| Title |
The Two Sides of Warfare
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Nature, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12110-014-9199-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hannes Rusch |
| Abstract |
Building on and partially refining previous theoretical work, this paper presents an extended simulation model of ancestral warfare. This model (1) disentangles attack and defense, (2) tries to differentiate more strictly between selfish and altruistic efforts during war, (3) incorporates risk aversion and deterrence, and (4) pays special attention to the role of brutality. Modeling refinements and simulation results yield a differentiated picture of possible evolutionary dynamics. The main observations are: (a) Altruism in this model is more likely to evolve for defenses than for attacks. (b) Risk aversion, deterrence, and the interplay of migration levels and brutality can change evolutionary dynamics substantially. (c) Unexpectedly, one occasional simulation outcome is a dynamically stable state of "tolerated intergroup theft," raising the question as to whether corresponding patterns also exist in real intergroup conflicts. Finally, possible implications for theories of the coevolution of bellicosity and altruism in humans are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 19% |
| Professor | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 23% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 7 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 15% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2014.
All research outputs
#14,620,565
of 24,653,581 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#433
of 540 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,562
of 233,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#9
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,653,581 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 540 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 233,202 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.