today, in class, i learned something very valuable. probably one of the most valuable things i've learned in a long time.
if you haven't heard of 'the prisoner's dilemma' before, it goes something like this. (this is stuff from my intro to social/political philosophy)
you've got two prisoners. Abe and Bob, for simplicity. they've been caught by the police for robbing a bank, but the cops don't have enough evidence to convince the jury, even though they know they've done it. they take the prisoners, and put them into separate rooms, and this is what they tell them, seperately:
'alright, we'll be honest with you abe. we don't have enough info to put you away for a substantial amount of time, a year at most, since all you're really guilty of is having all this safe-cracking equipment. so, you've got two choices. you can confess, or don't. if you choose to not confess, and bob does the same, well, we got nothing on you. you'll both get a year in prison for 'conspiracy.' however, if you both confess, you'll both be convicted, and get 7 years each. now, if you keep quiet, and bob rats you out, we'll get to throw the book at you, and he'll be off scott-free. you'd be looking at TEN years, since you didn't confess. on the flip side, if bob is silent, and you rat HIM out, you'll be off free, and bob will be stuck with 10 years.'
now, under the assumption that each prisoner acts in completely selfish motives (in these cases, it becomes a 'prisoner's dilemma'), it will end EVERY TIME where they both rat each other out. now, if you've been paying attention, you'll see the folly in their actions. if they were both smart, and kept their bloody mouths shut, they'd both only get 1 year in prison. clearly the most optimal situation.
however, this is why it's the dilemma. it doesn't matter that both of them being silent is 'better,' because under the assumption that each prisoner acts ONLY in their own interest, when abe thinks bob will be silent (hell, even if he KNOWS bob has been silent, through some method of communication, or something), abe will STILL confess. because then, he gets out scott free, off to bermuda. ... see, this is the catch-22 about it. bob and abe can be perfectly rational, and even both REALIZE, that they will both be better off keeping their mouths shut. ... but it doesn't matter. bob, the self-interested individual, will realize HE'S better off confessing. ... unfortunately for bob, abe will have thought the same thing. and they WILL return their suck-situation of 7 years in prison.
i hope you're following this, and if you're slightly confused, i'll try to recap.
in a prisoner's dilemma, both prisoners will ALWAYS confess. thus, they will be at a sub-optimal conclusion. clearly, as an outsider looking in, we can see their foolishness, but it doesn't matter. self-interested individuals will ALWAYS choose what gives them the best benefit. if bob rats, abe is better of ratting as well. if bob remains silent, abe is better of ratting. thus, both abe and bob will ALWAYS confess.
... now, how is this relevant? ah, good question.
think back to the cold war. the US had two choices: arm or disarm (in terms of nukes). the USSR had the same two choices. ... do you see what i'm getting at? ... now, let's "assume" that both the US and USSR held its citizens' 'safety' as their top priority. regardless of the state of affairs of the rest of the world.
the same 4 possible outcomes exist, based off each parties' two choices.
- a) US arms, USSR arms - 3rd best outcome for the US
- b) US arms, USSR disarms - best outcome for the US (USSR won't attack ever if US has all the nukes)
- c) US disarms, USSR disarms - 2nd best outcome (both not having nukes is better than both having nukes)
- d) US disarms, USSR arms - worst outcome for the US (USSR could attack at any time)
this is why we had the cold war. because from the US's 'me first' attitude, it would NEVER benefit from disarming. if you look at the list above, no matter what the USSR does, the US is "better off" if it arms (look at b vs c, and a vs d).
this situation of the 'prisoner's dilemma' is not isolated to these two cases, however. it exists in environmental policy, the india/pakistan conflict, it's all over the place. ... these entities (prisoners, countries, doesn't matter) that act in their own SELF INTEREST over the COLLECTIVE interest.
now, let's compare the prisoners abe and bob, with the situation the US and the USSR were in. NO MATTER WHAT, both abe and bob WILL rat each other out, landing both themselves in a sub-optimal situation: 7 years each, when cooperation would have led to 1 year each. NO MATTER WHAT, a self-interested US and USSR would have come across the cold war, landing in a sub-optimal situation of both countries spending billions of dollars on the arms race, when cooperation would have led to nuclear free super-countries.
again, i must stress the point: there IS no debate. the self interested parties, when faced with a prisoner's dilemma, will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS land in the sub-optimal state (be it 7 years in jail, or nukes). this is really hard for some people to grasp (it took me a bit, admittedly), because the mind wants to refute it. it's irrational. ... if you are having any issues 'believing' it, take the prisoner's example again, and try to come up with a story where abe will ever 'benefit' (do better for HIMSELF) by keeping quiet. (and if you do, tell me, and we'll split the nobel peace prize award, because it can't be done).
so what's REALLY my point? ... the prisoner's dillema cannot be avoided. it pervades our lives. and it makes things worse for everyone. ... the scariest thing about it, is that it cannot be fought. once you're in the prisoner's dilemma, you're stuck in a very, very shitty position. as my professor put it, "woe be upon any stuck in the prisoner's dilemma."
... but! (this is where the hope comes in) you CAN change your viewpoint. you CAN change the way you view your dilemma. ... true, there is ZERO escape from the dilemma once you're stuck in it, but you don't have to BE in it. ... and this is what i realized today in class: there is only one way to combat it.
consider the following: you and your best friend get caught by the police. you trusted him/her, to not rat. you knew, the both of you, that your partner in crime wouldn't rat you out. you'd get 1 year, and get out. (if you disagree with this - it's your best friend - well, you're a bad person, ok?)
now, what if it was a casual acquaintance? and you could communicate through your jail cells? you'd stick to your agreement, right? 1 year sure is better than the 7 that would come if you both squealed.
what if it was your enemy? ... think hard. ... is some personal grudge worth the SIX extra years you'd lose off your life? ... i don't give a fuck if you think your enemy would turn you in, i'm asking you to think about what YOU would do. ... if you're the average american (person, perhaps?) you'd squeal. because you're a greedy fuck.
thus, the cold war. it's no different.
folks, this is it. this is how to change the world. ... i don't know a method, but this is the underlying bit that needs to change. the selfishness warps everything to hell, in a prisoner's dilemma. i don't give two shits about whether or not england holds to its kyoto protocal (the new environmental procedures, supposed to be held world-wide)... WE as a NATION need to do it, i don't care if it's not in our 'best interest' (because in a prisoner's dilemma, it's not).
but i'm digressing. ... the arms race would never have happened if the US would have realized that opting for COLLECTIVE benefit (in a prisoner's dilemma, the optimal solution, the 1-year in prison choice), would have put us in a better place. ... india and pakistan would not be going through the exact same arms race, if they'd instead go for collective benefit.
money-grubbing fuck-the-planet corporations would not exist if the CEOs would realize that collective benefit is better. environmental issues, spear-headed by asshole presidents would not exist, if the monkey would realize that collective benefit is better. the ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor would start to disappear if EVERYONE would realize that the collective benefit is better.
the prisoner's dilemma surrounds us every bloody day. all the things that are wrong in this world, can be shown to be some sort of derivation of this dilemma.... and the self-interested ideal it brings with it.
you MUST abandon your self-first attitude. there is no other option. because if you don't, if we as a people do not abandon the selfishness, we will be doomed to prisoner's dilemmas for the rest of time. you cannot control the other parties, you cannot control their choices. all you can do, all you should do, the way to MAKE A DIFFERENCE... ... is to lead the way.
today, in discussion after lecture, the professor (proving his point) had us take part in a dilemma. he had us pretend we were in the prison case, but instead, we were charged with plagiarism. it couldn't be proven, but he had strong suspicions ('cause we "had"). he had each of us (this was for our tutorial attendance grade for the day), put down 'confess' or 'not confess' to it on a sheet of paper, to turn it in. (for reference, not confessing (by both) led to b-'s, both confessing led to c-'s, and if one ratted, they'd get to 'rewrite it' (for a maximum of an a-) while the other failed the semester).
for our real mark, then, he would pair up randoms from his stack, and base our 'attendance' grade off of it (well, except the failing bit, i'm sure). i wrote 'not confess.' ... i was probably one of the only ones. ... but it's a start.
where we go from this, i'm not sure. but that's it. i've said it earlier in this rant, i'll say it again:
this is IT. ... this is the problem with the world. once this is truly, truly changed, we can enter a new era. ... as long as we cling on to the selfish motives, however, we will move farther down the path into a completely failed humanity.
<home>