventive people do cooperate, but in odd ways. They know how to move out of another person's mental orbit as well as into it. After all: cooperation has a slavish side. Pecking orders of authority too often arise when we work together. That's where the hard edges of a truly inventive person have to change the conventional shape of cooperation.

Just as St. Augustine saw God in a beggar, the inventive person can see wisdom in a fool. Creative people are quick to scorn intellectual authority. A friend of mine once came back from his first trip to Hollywood. He'd been shown a movie star's house. "It's ugly!" he said. His guide replied, "What do you mean it's ugly! It cost ten million dollars."

The real inventor has to be able to see the ugliness in an accepted idea, or the beauty of a good idea in the wrong place. That's the kind of thing that looks like uncooperation. It is, in fact, the way cooperation can be transformed into a genuinely noble human activity.

I'm John Lienhard, at the University of Houston, where we're interested in the way inventive minds work.

A NEW LOOK AT COOPERATION

by John H. Lienhard

Today, let's activate a pleasure center. The University of Houston's College of Engineering presents this series about the machines that make our civilization run, and the people whose ingenuity created them.

New York Science Times writer Natalie Angier tells about a new study of human cooperation at Emory University. Investigators provide several new wrinkles on the old Prisoner's Dilemma game.

They enlisted 36 players. They were all women, thus reducing one dimension of variability. Each spent a few moments meeting the person she'd be matched with. Then each was put alone in a separate room and shown two buttons. You push one button to cooperate with the other player; you push the other to defect from her.

If both players push cooperate, then each wins two dollars (in real money). If both push defect, they win only a dollar each. But: if one pushes defect while the other pushes cooperate, the defector wins three dollars and the cooperator gets nothing at all.

So which button would you press? If you play only one round, there's no learning curve; you might be tempted to push defect and gamble on the other person's response. But cooperation allows you both to profit. In repeated rounds, some players cooperate for a while, then they trick their opponent by defecting.

In some rounds, players were told (or led to believe) that they were playing a computer. Against a computer (real or imagined) players became more ruthless -- often at their own expense.

But they usually bonded with human opponents, even though they were out of sight. Now and then, players who decided they were up against a human got themselves locked into repeated angry use of their defect button. (Who among us hasn't been led by anger into a lose-lose scenario?) But cooperation, and a maximization of mutual profit, was the norm. In fact, players often recovered from those bouts of defection and restored their cooperative bond.

Now the novel part of the study: One player from each pair was subjected to an MRI brain scan while she played. And here surfaced a far more basic reason for cooperating than mere profit. Each cooperative win-win play released dopamine. It, in turn, lit up the same pleasure centers as, say, eating chocolate does. Cooperation turns out to be an authentic physical pleasure.

Angier includes one remark that powerfully strikes home for me. She quotes a professor, who says,

I've pointed out to my students how impressive it is that you can take a group of young men and women ... have them come into a classroom, sit down and be perfectly comfortable and civil to each other.

During fifty years of teaching, I've repeatedly been struck by what a generally amicable place the classroom is. Even in an inherently competitive situation, students generally cooperate and seek out the greater mutual good.

Now we know why. Cooperating is a pleasure. It's one that we all forget, and deny to ourselves, from time to time. But when we can engage it, it is pleasure indeed.

I'm John Lienhard, at the University of Houston, where we're interested in the way inventive minds work.

(Theme music)


 


Angier, N., Why We're So Nice: We're Wired to Cooperate. New York Times, Tuesday, July 23, 2002, pp. D1, D8.

Owing to time constraints, I've been somewhat simplistic about cooperation here. For more on the subject, see http://www.uh.edu/engines/hisd.htm .


handshake


 

RAVEN COOPERATION


 

by John H. Lienhard

Today, we meet a surprisingly generous raven. The University of Houston's College of Engineering presents this series about the machines that make our civilization run, and the people whose ingenuity created them.

 Have you ever looked closely at Edgar Allan Poe's poem, The Raven? The raven that Poe gave us not entirely menacing. In fact Poe seemed to find some measure of charity in that sinister bird when he wrote,
 

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,

Now an article in the July 1995 American Scientist talks about ravens trying to survive a cold northern winter. Carrion is rare and precious. What does a raven do when he finds a carcass? Hoard the treasure for himself? Eat his fill and fly away?

What really happens is a surprise. The raven circles the find without landing. Then he flies away. A few days later he's back with forty companions and they fall upon the meal. By the time the carcass is finished, over a hundred ravens have shared it.

Biologists Bernd Heinrich and John Marzluff move into the New England forests to study this action. It's completely reproducible. They're not sure how ravens communicate their find, but their generosity in the midst of hardship is absolute.

Darwin originally suggested just the opposite -- that self-sacrifice acts against the survival of the fittest. Now survival proves to be more complex. Seeing to the survival of the group assures survival of the species. The individual also knows that, because he shares, he will eat when a companion finds food.

It is a system based on trust. It's the world we all wish we could live in. These biologists do their work methodically, systematically, measuring a hundred cases with tagged birds. The results come out with unerring consistency. And I go back to read a radical book by Petr Kropotkin: Mutual Aid, published in 1902.

Kropotkin had spent six years in Siberia observing animal behavior. He told about birds sharing in exactly the same way. Then he quoted an ancient Greek source:

 

A sparrow comes to tell other sparrows that a slave has dropped a sack of corn and they all go to feed upon the grain.

Kropotkin was horrified by the violence of Darwin's early followers. He wrote, "They have made modern literature resound with the war-cry of woe to the vanquished, as if it were the last word of modern biology." Now biologists are rediscovering what Kropotkin, and ancient Greeks, already knew: the fact -- obvious once you see it -- that generosity is our primary survival strategy.

And, at the end, Edgar Allan Poe misses the point.

Leave no black plume as a token ...
Leave my loneliness unbroken,

he cries to the raven. Poor man! He could have learned how needless his self-made loneliness really was, from that remarkable and generous bird.

I'm John Lienhard at the University of Houston, where we're interested in the way inventive minds work.

(Theme music)


Heinrich, B., and Marzluff, J., Why Ravens Share. American Scientist, Vol. 83, No. 4, July-August, 1995, pp. 342-349.

Kropotkin, P., Mutual Aid. New York: The McClure Co., 1907.


 


Photo by John Lienhard

Mutual Aid and Cooperation are Hallmarks of Animal Life
 

WWW.Do-Dligent.Com Home Page
General Information Company Info Store Standards-Practice Free Stuff Legal Resale Properties New Construction Environmental
Items Covered Services Offered Contact Us Client Comments Products associations Special Coupons Copy Rights profiles month 1 foundation Environment Inspections
The Process Why Inspect? Company Profile Spotlight features Operate assoc. links cooperation Special Help Dome  2  3 4 Framing Flooding
Selection Process Question & Answers Compare for Yourself Independence Support CD more links Negotiate Due Diligence Castle photo collection  6 build out Disclosure
In Your Interests

Insurance Inspections

Qualifications Site Map New DVD & checklists Lemon Law Truth Disclosure 1  2  3 9 final  
Discounts  more? Thanks to You Mission Vision Sponsorship History mini-inspection Report 4 5 6 7 Foundation extra  
Information General Inspection   Guarantee           Resale Inspections Photos set 1  New Home Inspections Inspection Services