Equation 13 · Why We Punish Strangers: The Evolution of Human Cooperation
What does this equation mean?
Read the formula alongside the article passage below. Each part has a deeper page with its role in the equation, the supporting passage and nearby citations.
This equation states an equality: the expressions on both sides have the same value under the article’s assumptions. Read the equation part by part below; each part has a contextual explanation and a link to its mathematical background.
Read it piece by piece
Symbol w_p
is part of the quantity the equation computes from the expression on the right.
Symbol k
k is one of the signed contributions combined to compute the quantity on the left.
Symbol y
y is one of the signed contributions combined to compute the quantity on the left.
=
The expressions on both sides represent the same quantity under the stated assumptions.
See an illustrated explanation →subtraction
Subtract the following term or group from the preceding one. A leading minus marks a negative quantity.
subscript
The lower label selects a particular version, component, or indexed member of the quantity. For example, x₀ and xₜ can be values at different positions.
How to interpret it
Read it with the definitions, units, and assumptions supplied by the article.
What the article says around this equation
The first is cultural group selection, formalized by Robert Boyd, Herbert Gintis, Samuel Bowles and Peter Richerson. Their starting problem is that punishing free-riders is itself a public good — everyone in a group benefits if free-riders are deterred, but only the punisher pays the cost of deterring them, so a population of willing punishers should in principle be invaded by cooperators who never bother to punish, a “second-order” free-rider problem sitting on top of the first [ 9 ] . Their proposed way out rests on an asymmetry between the two roles. A plain cooperator who does not punish pays a fixed cost, call it c , simply by cooperating, regardless of how many other group members…
Read the full surrounding passage
The first is cultural group selection, formalized by Robert Boyd, Herbert Gintis, Samuel Bowles and Peter Richerson. Their starting problem is that punishing free-riders is itself a public good — everyone in a group benefits if free-riders are deterred, but only the punisher pays the cost of deterring them, so a population of willing punishers should in principle be invaded by cooperators who never bother to punish, a “second-order” free-rider problem sitting on top of the first [ 9 ] . Their proposed way out rests on an asymmetry between the two roles. A plain cooperator who does not punish pays a fixed cost, call it c , simply by cooperating, regardless of how many other group members defect. A punisher, by contrast, only pays a punishment cost when there is actually a defector present to punish, so as defectors become rare within a group, the punisher’s fitness disadvantage relative to a non-punishing cooperator shrinks toward zero even while the plain cooperator’s disadvantage relative to a defector does not. Writing x for the frequency of cooperators, y for the frequency of punishers, and k for the cost of punishing a single defector, the punisher’s expected fitness penalty is approximately . which falls as the residual pool of defectors, 1 - x - y , shrinks. Once a group happens to reach a state where
Sources cited in the surrounding passage
These citations give research context. Read each source to check which claims it supports.
Return to Why We Punish Strangers: The Evolution of Human Cooperation