There is, however, also a reexamination of rationality going on inside the economics business. This effort seeks not so much to overturn the idea of universal competition as to take it to a new and subtler level of understanding.
If history is any guide, this is the development to watch, for as Paul Samuelson likes to say, economics will be changed by its friends, not its critics.
Change there certainly is. Efforts to produce a theory of cooperation or of altruism suggest that much of the certitude about the nature of man that economists have advanced these last years may have been misleading. There may be a good and logical foundation for doctrines of loyalty and sympathetic understanding after all.
From its beginnings nine years ago as a report published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution on a computer tournament among diverse strategies, the argument grew to become a highly successful article in Science magazine it won the Newcomb Cleveland prize in , then a book published to wide acclaim in , then a paperback issued a year later.
Since then, it has been extensively discussed, taught in business schools, employed in arms limitation talks, consulted by labor negotiators. In this situation, two prisoners are accused of a crime, which they did in fact commit.
The jailers structure the payoffs to encourage each prisoner to confess: if neither prisoner confesses, both are given light jail sentences of, say, one year. If one prisoner confesses while the other remains silent, the first goes free while the other receives a heavy sentence of, say, ten years. If both prisoners confess, both get the heavy sentence, but with time off for good behavior—say, five years. Neither one knows what the other is going to do. So the question is, why would either ever stand pat and say nothing?
How is it that cooperation ever gets started? The answer, it turns out, lies in repeated play. In these circumstances, a strategy called Tit for Tat quickly emerged: cooperate on the first move, then follow suit on each successive move; cooperate if your partner cooperates, defect if he defects, at least until the end of the game is in sight then defect no matter what.
What Axelrod forcefully contributed was the much-prized quality of robustness. He showed that Tit for Tat players in reiterated games would find each other and accumulate higher scores than meanies who always defected. He demonstrated how clusters of Tit for Tat players might invade an evolutionary game and win. He generalized the strategy and found that Tit for Tat worked well against a wide range of counterstrategies simulated on computers as well as in biological systems from bacteria to the most complex species.
He published his computer tournament results and proofs of his theoretical propositions. Businesses really did cooperate, extending each other reciprocal credit, until liquidation loomed. Then trust fell apart, and even old associates vied with each other to see who could file the quickest writs.
In a recent survey of the work since the publication of his book, Axelrod wrote that cooperation based on reciprocity had been noted in everything from vampire bats to vervet monkeys to stickleback fish, and that advice based on the theory had been offered for problems in breaches of contract, child custody arrangements, superpower negotiations, and international trade.
The study of cooperation was well established and growing, Axelrod said; cooperative behavior could be taught. For humanists, however, and those scientists who are troubled by the conviction that there is more to human nature than the purely selfish, even this description of cooperation through reciprocity is disappointing. There is no divided loyalty here, no painful choice, just a simple calculation. Travelers still leave the requisite tip in restaurants in cities to which they will never return.
Citizens vote in elections even though they know that their vote is extremely unlikely to make a difference. People help strangers in trouble. They willingly bear costs in the name of fair play. They remain married in situations in which it would clearly pay to cut and run. A highly imaginative approach for dealing with such instances, and for extending economics to the realm of the emotions in general, is proposed in a new book by Robert H.
Frank, a Cornell University professor, spent ten years performing the comparatively humdrum duties of a teacher before going to Washington, D. When he returned to Cornell, a couple of remarkable books tumbled out, sufficient to place Frank on leading lists of the half-dozen most interesting mid-life economists working in the United States today.
Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status is an exploration of status fairly bursting with novel ideas about why people tend to organize themselves into leagues.
It is the kind of book that any reader, perhaps especially readers of this magazine, can pick up and browse with pleasure. Now, with Passions Within Reason, Frank has written a somewhat tighter and more demanding book. But it is the one that is destined to help change the way we think about the basis of ethical behavior.
They exist, he says. We see a homeless person, we are moved to pity; we see a child in danger, we are moved to help; we see a sterling baseball play, we are stirred and excited; we imagine our mate with another person, we burn with jealously and rage; we contemplate stealing from an unattended change box, we blush with shame. A family member constantly asks for favors, yet they're conveniently busy when you're in a jam. Or you've planned thoughtful dates a dozen times over, while your significant other hasn't done the same in So how do you break the cycle with someone who seems terminally self-absorbed?
Here's what two experts say about dealing with selfish people—and how to improve your relationships with them. Exhausting as a loved one's pattern of selfish behavior may be, Bobby suggests taking a compassionate view of why they may act this way.
Likewise, people who have arrived in adulthood without the easy ability to understand or value the emotions of others tend to be products of their environment. The friend or family member who turns every conversation into a monologue probably doesn't realize that they're annoying you at all, since they're not great at picking up others' social cues.
That lack of self-awareness means that any talking-to about their perceived misbehavior may be poorly received—particularly if this is the first they're hearing of it. While you can certainly try to have a thoughtful conversation, "generally speaking, more often than not, attempts to directly confront self-centered behavior and ask for improvement results in defensiveness, minimization and often, unproductive conflict," says Bobby.
You can only control your own actions, not anybody else's. But we also have to be prepared for the other person to not be able to meet us there. While a full-on ghosting is generally bad relationship practice, Bobby says it's possible to "assist" a selfish person in examining their own behavior by reigning in the time and energy you spend on them.
They will constantly need something from you. If you are perpetually doing things and never get anything in return, it is your time to take guard. Another interesting sign of selfishness is that they will never share or give you anything without a motive. Most times, they never share. However, you may find them constantly asking you for favors. Even if they have to share their time, you may find them grumbling about it while they may find it perfectly okay to make you wait.
Remember, all they are worried about is their own interest. They can go to any length but don't expect the same when it is their turn to give back. These are the types of people who can make you wait for hours but don't like waiting for a minute longer. They can even compromise your success if it comes in the way of their success. Even if they are your partners or best friends, it may not come in their way and they can consider it alright.
But it is a definitive sign that warns you and tells you to start looking out for the exit route from the relationship. Whether it is your partner, the man of your dreams, or best friend, one simple sign to decide whether they are selfish or not is how sensitive are they towards you?
Do they care for your feelings? How do they respond when you are hurt? If the answer to the above two questions is nothing striking, it shows that you are dealing with a selfish person, and you need to part ways soon to maintain your peace and calm. That is the only way you will be able to save yourself from getting hurt. They are normally extremely affable people and can easily strike a friendship at the first meeting.
But don't always fall for these initial ice-breakers. Carefully observe how they respond once the ice is broken. Are they as involved as before? If not, you know that you need to look elsewhere for love and sensitivity because you are dealing with a selfish person.
0コメント