What has being nice ever gotten me?
In the article linked below, Steven Strogatz, in an interview with Business Insider reporter Elena Holodny, discusses the history of key results in the field of game theory which have led to its use in the description of our human morality. This article is an appropriate addition to this blog, as its treatment of a game-theory-based analysis of morality is built upon the research into the prisoner’s dilemma conducted by Professor Robert Axelrod at the University of Michigan.
Before elaborating upon this research, recognizing that game theory is simply a mathematical model, we must ask ourselves what limitations our treatment of the prisoner’s dilemma in class so far has had. How are we fundamentally different from the hapless prisoner under interrogation? I would argue that one primary limitation of our model is the absence of memory. In lecture, we made no distinction between Bonnie and Clyde and the first-time offender. How will Bonnie react if she has been through interrogation before and knows that Clyde has a history of confessing? Mr. Axelrod’s research along with Professor Strogatz’s commentary help us to answer this question and others which derive from it.
Therefore, in my mind, Mr. Axelrod’s research and subsequent discoveries form the next logical step in a proper application of game theory to our everyday lives. After reading Mr. Strogatz’s description of research in the field of morality, I contend that we have the evidence needed to begin to answer many questions, such as how are our individual views toward morality and personal relations different from those of our ancient ancestors? How should individuals and nation states behave in our ever more globalized world?
In the case of the first question, the answer is a definite yes. As mentioned in the article, we no longer subscribe to an “eye-for-an-eye” legal code like that of Hammurabi. Instead, upon reflection, we should realize that we have built into our laws certain assumptions about human behavior, namely that humans make mistakes and are liable to misinterpret the actions of others. Take, for example, the construction of a house which later collapses and kills its occupant. According to the excerpt from the code of Hammurabi I have linked to, the builder would automatically be seen to have acted maliciously in his construction of the house and would be put to death. This matter would be very cut and dry. From the perspective of punishment, the builder is no different than a common murderer. However, when we consider this unfortunate hypothetical in the context of modern laws, we realize that there may be grey areas in the assigning of malicious intent to the builder. Our judicial system may simply be content with a conviction on the charge of manslaughter and a sentence of a few years in prison or in the case of an asteroid hitting the house, forgiveness of the builder.
From a global perspective, the second question is especially relevant in the context of today’s world, especially when considering the actions of dictatorships on the international stage. In modern diplomacy, government-level actors recognize that some provocations are unintentional and that some have roots in misunderstandings caused by culture and language barriers. However, some actors on the international stage have mastered the art of defection. Take, for instance, conflicts which involve the claiming of disputed territory, a subject which comes to the fore every now and then. One could argue that the lack of a “tit-for-tat” policy by those nations which voice strident opposition to these types of aggressive actions is an example of tolerance for rogue actors built into modern assumptions concerning the game-like field of diplomacy. Competing nations are willing to tolerate the actions of others to a certain extent, as they realize that collective wellbeing is maximized by more cooperation and less conflict. Therefore, in today’s world if a nation badly wants a piece of territory, it should just go ahead and claim it. This is a clear example of the benefits of occasional defection when confronted with the prisoner’s dilemma in our modern world.
Taking this into consideration and pondering the future, in truth, after having read Professor Strogatz’s commentary and having written this post, I feel somewhat despondent. If present research is to be believed, the way to get ahead in a kind and caring world is to be a bully. Further, keeping in mind the cyclic nature of the results obtained in the research described, the future that awaits our descendants is in fact not a world kinder than ours; it is a world of defection, not of cooperation. The code of Hammurabi and “tit-for-tat” worldviews may just make a comeback.
http://www.businessinsider.com/game-theory-geopolitical-conflict-steven-strogatz-2016-6
http://cenews.com/article/6142/the_code_of_hammurabi_and_structural_engineers