![\"Chainlink](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.eclectic-consult.com\/mooseblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/Chainlink-fence-e1431914096592.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis thought experiment is called the ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ and it’s a classic aspect of\u00a0game theory<\/a>, or the study of strategic thinking. In this scenario, assuming that the prisoner’s actions have no repercussions on his reputation (e.g., the other prisoner isn’t able to take revenge), the rational response is to betray the other prisoner. If he doesn’t betray you, you go free, and if he does, you serve two years. But if you don’t betray him, he’s likely to betray you, and so you’ll get three years if you stay silent. This logic is applied consistently in economics for predicting how individuals and organisations will act in given scenarios.<\/p>\n Now imagine an alternate version. In this situation, the scenario is ‘iterated’ or, in other words, repeated over and over, but both individuals can be held accountable for their earlier actions (e.g., if one betrays the other, that betrayal can be punished in the future). If the number of iterations is known by both ‘prisoners’ in advance, betrayal will always occur (the late\u00a0John Nash<\/a>\u00a0developed the proof for\u00a0this scenario, known as a zero-sum outcome). Again, many economics theories are underpinned by this assumption. Nevertheless, if the number of iterations is random, and neither party knows how many times the dilemma will be repeated, an interesting change emerges: both parties start cooperating even though they have no way of communicating. Not only do they cooperate overall, they will forgive previous transgressions, and will continue to cooperate over time. It is worth noting, that the random N<\/em> iteration version is relatively illustrative of real-life interactions between individuals.<\/p>\n Understandably,\u00a0cooperative behaviour in iterative N<\/em> versions\u00a0is particularly interesting to researchers, largely because it is not purely rational. In fact, when modelled extensively, with a whole load of different interaction strategies, it turns out that altruistic behaviours are more successful in a Prisoner\u2019s Dilemma scenario. In particular, four behaviours predict the best outcome: being nice (i.e., I won’t betray the other until he betrays me), limited retaliation (i.e., if he betrays me, I will betray him back to show him that I don’t approve of his behaviour), forgiveness (i.e., I’ll forgive his betrayal so long as he doesn’t keep betraying me), and non-enviousness (i.e., I’m not doing this to do better than you). Fascinatingly, when applied to interaction between most animals (including humans but excluding economists) in the real world, these rules invariably apply. Cooperation appears to be built in to most animals, even if they’re incapable of directly observing the consequences of their actions.<\/p>\n Consequently, evolutionary theorists have used the iterated prisoner’s dilemma to explain the evolution of the altruistic behaviours observed in pretty much all species. Thus, initially selfish behaviours (in this case, of \u2018reducing my sentence\u2019) can rapidly evolve into cooperative strategies with certain characteristics coming out on top, including being nice, and forgiving one another for past transgressions,. In humans, it’s possible that the end product of this system is compassion.<\/p>\n If you’ve read many of my blogs, you might have come across my various articles on compassion (see\u00a0here<\/a>,\u00a0here<\/a>, and\u00a0here<\/a>). As a psychologist, I’m fascinated by human compassion because it represents our highly evolved ability, not only to cooperate, but to do so in a way that allows us to model another person’s experiences strongly, and to adapt our behaviour based on\u00a0our interpretations of his or her experience. In other words, compassion is the ability to put ourselves ‘in another person’s shoes’ and to modify our behaviour, in a non-selfish way, as a consequence. Even more fascinating is the idea that this complex behaviour might have evolved from simple Prisoner’s Dilemma iterations. That is, that initially selfish (survival-based) actions can be shaped, over time and through complex interactions, to\u00a0an end point as complex as compassion, in which the human brain devotes large amounts of processing power to being able to model another\u2019s experience. Moreover, thanks to specific brain cells called \u2018mirror neurons\u2019, we\u2019re actually able to feel a version of another person\u2019s experiences, including emotions and pain. The distress or sadness you feel when witnessing another person\u2019s discomfort, is the result of the firing of your mirror neurons in the parts of your brain that process those experiences \u2013 you are literally feeling another person\u2019s suffering (albeit to a lesser degree). Of course, the ability to feel another person\u2019s pain is a big plus when it comes to acting compassionately; it\u2019s hard to harm someone when you\u2019re likely to feel a portion of that harm.<\/p>\n It\u2019s worth pointing out the downside here. Our \u2018compassion centres\u2019 are located in our left prefrontal lobes. When we\u2019re angry, upset, or otherwise physiologically aroused (especially in any \u2018danger\u2019 situation), our limbic systems (read here<\/a>) take over and direct resources (in the form of blood sugar) away from our prefrontal cortex, reducing its functionality. So when we\u2019re angry, our ability to be compassionate is substantially degraded.<\/p>\n Game theory makes it clear that cooperation makes sense in any system without a determined end point. That is, if our ongoing survival is determined by our current behaviours, in that those behaviours can affect us at a later date, it\u2019s rational to select behaviours (like kindness) that minimise the chance of future risk (such as retribution). In humans, this has quite obviously worked overall \u2013 we\u2019ve progressed societally, culturally, and technologically by, for the most part, selecting a cooperative strategy. It\u2019s quite plausible, therefore, that to attain a high level of societal complexity, we needed to evolve more complex abilities to model the behaviour of other humans, as well as to be able to directly experience (in a limited fashion) another\u2019s state of mind (even though that can be eroded through the perception of danger).<\/p>\n So, to put it another way, human compassion could well be the end point of a complex survival system, that selects for deep cooperation between humans who exist in an unknown number of Prisoner\u2019s Dilemma iterations. I\u2019m certainly not the first person who\u2019s made this assertion (read \u201cApex<\/a>\u201d Ramez Naam\u2019s great fictional interpretation of compassion and the iterated Prisoner\u2019s Dilemma).<\/p>\n Now for the shitty bit. In normal human interactions, the N <\/em>of iterations is unknown and unpredictable, meaning that it\u2019s in our interest to cooperate. We have, however, created some extremely artificial systems, in which the N<\/em> is clearly known, and a zero-sum outcome (i.e., non-cooperation) is a lot more likely. Three-year electoral terms, tax years, and quarterly profit sheets, are all potentially zero-sum iterations, because the consequences for the \u2018player\u2019 are minimised when there is little chance that punishment will occur. An incumbent government can effectively act non-cooperatively if they believe that their actions won\u2019t result in negative consequences \u2013 and this occurs regularly if their \u2018betrayal\u2019 actions aren\u2019t punished directly, rapidly, and meaningfully (whilst losing the next election is certainly a form of punishment, it becomes moot if they either don\u2019t expect to win, or are extremely confident of winning). Similarly, when the banking industry isn\u2019t penalised for reckless risk (again \u2018betrayal\u2019 behaviour in the Prisoner\u2019s Dilemma), the strategy becomes zero-sum \u2013 it\u2019s more \u2018rational\u2019 to keep betraying. Likewise, when companies are beholden only to their shareholders, and are expected to maximise profit in a given time frame (known N<\/em>), cooperative behaviour is seen as counterproductive, no matter what the cost to agents outside of the organisation and its shareholders.<\/p>\n In other words, despite having evolved an astounding ability to cooperate with other humans, backed up by dedicated brain centres that allow us to experience directly the negative consequences of non-cooperative behaviour, we\u2019ve also managed to \u2018game the system\u2019, by creating artificial zero-sum interaction conditions. Disturbingly, this in itself is delusional. No real-world system is devoid of consequence, because no real-world system exists in isolation. A company\u2019s immoral actions might result in increased share prices over a given timeframe, but these actions are simply not sustainable as the time span increases. Likewise, when governments (for example) deny climate change and act to ignore spiralling carbon levels, they might succeed in creating greater mining revenue temporarily, but are deluding themselves about the value of their actions. The delusion comes from the notion that they are not responsible for their actions beyond a given timeframe. If our current government takes actions that doom a future generation, they do so under the mistaken belief that they are not culpable for those actions. And, sadly, they\u2019re not \u2013 or at least they\u2019re not held accountable, which amounts to the same thing.<\/p>\n We don\u2019t need a drastic regime change or a revolution to fix this type of ridiculous (but understandable) thinking. We need compassion. A while back, I wrote a blog titled \u201cWhy we need compassionate politics<\/a>\u201d \u2013 more than ever, we need to allow for compassionate action in large systems by removing the deluded notion that any system can exist in a known N<\/em> series of iterations. That is, we need to recognise that our actions, individually, societally, and systemically, result in consequences outside of the perceived boundaries of that system. Importantly, this requires the removal of ways of thinking that are reductionist, including both religion (possibly the most reductionist form of thinking that exists \u2013 read here<\/a>), and economic theories that are based on limitless resources or expansion. And a great start would be to hold those who make decisions, that have the power to do harm, accountable for those decisions.<\/p>\n This is where, as individuals, we have some (albeit limited) power to act and to evoke change. Rather than waiting for an election to \u2018punish\u2019 a non-cooperative government, take direct action by writing to or talking with your MP, especially regarding governmental ethics and the need for consequent legislation (e.g., restrictions on pollution, environmental degradation, human and animal rights violations, etc.).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"