Sharing

One Street: Market Square, Shipley #30

Today's blip came very easily from just one short stop on Market Square. I immediately saw these two women chatting away over a coffee and a cigarette. They were so wonderfully animated and sharing so much laughter. I had a lovely chat with them both, Rachel on the left and Beverley on the right, taking a few portraits, but I really couldn't choose one over the other. They were both so engaging, quite a double-act indeed. The more I look at it the more I think this image is perfect for today's blip.

But enough preamble. You want to know how much money you've won! For those who don't know what I'm talking about I refer you back to Monday's blip. I like to think it will be worth five minutes of your time to go back and read what all this is about. I considered then an example of a game comprising 21 players and, quite remarkably, that is the exact number of email respondents that I had. Truly! I guess it was the number I was hoping for and kind of expected. You did me proud. Thanks so much for taking the time to think about this and join in the game.

First of all I have to say that there was no right or wrong answer. The whole point of this exercise is to expose the flaws in a totally reasoned approach. I had no real expectations but, that said, I wasn't surprised by the outcome. We had 13 co-operators and 8 defectors. So, what does that mean in terms of hard cash? Well, if you were one of the majority who chose to co-operate you win the sum of £3,600. If, however, you were in the minority of those who chose to defect you win £7,200. The nice people who chose to co-operate blew off winning twice as much with their altruistic gesture. But, and it's a very big but indeed, if everyone had been self-serving in that way and defected then you'd have only won £2,000 each. You'd actually be far worse off.

I asked you to make your decision as if you were playing for real money. Try to think how you would feel knowing that you could so easily have doubled your winnings. Think what you could have spent the money on. You could have donated it to your favourite charity even. What if I presented the tournament in a different way, by telling you that you are the last person to cast your choice? The other twenty contestants have already decided and their Ds and Cs are in the bag. What do you do? By co-operating you are clearly going to be worse off than by defecting. By cooperating you are putting money in other people's prize pool at the expense of your own. These people are complete strangers. You don't know who they are, just as they don't know who you are and will never be able to thank you for your self-sacrifice and generosity. Does that make you feel like playing in a different way? It might well do so, but it shouldn't really. It's identically the same game.

Looking at it this way it's quite surprising that anyone cooperated at all, yet we know that if each person had defected then everyone would be worse off. Our strategy is largely determined by what we think other people will do. If we believe our fellow players to be rational people then we have to suspect they will defect and we are therefore persuaded to defect also. Remember that by defecting we will always be better off than by cooperating. That so many people cooperated suggests that there is another kind of thinking going on here, a superrational kind of thinking. If we believe our fellow players to be superrational people then we have to suspect they will cooperate and we are therefore persuaded to cooperate also. Remember that collectively we are all better off by cooperating.

Aside from throwing light on the complexities of such a seemingly simple game, the main point of this exercise is to try to promote a bit more superrational thought in this world. Cooperating in this game is akin to performing a random act of kindness. Each bit of superrational behaviour serves to tip the balance towards more trust, more care and love for each other, a world where we can expect to receive random acts of kindness in return. A better world. A shared world. In this sense I believe that the superrationality represented by cooperative behaviour in this situation is a kind of spiritual value, one that I think we very much need in our increasingly secular society.

I could write a lot more, but I think it's best to stop here and let you think about this a bit more yourself. I hope you find it as fascinating as I do. I should acknowledge that this game and the concept of a superrationality comes from the work of Douglas Hofstadter (of Godel, Escher, Bach fame) and specifically a collection of essays brought together in his Metamagical Themas. One of these two books would be my choice for "desert island" reading. I'd be hard pushed to choose between them.

I'd love to have your thoughts on this.