Nice Guys Finish First January 27, 2007
Posted by The Probabilist in : [Articles], Consciousness, Communication, Creativity, Games, Goals, Society, Productivity, Psychology, Relationships, Responsibility, Studies , add a comment
I watched this great documentary from 1987 by BBC Horizon, which was narrated/hosted by Richard Dawkins, author of the (im)popular book The God Delusion. I haven’t read the book, but I truly enjoyed this 45 minute presentation of human interaction and cooperation when sharing and dealing with resource allocation. Basically it raises the question if individuals truly only care for themselves or if there’s to be found any natural tendencies to provide altruistic deeds as well for the good of the self, a larger group and/or for the highest good of all.
While the video can be found on Google it might not be available for long, so I’ll cover the fundamental lessons learnt from it as well as my own take on it. The cornerstone of the research was conducted through an experiment called the prisoner’s dilemma. Here’s a description of how it works, what the winning strategy is and what I thought of it.
Two individuals are unable to interact with each other and need to choose between either Cooperating or Defecting. If both choose C, they both get 3 points. If both choose D, they both get 2 points. However, if one chooses C and the other D, the sucker gets 1 point while the greedy one gets 4. Then both of the “prisoners” follow this rule for several rounds only being told how they scored on each round.
Some fancy computer of the late 80s was used when inserting several different strategies into a program that would calculate the different strategies’ outcomes as they all matched up against each other in a long sequence of conducting this experiment. Among them were “cheats” always going for D, “suckers” always going for C, “grudgers” only going for D if confronted by a “cheat” and tens of other more complex and sophisticated strategies.
A quick glance shows that both choosing C scores the highest mutual points, six. The other alternatives are then either four or five. My initial response was that mutual C is self-evidently the best choice, no questions asked. However, if I know what the other participant chooses, D would be my best choice no matter what his/her choice was. So it is quite a dilemma after all. The challenge arises when you make the experiment into a sequence of choices - either building or breaking trust between the two.
The winning strategy that scored the most points when dealing with all other strategies that were programmed, was “tit for tat”. This strategy consists of simply doing what the other participant did on the previous round. The strategy’s strong points lie in predictability, simplicity and strive for equality. It’s neither greedy nor gullible. And it neither manipulates nor gives in. It simply ends up telling the other person that mutual Defecting is worse for both and mutual Cooperation is best for both.
The reason I like the result of “tit for tat” coming out as the champion among all of the other strategies is firstly that it’s an observing role. It starts with a positive C and then goes on rewarding Cooperation and punishing Defecting as the test goes on. Secondly, it immediately responds on a greedy move by letting the other individual know that it won’t tolerate it. Thirdly, “tit for tat” understands that you can’t beat an average score of 3 unless you’re dealing with a chronic “sucker”. And let’s face it, there aren’t many suckers in the world who are happy with consecutive 1 pointers.
This is just one valuable insight Dawkins brings out. Other great examples are how other species come to reach a pattern of mutual cooperation with each other, how in sports you might also come to situations where mutual cooperation is the best solution and how in balancing and conserving natural resources it is best to think in terms of the prisoner’s dilemma. I’ve always known that nice guys finish first - in the long run. I hope you can watch the video so you can see the proof for yourself.
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Faith and Belief January 23, 2007
Posted by The Probabilist in : [Articles], Consciousness, Creativity, Personal Growth, Philosophy, Beliefs, Vision, Abilities, History , 3 comments
Which one do you subscribe to? This is a question of either relying on rationality or spirituality when it comes to getting adequate explanations to matters in life that science can’t address. Some people may hold the initial perspective that men of faith are those too simple and deluded to understand that atheism, duality, the theory of evolution or the absence of afterlife is the correct way to explain the universe, and some people that men of reason are those missing out on what life (and death) has to offer since they work their brains off to show that there’s no proof behind theism, non-duality, theory of divine creation or afterlife/reincarnation.
Let’s take it from the top. Belief is the mind pattern saying that proof and belief go hand in hand. Without proof, you won’t believe. Alternatively, without belief, no proof will present itself. Faith, on the other hand is a form of belief without any sort of proof. One could also say that the way I delve into something new, as explained in the link above, is that faith gets transformed into belief. I think it’s a very powerful realization that you can start out with blind faith, see whether a proof appears to you and draw your conclusions from there, and only if you’ve personally conducted this experiment first-hand.
This doesn’t come without risk or peril though as hard-core rational thinkers like to express their view on the matter. They reason that if you would e.g. start to show faith in God, then your mind and senses will start to play tricks on you and you would end up deluding yourself into believing that God has spoken to you, showed his might and power somehow or proven His existence through any other imaginable way. How can you tell if that’s the correct interpretation or if a divine power truly does influence people’s lives once they start to show faith?
That is entirely for you to decide and hopefully it is or has been a conscious choice. I’d still like to explain how I view this issue and live by. Maybe it’s helpful, maybe it’s delusional. Whatever your opinion, it’s very closely linked to the views I’ve shared on other intangible issues in past entries. So here’s my take on it.
For starters, I’m currently quite centred on the Judging - Perceiving scale of the MBTI, the only one of the four I’ve been a mover and shaker in. I want things to be open-ended and myself to be open-minded. Yet, I also always want to strictly belong to a certain model of belief, reality, causality or understanding that is structured, easy to understand, fulfilling to follow and plays a role in my results and progress as a human being. I find utter indifference in that which I can’t influence.
I’m also a devoted spokesperson on helping people awaken to make choices in their lives. Choices not originating from others’ programming and force, but arising from within, making the most sense and delivering the greatest results and purpose to everyone on a personal level. Since I find so much power behind choices, my greatest weapon in fighting either/or-thinking has been to first ask the following question for myself whenever I encounter issues like this one. “Can I choose both?”
Intangible issues are infinite. My view is that you may be as greedy as you want when it comes to answering these questions, so ask first if two or several choices can co-exist in your mind at the same time. Long-time readers may have noticed that I’m prone to do this. However, sometimes I fight and-thinking by evaluating two concepts that are both accepted in general. I end up eliminating one of them as I’ve found the other one to be useless. When it comes to faith and belief I allow both to exist and I use whichever suits best when I encounter something new and exciting. There’s something good to be found in them both.
Belief is such a fundamental pattern for explaining causality that man simply couldn’t function properly if he didn’t believe in proof. However, the trick lies in not using it excessively, only believing that which already comes with a proof. I think every form of belief that you currently hold was originally a leap of faith. Everything is first faith and slowly more and more of it transforms into belief. As an “unconscious” baby you have faith that somebody will nurture and nourish you. As your senses evolve and you become conscious of being the master of your bodily movements, you have faith that you can stand, walk, talk, touch and do anything that everyone else is doing. Would you rather classify this as seeing proof and then believing? Maybe so, but the truth is that I can’t do and can’t learn to do exactly the same things as others can. We come with different characteristics and abilities, which means that some actions require faith and not belief - if not all, as I view it.
Take for instance the faith in sailing across the Atlantic, the faith in flying through the air, the faith in running a mile under four minutes and the faith in landing on the moon. None of those happened until somebody experimented and decided to make them provable. The proof then turned the faith into belief. Without faith, humanity would not evolve. We would all do only that which we have proof of us being able to do. What humanity is doing is that we constantly take things previously in the realm of faith and transform it into belief. The downside of this progress is that some people have become lost in only accepting belief as their mental model of explaining how the universe works. This is why I subscribe both to faith and belief in helping myself along with everyone else to awaken to their true potential of what they can accomplish.
(2 votes, average: 4.5 out of 5)
