Conversation The Forum
Helper icon  Helpers: Chris2mates PrincessFruitBat

About us

Midsummer's Eve is a free online dating community - based around friendship, real meetups, real people, and real relationships. We've been online since 1999 and have twice won Radio 2's Web Site of the Day award. So why not join us for free and join in the discussion?

Questioning he theory of justifying selfishness

Its does not work in the real world, we are human or some of us are

Blackjack
Blackjack Male
6 months ago
A the mathematical theory of games of strategy,

The crux of the theory is that an individuals’ behaviour will always be motivated towards achieving an optimal outcome, which is determined by self-interest. An assumption made is that the players in such a game are rational, which translates to, “will strive to maximize their payoffs in the game”. In other words, it is assumed they are motivated by selfish self-interests.

Over the years, other contributors such as John Nash (Nash equilibrium) and John Maynard Smith (evolutionary stable strategy) have added to the theory and we are now at a point where it is considered by many to be an essential tool when modelling economic, political, sociological or military behaviours and outcomes, and is taught as such in many prestigious universities as something pretty much set in stone.

But what if we have made a terrible mistake?

After all, it is acknowledged by the theorists themselves that the entire functioning of their model relies upon the assumption that we are governed by rational selfish behaviour, and that they feel confident about this assumption since reality has apparently confirmed this fact to them. But what if this game is not objectively mirroring a truthful depiction of us? What if this game has rather, been used as a conditioning tool, a self-fulfilling prophecy, a positive feedback loop?
How can we know what is true? How can we know what kind of a person we truly are and not what we have been conditioned to think of ourselves as?
tsunamiwarrior
tsunamiwarrior Male
6 months ago
Art Markman Ph.D. Ulterior Motives.
People Can Use Honesty to Justify Selfishness
Recent research suggests that honesty is a virtue that is used strategically.

Most people think of honesty as a virtue. All else being equal, we believe that we should choose to be honest with others. There are rare circumstances where dishonesty is necessary (like when planning a surprise party) or at least tolerated (such as saying you like a person’s new haircut when you aren’t crazy about it). But we generally expect that people should strive to be honest.

A paper in the January 2021 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology by Emma Levine and David Munguia Gomez suggests that people may use honesty selectively. In particular, they may be most likely to tell the truth when being honest supports a self-serving outcome.

In one study, participants played a game in which they got to determine the payoffs that would be given to themselves and to a partner. In a control condition, the standard option was that each player would get $0.25. A selfish option gave the participant $0.55 and their partner only $0.05. An altruistic option gave the participant only $0.05 and their partner $0.55. In this control condition, 5% of participants chose the altruistic option, and the rest of the participants were evenly split between choosing the standard option (with an equal payout) or the selfish option.

Here’s where honesty kicked in. There were two other conditions of the study that varied the rules. In these conditions, participants were told that the computer was going to choose a random number between 1 and 9. If the number was odd, they were eligible to get the selfish option. If the number was even, they were eligible to get the altruistic option.

The option they actually got would depend on what they chose to tell their partner. If they didn’t tell them anything about the number, then they would get the standard option that split the money equally between the players. If they told their partner that the number was odd, they would get the selfish option and if they told their partner that the number was even, they would get the altruistic option. Some participants were then told the computer had selected an odd number and some were told it had selected an even number.

This design is complicated, but it creates an interesting way to look at the influence of honesty. When participants were told that the number was odd, then telling their partner the truth would get them a bigger payout than withholding the information. Remember that in the control condition, about half the participants chose the larger payout that would harm their partner. When told that the computer had selected an odd number, nearly 75% chose to tell the truth and get the larger payout. That is, people used the opportunity to tell the truth to justify getting more money.
tsunamiwarrior
tsunamiwarrior Male
6 months ago
When participants were told the number was even, then they would have to lie to get the larger payout. Participants told the truth and gave their partner the larger payout about 18% of the time, and they lied and took the larger payout about 39% of the time. The remaining participants said nothing about the number at all and took the even split. This finding suggests that people were most honest when they stood to gain something from being honest, though a small number of people chose to be honest even when it hurt them.

The researchers replicated this finding several times across studies. They also added an interesting extension. In some studies, participants were told about the influence of telling the truth on their own payment, but were not given information about the influence it could have on their partner’s payment. Participants could either choose to find out the influence of the options on the other participant or not.

Participants who could tell the truth and get a larger payout chose not to find out what effect that would have on their partner’s payout. That is, rather than discovering that their honesty had hurt their partner, they preferred to make a selfish choice and protect themselves by not knowing the influence their choice had on someone else. This tendency to remain ignorant is called information avoidance.

These studies suggest that many people use the virtue of honesty selectively. They will justify favorable outcomes by telling the truth. They will also help to keep the illusion of favorable outcomes by remaining willfully ignorant of information that might let them know the harm they have caused others. Fewer people in these studies elected to tell the truth when it led to a less favorable outcome for themselves.
Jeff
Jeff Male
5 months ago
Blackjack: "But what if this game is not objectively mirroring a truthful depiction of us?"
Mathematicians developed a theory called Behavioral game theory that takes into account emotions and biases in behaviour, such as how people feel about the "game". This can be experimentally determined in "games" such as the Ultimatum game, Dictator game between 2 strangers and the Public goods game between any number of strangers.
(a) Suppose Alan has £100 and he can offer any part of it to Beth, and Beth rejects that offer then Alan loses that £100 and Beth gets nothing too, then how much should Alan offer Beth to maximise the expected amount that Alan probably ends up with? The answer is not obvious.
(b) Suppose Alan has £100 and he can offer any part of it to Beth, and Beth has to accept that offer and Alan gets no penalty, then how much should Alan offer Beth to maximise the expected amount that Alan probably ends up with? The answer is obviously that Alan should offer Beth £zero. But many people playing the role of Alan would offer Beth part of the £100. And what if they play a series of this game, swapping roles?
(c) Suppose a group of people each have £100, and they can secretly put any amount of it into a public pot which multiplies in value, (they keep their remaining amount), and the total public pot is then divided equally between all of them. If you were one of say 5 players, and if the public pot multiplied by say 3, how much would you pay into the public pot?

Blackjack: "What if this game has rather, been used as a conditioning tool, a self-fulfilling prophecy, a positive feedback loop? How can we know what is true? How can we know what kind of a person we truly are and not what we have been conditioned to think of ourselves as?"
Most people don't know game theory, especially because much of it is very mathematical. So they don't feed it back into themselves. Game theory makes assumptions that are true to some extent, but it doesn't condition us.
You asked exactly those questions in thread "Game theory, our new normal abridged" midsummerseve.com/thread/198699/1/game_theory__our_new_normal_abridged and I answered them on 05-Feb-22 at 15:24 & 15:30, pointing out some of your falsehoods and asking some questions, which you didn't answer except for false insults.
(Incidentally, in those posts my section 6 applies to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, before it happened.)


 Back to top

 Help with conversations