Since the emergence of modern man some 200,000 years ago, people and technologyhave been inextricably linked to each other. However, unlike traditional technology -such as leverage (and derivative applications such as hammers, wheels and crankshafts),and control of fire - smart technology is equipped with adaptive capacity. Whereas intraditional technology people have to think and handle in terms of technology in orderto apply technology successfully and purposefully, technology with, for example, itsown learning ability adapts to humans. This means that smart technology influencesdevelopment in a different way than traditional technology. Changes in the relationship between human development (brain) and smarttechnology - technology with its own learning capacity and adaptability - have led tothe articulation of 4 requirements technology should meet: 1. it must be sustainable, 2. it must not block development and if it does it must be clear how, 3. there must bea logical argument why the technique can be used and how it can be explained, also in terms of psychological development and, finally, 4. the social and ethical discoursemust be stated in a transparent way. At a fast pace, futurologists and management gurus are presenting “theories” abouthow smart technology will change us permanently as individuals. Requirements 1(sustainability) and 2 (technology influencing human development) are at stake here.However, these ideas cannot be substantiated by scientific research. Psychology(and the other social and human sciences) have not yet been able to generate a convincing interpretation of what is going on in the area of brain and technology (living technology). In fact, there is a need for argumentation. In order to arrive at an argument-based psychology, insight into the non-linearityof processes is indispensable. The Brain & Technology research group is exploring the great possibilities to bridge the distance between people and their limitations by using smart technology, or possibilities, especially when it comes to argument based applied psychology! In this document, mainly the argument requirement is considered, because in the rapidly changing technological processes, the argument often does not sufficiently develop and the argument lies pre-eminently at the level of applied psychology, brain and technology.
MULTIFILE
11/30/2018When defending against hostile enemies, individual group members can benefit from others staying in the group and fighting. However, individuals themselves may be better off by leaving the group and avoiding the personal risks associated with fighting. While fleeing is indeed commonly observed, when and why defenders fight or flee remains poorly understood and is addressed here with three incentivized and preregistered experiments (total n = 602). In stylized attacker-defender contest games in which defenders could stay and fight or leave, we show that the less costly leaving is, the more likely individuals are to abandon their group. In addition, more risk-averse individuals are more likely to leave. Conversely, individuals more likely stay and fight when they have pro-social preferences and when fellow group members cannot leave. However, those who stay not always contribute fully to group defense, to some degree free-riding on the efforts of other group members. Nonetheless, staying increased intergroup conflict and its associated costs.
