Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Because we remember every penny of our own goods, but we don't remember or even notice the rubles of someone else's goods.
Because those who have not yet become altruistic are simply stupid. In general, the cause of evil is stupidity. There is nothing more pleasant than the comfort of a clear conscience, at least it should not be. Everyone loves you, no one is the enemy — what could be better, why be evil?
Because game theory implies something slightly different. Most likely, you were referring to the prisoner's dilemma (as the simplest problem, where one of the conclusions is about the benefits of altruism). But look a little more closely at it, and at the conclusions. The findings do not claim that altruism is beneficial. And the opposite is not claimed either. The conclusion there is that IF there is mutual trust between prisoners, then they both benefit. And if there is no trust, then it is more profitable for everyone to play “for themselves”, and then their winnings will be less than in a situation with trust.
Thus, the conclusion of this task is about the importance of trust. In a trust situation, each prisoner actually acts selfishly (not altruistically). He makes the decision that will be more profitable for him (taking into account the fact that he trusts another prisoner). Simply, in a situation of trust, the most profitable strategy for the egoist changes. It is precisely in the situation with criminals that there are thieves ' concepts that it is not good and dangerous to pawn, and these concepts try to create rules so that it is more profitable not to cooperate with the investigation.
In real life, this works a lot of places (where suitable conditions are created). Almost everything that is protected by law is an example of this situation. Why can we pay an advance payment and receive the goods? Because the law protects us, we trust a supplier we don't know, because we sign a contract, and we know that the law will protect us. We trust – not because his face is kind or we are trusting, but because there are reasons to trust, we know how often or rarely deceive, we know how often or rarely deceivers are found.
If the law doesn't work, then personal connections or gang connections may work. Any mechanism that builds trust works. Can our partner deceive us? Yes. But unlikely. Because if they cheat, they are highly likely to be punished. That's why we trust you.
We trust when we put money on the counter (After all, the saleswoman can pick it up and say ” get out of here, boy, you didn't give me anything!”). But we know that it is very expensive to maintain even a small store. And if the saleswoman earns a hundred rubles 2-3 times like this , she will lose much more, if only due to the fact that people will stop going there. This creates a trust mechanism as a result.
Even just a habit, a tradition , is also a mechanism of trust. Where it is not customary to steal – there are lower costs for security, insurance, all sorts of “anti-theft”. Remember the first commercial stores, where on 20m of retail space there was a seller and a security guard necessarily. And what kind of cheat costs were necessary for this. And a modern hypermarket, where it is quite easy to steal something for small things, but since this is almost not done , then you can make huge shopping areas without a large security staff.
Economically, this is very noticeable in the example of a free capitalist economy and a planned one. In human nature-the desire to get more benefits for yourself, good food, clothes, car, apartment. The planned economy tries to ignore this. But the person works “for himself” (for example ,the seller hides a deficit, for his own or to sell more expensive). He is not supposed to do this “by design”, but in fact-it is more profitable for him. And he pursues his own benefit. In a market economy, people also play for themselves, but the conditions are different. And there it is profitable for the seller to sell the product, and if necessary, stay even until late or on weekends, or help load it. The rules of the game change , and so does the behavior of players. Not because they become altruistic, but precisely because they are selfish.
In other words, it is not altruism that is beneficial, but such conditions, mechanisms, and rules of the game, when each player, pursuing precisely their own interests, creates the common good.
Such theories are created with an obvious biased intention of the author. There are no objective reasons to consider altruism a really objective picture of the world with a clear vision of the nature of things. I say this, although I try to be an altruist myself, but I chose atruism not out of any philosophical speculations, but simply because it is more pleasant to me than conflicts and quarrels. So it's probably a pure dopamine, chemical choice. In the same way, most of the theories about altruism and pacifism, and even liberalism, are purely speculative in nature and rarely pay for themselves. They work as long as we believe in them, as long as we like to believe in them. These theories can be beautifully and subtly described, presented and packaged, but everything essentially depends on the interpretation of the question, and your perception of this question. Since people in general are very dependent on ethics and emotions, and need them as food, the theories of altruists/pacifists seem to be a balm to them, but among people of a different type, purely military for example, these theories cause only laughter and disdain. Speaking purely pragmatically, altruism, pacifism as a social strategic model is rather not profitable, and it is rather difficult to implement. In this case, it is often perceived as the position of a weak individual. In order to understand the motivation and behavior of an altruist and pacifist, all those who evaluate him must themselves be selected for a sufficiently high level of consciousness, which is not expected from average individuals in society. The situation is like with works of art by great masters. A gray and ideeless person will look at great masterpieces and will not understand or see anything special. And this is the best case scenario. In the case of an altruist/pacifist, he will easily become an easy target, and the shell of restraint and decency will not help him against displays of genuine and most trivial aggression. Perhaps that is why most of the saints were subjected to such strong aggression and harassment by society, since in fact almost nothing can be done against the energy of aggression that causes a sense of humiliation and fear. It can destroy anything.�
Well, genetics and the theory of evolution compels timid altruism with their final concrete arguments, which are as follows:: 1) the genes of criminals and villains are usually much more adaptable and therefore dominant than the genes of pacifists and altruists, who are recessive 2) in nature, absolutely everything is based on the concept of power and status, and extremely cruel laws rule, so it has been going on for hundreds of millions of years, where animals destroy each other, who is stronger and more, is right, survives, the genes of others are rejected, and the social model of sapiens,, the support and deep value of emotional connections is only a drop in the ocean compared to the entire biological history of the Earth.
Because it doesn't follow from game theory. This particular conclusion, which works in the case of an evolutionary model, when the number of iterations is large, in the limit is infinite, is specifically developed in the framework of the “prisoner's dilemma”�
That is, if the result of collisions is:
then altruism is beneficial.�
This can be very well seen in the example of life in general, since life starting from the molecular stage is an example of interaction and cooperation, and at a later stage the emergence of eukaryotes, multicellularity, and the emergence of humans in the end confirm this. Even if we take a cross-section of the biosphere at any stage, there are an order of magnitude more examples of symbiosis than parasites, and all symbionts are former parasites. At the level of society-similarly, society itself is altruism and all existing social groups are altruism.
If you take the ordinary life, then both strategies work-altruism and selfishness, and this does not contradict game theory. If the interaction is one-time, then it is beneficial to be an egoist, if it is long-term, then an altruist.�
Separately, it is necessary to say that game theory is rational, that is, it provides for the most effective behavior, and in reality people act irrationally, but this is already part of cognitive psychology.