If it is, then it is fair to say that their version of Homo reciprocans is merely Homo economicus with a longer time horizon, economic man willing to wait to get paid back, and hoping for positive returns. This general phenomenon, noted in many experiments on framing, is important. Bowles and Gintis quite properly make the link between economic policies and our basic economic theories, and find existing theory wanting. If they wish to construct new economic theory, however, especially theory that more accurately captures the underlying human nature of mankind, let me suggest the following. Adam Smith's great contribution to the world was to turn it into something positive through the magic of the market mechanism and the invisible hand.
Sociability refers to our desires to live in a group.
We want to be part of a group of people whom we respect, people who like us, whose values we share, and people whose cognitive reasoning processes we can understand. Sociability cannot be reduced to merely another value to be weighed in a utility function. It speaks to who we are, to what it means to be a human being, and says that we are social beings whose existence is not complete unless we care for others, and are in turn cared for by them. Reconceptualizing our models of man to allow for this mutual caring will have profound effects for policy-making, and will allow for the fairness and reciprocity that concern Bowles and Gintis. I thus would chide the authors for being too conservative, too wedded to the existing economic paradigm, and would encourage them to think more boldly as they construct social theories on which we should base our socioeconomic policies.