I submitted this game of "hunt gazelles" hundreds and hundreds of people.
Usually, I play the role of "facilitator" of the game.
As a first step, I ask each player to decide what to do. In this phase, players do not meet, do not talk (just keep them in separate rooms), and therefore often decide not to cooperate, by trying to secure the spoils for himself more at the expense of others. But since both make this argument, they end up falling into the worst situation.
After a few games of this type (which mostly end up in situation 1 +1), the reasoning is clear: I
what I expect? If you do not know you and I have no reason to trust you, know that no matter what I do, the best choice for you will be the one to cheat. As the table shows, in fact, if I cooperate, you get more cheating (3 gazelles instead of 2), and if I cheat, cheating you still get more (a gazelle rather than nothing). Therefore, I conclude that you choose to cheat.
The most rational choice at the individual level is not to cooperate!
But since we are both rational beings, both decide to cheat and end up in the worst situation in terms of "system" 1 +1 = 2, the worst result if we calculate the sum of two players (or in other cases we have 3 or 4 ).
Each player understands and does this reasoning you should cheat. But of course you in your turn, apply this same reasoning to me, convince myself that Barer. Thus, each of us knows that the other will choose to cheat and that, consequently, will return home from hunting deer with one head, which would probably be too little to justify the effort required.
soon spread frustration, caused by the fact that I, as a "facilitator" of the game I'm not allowing players to meet (note in passing that the original name of the game is typical prisoner's dilemma: what prisoners are the two players? Right of 'inability to communicate!)
At this point a second phase, which allows players to meet.
Here the arguments are beginning to change:
If you know and trust each other, we promise to work together and expect to be believed. In this case, it is worthwhile to cooperate in the hunt, since we get two gazelles to head the effort of the bar will be well rewarded at the individual level (2 gazelles) and well rewarded at group level (2 +2 = 4, maximum possible).
So, if we trust each other, we have before us the best opportunity: the overall result will be higher. The fact
to meet, to enter into communication allows you to find a deal better for your situation. Players often use a bit 'of play to learn to trust each other, to enter into an agreement and to abide by it. Sometimes one of the two they had more confidence and cooperate immediately, but the other is the "care" and he gets three gazelles. Sometimes, the cooperator, burned by experience, no longer trusts for different play. To play the other two fall into the worst situation.
But almost always (it's only a matter of time), players gradually learn to trust and to converge on the situation best. Often also develop creative discussions on how to ensure the deal: sign a document, there are penalties, we agree to share in any case always the result of hunting, etc.. These findings are interesting because they often recount what humanity has made over the centuries in the social functioning and positive law: contracts, agreements, laws, rewards, punishment, punishment, etc..
cooperation, therefore, is not a zero sum game (where if one wins the other loses), but it is a game where can win both. If humans had not been able to cooperate in this way, would probably not survived the hardships of life in the bush.
Perhaps this capacity was one of the great evolutionary advantages of the species homo.
Today we can say that evolution has "wired" neurons in our ability to collaborate, to be social animals. But the interesting thing is that this ethic is deeply founded, as evidenced by the game, not necessarily on an ethic of values \u200b\u200b("you must work because it is right") but only on an ethics of consequences, namely the rational calculation of pro and cons of various alternative ("Why should you have to work").
0 comments:
Post a Comment