Monday, September 12, 2011

The Diamond Rule

This is a really interesting explanation of the application of game theory principles to ethics. I found this to be particularly useful in categorizing my own behavior and those of others:
The first strategy is called “The Golden Rule.” This strategy basically represents the idea to “Do to others, what you would have them do to you.” So if you were to apply this to the prisoners dilemma, you would remain silent every time the game was played.

Another strategy available is called “The Silver Rule” which is to “Do not do to them, what you would not have them do to you” which is a variation of the golden rule, but in the case of the prisoner’s dilemma, would also mean that you would remain silent every time the game was played.

Another strategy available is called “The Bronze Rule” which is to “Do to them, as they do to you” or as some would say “an eye for an eye” which, in the case of the prisoner’s dilemma, would mean that you would remain silent, if the other prisoner remained silent the last time the game was played, or if they were to testify against you, then you would do the same to them the next time around.

Another strategy available is called “The Iron Rule” which is to “Do it to them, before they do it to you” which, in the case of the prisoner’s dilemma, would mean that you would testify against the other prisoner every time the game was played.

These different strategies were all tested in multiple computer simulated and in real world experiments, and it was found that actually none of these strategies were superior for the long term benefit of both players.

It was found that a completely different strategy was found to be superior, which has been called the “Tit for Tat” strategy, and which I have labeled as “The Diamond Rule.”

This strategy basically states that both players should start out with the Golden Rule/Silver Rule strategy of cooperation with the other player, or in other words, to remain silent each time the game is played. If at any time the other player is to defect, or to testify against you, you are then to “punish” them, by also testifying against them the next round of the game, but then after that round, to forgive them, and to return to the Golden/Silver Rule strategy of cooperation.

In effect, the Diamond Rule states that you should cooperate with others, but if at any time another person is to hurt you, then you must withdraw your cooperation and get justice until justice has been fully dealt, and to then “forgive and forget” and be open to cooperating with them once again.

So that is how the Nash Equilibrium and Game Theory is most readily and easily applied to ethics. In effect, the Nash Equilibrium of Game Theory is a mathematical proof for why things like ethics, altruism, justice and forgiveness are actually most beneficial for every member of the group in which they exist. A mathematical justification for moral and ethical behavior.
I'm not surprised that the Diamond Rule was the most efficient. And longtime readers of the blog shouldn't be surprised to see me assert that I think sociopaths are probably the most able to pull the Diamond Rule. First, you have to be able to punish someone, harsh enough to make an impact and fast enough so you can both quickly move on to the forgiveness stage. Sociopaths are impulsive and ruthless, they would easily be able to pull this part off. Second, you would have to completely forgive them and go back to the way things were before. Normal people hold grudges, but for sociopaths something like this isn't personal, just business. Once you have knocked them around for their misbehavior, if they have any use to the sociopath it would be right back to being chummy. In fact, the Diamond Rule is pretty much my default. I hate the Golden Rule, I think it's idiotic and narcissistically inefficient. I do the Silver Rule, but will take them down if necessary (Diamond Rule). The Bronze Rule is petty and others centered. The Iron Rule is just too inflexible for modern society.

In other news, I'm sort of fascinated and flummoxed by the author of the blog (linked above), "Broderick Boyd" of "The Broderick Boyd University." I can't tell whether he is trying to become a motivational speaker, is a raging narcissist, or what, but I'm curious enough to follow him on Twitter.

Friday, September 9, 2011

Saying sorry

"Sorry means you'll never do it again." That's what I always used to hear as a child in reply to my rote recitations of the words "I'm sorry."

I grew up with a narcissistic father. He could be such a hard ass sometimes, but he could weep uncontrollably at the most ridiculous things. I learned not to trust signs of emotion from him; they were just farcical manipulations trying to fit whatever image he was trying to project, not sincere responses to normal stimuli. He was so erratically hot and cold about everything. I hated how unpredictable that made my life. And he always kept score, even for some of the bad stuff about himself. I think he actually spent his whole life resentfully trying to put more hashmarks under the "good" column than the "bad," just so he wouldn't have to hate himself. I say all of these unrelated things just as context for this next point:

Whenever I wanted to enact justice, he was always opposed. The situation could have nothing to do with him. I could be having a dispute with a friend or even an enemy and if I did the slightest bit of retaliation, he would disapprove or actively fight me on it. I was never molested by priests or anything, but I have had enough things happen to me or my siblings that screamed for justice to know that if I was, he would have said something like, "Just let it be." He had the most ridiculous reactions, and it wasn't any religious turn the other cheek thing either.

You see, whenever he saw a perpetrator, he always identified with him. Every time I was out for blood, he thought about himself. He was afraid. He was afraid that someday someone would come after him for something he had done, just like I was going after other people. In his world he wanted actions to not mean anything. He wanted to think he was above any consequences, above any causal relationship between his actions and the results of those actions. I don't know if he actually believed that he was above them or maybe he just had to think that way in order to live with himself, but the gist of it was that he wanted to be able to do whatever he wanted and still think whatever he wanted about himself. I hated him for that. I interpreted it as more of his up is down, down is up delusional propaganda, a way to slip out of blame for anything. And he hated me for wanting the world to be one predictable flow of cause and effect.

Anyway, now I'm fine if that's how people want to live their lives, and I know that people who are like that are deaf to any attempts to reason with them, but I still get the most pleasurable sensation of schadenfreude when I see them getting exactly what's coming to them.

Sociopath quote: adaptation

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”

Misattributed to Charles Darwin

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

High on Life

I was watching an interview with Deepak Chopra and some other scientists and he mentioned bio-regulation of autonomic functions through heightened awareness. I was intrigued because I felt like I had personal experiences that confirmed what he was saying, thinking myself to more dopamine. I found this interview that references such a possibility:
I do think technology is a huge advantage, taking us into an exploration of the hidden dimensions of our own existence. And that includes consciousness, that includes the subtle levels of awareness, that includes the autonomic functions.

I see that in about five or 10 years, if we are successful, you could go to a doctor and say, “You know, I have migraine headaches” or even a narrowing of the coronary arteries, and the doctor will say, “Well, I can give you a prescription or you can play a video game. How's that?” And I think it will happen. You know the biofeedback responds to the autonomic nervous system, it responds to what is called the RR variability in your heart, it measures skin resistance, and soon brain waves. I know one of the things that is very likely in the future is that you could take drug addicts and train them through this technology to understand what happens in their nervous system when they're experiencing a drug high. And then through the appropriate bio-regulation, you can have them regulate their brain waves, so that they can have the same experience without taking the drug. And I think all that is wonderful. Technology can take you to a certain point. It can give you insights, just like in the 60s people had great insights taking LSD and mushrooms and all that. I think now we have enough biotechnology and bio-regulation that can do that perhaps even better.

But ultimately the exploration of consciousness has to go beyond technology. It takes time, it takes discipline, it takes intentionality, it takes sincerity, it takes a great of deal authenticity to be wanting to go there - not just for the experience, but because you know that that experience will take you from your personal self into your more interdependent collective and hopefully Universal self.
My bet is that if bioregulation of autonomic functions is possible, sociopaths would excel at this because of their ability to compartmentalize and hyperfocus. Thoughts?
Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies

.

Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.