It is not the risk taking that is of primary interest but prospect of rewards and the sympathetic reward trigger. You must take the results of any given study in context with the results of other similar studies, in this case the triggering of reward centers in the brain. Unfortunately I have looked a bit and have not found studies regarding sympathetic reward triggers for gambling so I will drop it as a point for my argument until such time as I can find a source.Sure the reward centres of gamblers' brains may get activated if they take risks, but how does this take away from the evident conclusions of the Caltech Study, which show that the brain does indeed respond positively (ie the reward centres get activated) to fairness or equality?
The primary issue I see is that the conclusion of the study is based on a perceived intention of being "inequality-averse". It would seem to me that it ought to focus on the mechanism and the conditions necessary for the trait to be selected for. Seeing that inequality seems a necessary condition for the trait to evolve and be successful the idea that it is "inequality-averse" is contradictory. While one may speculate that the trait is seeking an equilibrium one can just as easily, and perhaps more logically, speculate the trait suggests that inequality breeds altruism.Vert said:The following observation is particularly interesting:
This isn't a random glitch in the way our brains have evolved - there is a strong biological basis for this sort of altruism.