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)
Power vs. Force January 15, 2007
Posted by The Probabilist in : [Books], Consciousness, Personal Growth, Purpose, Responsibility, Science , 1 comment so far
David R. Hawkins’ book explains the hidden determinants of human behaviour and is one of the most outstanding and significant books I’ve read. The sole and whole message is that all things existing (people, objects, emotions, thoughts, habits, teachings, etc.) calibrate at a level of consciousness measured on a logarithmic scale from 1 to 1 000. This, in all its simplicity means that every person ought to avoid things at the lower levels of consciousness and attract things at the higher end - for the good of all humanity and the universe. 200 is the breaking point where anything beneath is negative, weak, bad, unhealthy and wrong while anything above signifies the positive, strong, good, healthy and right. While this may sound like an overly dramatic and narrow view since it gives the impression that all is either black or white, it is so merely from an objective, or universal viewpoint. But as people have a personal, subjective view of what is right or wrong it is dependant on each person’s level of consciousness they are in.
For instance, for those lingering in the level of apathy (poverty, despair and hopelessness), ascension into fear for instance would be a great step forward (fear drives to take action to avoid the objects of fear, e.g. rejection, death and enemies). But for a person driven by pride (egoistically feeling good about self, but defensive and vulnerable to attack), fear would be a step far lower and worse than the consciousness level of pride. However, all of these levels are below 200, and from the perspective of the collective awareness of humanity, drag it downward. Those individuals calibrating at a level past 200 serve as the contributors of improvement and higher understanding to everyone. Force calibrates below 200 and is driven by tangible objectives while power is an unlimited and intangible source of improvement that is separate from the ego.
Hawkins explains all of the levels with undeniable accuracy and great insight, but as the verdict lies in the mind of the beholder, those still struggling with their understanding of the nature of reality, spirituality and non-duality, will find it troublesome to accept the viewpoint that man is the sole contributor to how his life is. Every level is a trap in itself as one is first required to leave the crucial hindrance of the existing level behind to allow the empowering belief and understanding definable by the next level to successfully make the transition. As a good example, nobody can quit smoking (level of desire) until there’s a feeling of fury or frustration over its effects (level of anger). This doesn’t mean that it is the best motivational factor to eliminate smoking, but it is the primary drive that has the ability to take action. Desire in itself perpetuates and enjoys a negative habit due to ignorance.
What I want to emphasize in this review is that every single person can identify themselves in a level of consciousness through this incredibly valuable framework, and moreover identify what is lacking in their mind-set to take the step to the next level that adds more purpose and value to daily existence - in a most significant manner. This tool explains why there is no given thing in the world that everybody thinks of as a positive part in their life. Differences in opinions over any given issue is the result of people found at different levels of awareness. The harsh realization of all this is the truth behind the saying that birds of a feather flock together. There’s a feeling of comfort when surrounding oneself with people at the same level, but comfort never pushed anyone to make a leap into the better. At best, if the current level of comfort is robbed from an individual, the person will rebound to get it back.
There’s so much to this book that I’d have to write a lengthy, separate article to present the most valuable insights I found. Therefore, I’m likely to write one or a few closely ones linked to the material in Power vs. Force in the future. My sincerely best recommendation is to pick up the book for yourself and devour it from cover to cover. Simply reading it through has the power to raise your understanding of the nature and purpose of things and yourself. You will not only discover your current drive or meaning for existing, but also be given a great framework for understanding the path of improved life quality.
(5 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
