This week in lecture we discussed Game Theory. Game Theory,
put simply, shows that people will make a decision that benefits them the most
with disregard for the effects that decision will have on others. In Hobbes’
Leviathan, he makes the point that people tend to be selfish and seek only
their own preservation. His statements like: "...the liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature..." support this statement. His theory has been shown many times throughout history with
very controversial cases.
But is this description all encompassing? With all of the
scandals we have seen (and those we have not) it makes a good case.
However, I like to think that humans don’t necessarily fit that mold defined by
Hobbes. I believe that regular people can care more about the greater good than
themselves. I think that this British game show will do a good job showing that
not all people are selfish.
Even though Nick lied, he did it knowing that it would be
beneficial to both of them. Ibrahim could have picked steal as a big F U to
Nick, but through some convincing he trusted Nick to share the money after the
game. This shows an example of the mutually beneficial square of Game Theory even though we have been taught that the outcome should be the mutually harmful one. This might not really prove that they weren't being selfish but their actions did mutually benefit each other. Based off of Hobbes definition this should never happen and both participants should have picked steal and walked away with nothing.
Though the video shows using Game Theory for gain, there are
many more cases in which people sacrificed something in order to help someone else in need without the thought of gaining something in return. I believe that people help others because they want to make a difference in the world or just in that one person's life. I wouldn't define that as being selfish. I define being selfish as making decisions, regardless of their impact, to benefit oneself. If you think the fact that they can sleep sound at night knowing they helped someone then, I feel, your description of selfishness is too large. If this is what Hobbes believed, then I believe he too defines selfishness to be too largely encompassing. But even if he didn't believe that people are selfish to feel good about themselves but are only selfish to make their lives easier then I would once again say that he is wrong. Most people are free to make their own decisions and too often make seemingly selfless choices that to consider everyone's natural instincts are to be selfish would be a bit far-fetched.
I have also thought about this contradiction between game theory predictions for human behavior and what actually happens in the real world. Since coming to the university I have taken several classes that discussed game theory in detail. It did bother me that a lot of the game theory models made it seem as if, innately, human beings will always choose the alternative that results in them losing the least. In other words, it seems that it is a central component to game theory, as seen in things like the prisoners dilemma, that people will always try to hedge themselves against loss instead of putting their trust in someone else. But I agree with this post in that I think people do exhibit trust of other people in the real world as the video demonstrated. I wish game theory factored in the emotions of human beings more in its analysis of situations, as this would provide a more realistic view of how people interact with others.
ReplyDeleteEric,
ReplyDeleteYou make a valid point, however I think you’re off the mark a bit. It’s invalid to say “regular people can care more about the greater good than themselves .” What does ‘regular’ mean, and what other back-up do you have besides the video? The following video illustrates that men will be selfish when given the opportunity to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb2xTSikPdg
Also, it seems as if a person only cooperates when he knows the opposing party. Sure you’ll help your neighbor, but you surely won’t help someone you don’t know (outside of a small favor such as holding a door). As a side note, the Underground Railroad conductors helped slaves because it was a cause they believed in. You could argue it’s a case of selfishness because they personally wanted slavery abolished, but that’s more of a philosophical question than political.
Game theory is an economic model for oligopolies where emotions accomplish nothing. Feeling pity for the opposing company ends up costing your company money, and possibly your job. Sure collusion happens occasionally, but it’s usually in the company’s benefit to cheat the opposing colluder anyways.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Eric's statement: "regular people can care more about the greater good than themselves" was invalid, but I feel as though you may have read it analytically in its wording instead of trying to understand on a broader level what he really meant. I believe the point he was trying to make is that Hobbes's theory about the state of nature and the behavioral patterns of humans, is just that, a theory. But in reality, people aren't always so self centered and egocentric. And to say that the only evidence of this claim is that video is a little ridiculous (besides the fact that you contradict yourself by giving only one video as support for why you believe men are selfish). There are too many examples in life to even list. We could get into the specifics and drop names of people who do selfless things every day, but why waste time doing that? When really all you need to do to understand that people sometimes are more selfless than selfish is too look at all the charities, volunteers, organizations, etc. that exist in society and do things for people everyday. And actually, most of the time, these things are done to help complete strangers. I don't see the point in droning on listing example after example as I know this to be true, but if examples are what you're looking for, I can provide a few.
Groups like UNICEF couldn't exist in this world if people were ALL innately selfish. Regardless of one's motives for donating to a charity like UNICEF, it is a selfless thing to do. Helping children in need of food, shelter, etc. around the world is a good deed, and it is one that goes to a complete stranger, yet people still do it. You just cannot make the claim that people don't cooperate and help out strangers and only act selfless when the recipient of the help is a neighbor, friend, family member, etc. when there are examples like this that counter that statement. I myself have done a lot of volunteering for UNICEF and while doing so, I've seen so many members of my community give back whatever they can spare to complete strangers all around the world. There is no way I could label these people as selfish.
Take the hurricane relief funds as another example. Or for that matter, any natural disaster relief funds. When disaster strikes, people from all over the world run to the aid of these complete strangers. When Hurricane Katrina left New Orleans devastated, my city started a community wide relief fund for the victims. Everyone in town came out during this multiple month long project to donate clothing, tools, non-perishable foods, shoes, appliances, and countless other goods when a good majority of us don't know a single person from New Orleans.
Yes there are selfish people in this world, but it's too broad a generalization to say that all people are. People all over the world do good stuff for neighbors, friends, family, and even strangers all the time. I'm not arguing that all people do, but just that it is invalid to say no one does.
I agree with Eric on the bases that Game Theory and the Prisoner's Dilemma doesn't always work because people are not always selfish for their own self interest. There is the whole concept of morality that gets left out in the basic definitions that we learned. The person who decides to defect for his or her own self interest has to live with the consequences of making that decision. This can be the voice inside your head that, like Eric said, keeps you up at night. Also, the person making the decision has to deal with the consequences of being judged by others based off their decisions. In Eric's video example, if one of the contestants did decide to steal, then he would have to face not only his own personal moral consequences, but also all the people who saw that episode would now think of that contestant as a selfish human being. By working together, they avoided these consequences and can now "sleep sound at night knowing they helped someone."
ReplyDeleteEric,
ReplyDeleteYou definitely have some great replies from both Ryan and Heather before me. I do agree with you Eric to an extent when “regular people can care more about the greater good than themselves.” I agree with Ryan’s counterargument when he asks you what does a ‘regular’ person mean, and what other proof do you have to back your opinion. Is there a definition that I can look up on the Internet that defines what the ‘regular’ person means. From all the travels that I’ve done myself, I can tell you that regular in Miami means something entirely different than a regular person here in Michigan. I’ll speak for myself that I would help people for the greater good, but if it means it comes at the expense of my family or close friends, I will not do it. Call me selfish, but my feelings and concern for my family and friends are far greater than the general public.
I do agree with you 100% though when you defined selfish as “making decisions, regardless of their impact, to benefit oneself.” I also agree with Heathers comment about UNICEF and how it “couldn’t exist in this world if people were ALL innately selfish.” I also believe it is a selfless thing to donate money to UNICEF and to join groups like the Peace Corps. I’ve done research myself about the Peace Corps. and it’s a two year program where you don’t get paid. If you were a selfish person then you wouldn’t gain any monetary value from joining groups like the Peace Corps. Overall though each of you had valid points and arguments!
My interpretation is that Nick convinced Ibrahim to pick split using reverse psychology. Nick said he would pick steal 100% in order to squash any voices in Ibrahim's head that told him to be greedy and pick steal so that he could take the entire 13,000 pounds home. Nick surprised me with his strategy, and he had the crowd laughing too. The way Nick told Ibrahim to trust him did seem sketchy. As the show host pointed out, there was no legal reason why Nick would have to split the money after the show with Ibrahim. I think this video was an interesting way to show that Game theory does not always predict an outcome. However, there are various kinds of games. A couple examples are the prisoners' dilemma and the assurance game. I do believe that Game Theory can be effective in predicting the outcome in situations, and the golden ball game show from the UK doesn't foil Hobbes argument entirely.
ReplyDeleteMy first experiences talking about Game Theory have been in this class. I tend to agree with Eric when he said that "regular people can care more about the greater good than themselves." I think its depressing to go through life while holding onto the notion that people will look out only for themselves, even when that means it harms a bunch of other people. Then again, I wouldn't advise my friends not to take their own self-interest first. Your flight attendant tells you to secure your own oxygen mask first when a plane is going down for a reason. There is an idea that if you don't look out for yourself, who else will? But the fact of the matter is, Heather is completely right -- plenty of organizations exist that do charity for strangers every day. Neighbors and randos help each other out all the time.
I agree, game theory at times seems to simplistic to accurately model the complexities and unseen variables that go into the determination of human behavior. Analyzing probabilistic patterns and then extrapolating an explanation based off of the phenomena seen implies a level of artificiality that betrays the idea we hold of human nature.
ReplyDeleteIs game theory too constricting in terms of defining our actions: I'd say yes. In any discussion on game theory, there seems to be a desire amongst individuals to discuss the concept of biological imperatives that drive human behavior. Frequently, the concept of self-preservation is brought into the concept of being selfish, of ensuring one's own security to ensure biological preservation. It is a contrived connection at best; the biological perspective does not take culture into consideration.
There is a saying that my anthropology professor has: "culture is the lens through which we analyze and interpret nature." While the argument that biology dictates some level of human behavior may have some merit, little focus is on the presence of culture as an important factor in the concept of selfishness vs unselfishness.
Perhaps the issues regarding game theory are a direct result of itself; it is a theory that cannot possibly describe or model all scenarios as it only takes into account a limited number of variables and attempts to extrapolate meaning for statistical information. I'm interested in your opinion on this matter. Hopefully I have not misunderstood your argument.
I really like your optimistic take on life and contradiction on Hobbes' theory. My only issue is that I think that selfishness is too difficult to define, which you do attempt to do in your post. I just don't know where to draw the line of what constitutes as doing something to greater yourself even if you are doing a good or noble thing. Don't we do nice things for people so that they speak highly of us? Aren't we good friends to others in order to get companionship in return? I know that you say that this is too broad of a definition, but I don't think there is a distinct line we can really draw. Even though I also don't want to agree with Hobbes that all men are inherently evil, I can't help but agree that we do things for ourselves, even if that means doing good things for others. If doing charity makes us feel good about ourselves, that is our means of doing what we can with our own happiness and success in mind.
ReplyDelete