Prisoner’s Dilemma

Cairns #2 described two relationships a living thing can have with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: (1) harvesting the larger system (the environment) for the benefit of the smaller subsystem (that particular living thing) and (2) doing work that loops back up to benefit the larger system on which the smaller subsystem is dependent. Examples of this work would be the tunneling action of earthworms that open the soil to air and water so that plants can grow more luxuriantly in the soil creating more organic matter in the soil for worms to eat.

One of the major ecological problems humans have is that most economic activities can be done cheaper in the short run if the activity concentrates just on (1) and eliminates any (2) component. This cheaper form of production can then undersell methods of production that direct some of their time and resources to doing the (2) kind of work. This underselling allows the cheaper strategy to accumulate more of the profits that can then be used to buy access (lobbying and advertising are examples of this) to other resources in order to harvest them in a similar short-term manner. So there is a very strong, short-term economic feedback loop that eliminates or “externalizes” the (2) kind of work in our interactions with the world around us.

This short-term approach increases the harvest for a particular subsystem but at the expense of decreased future productivity for the greater system. Because this approach neglects or eliminates the work that continually renews and sustains the greater system, this approach eventually consumes the greater system it depends upon. Therefore this approach is unsustainable and can do lots of damage during its short life. In contrast, the long-term approach does not harvest as much in the short term. But because the long-term approach does the (2) kind of work, it increases productivity throughout the greater system so that a modest harvest may be sustained indefinitely.

The great paradox of this conflict between the short-term and the long-term is that the short-term approach will always win in the short run and always lose in the long run. It’s like the difference between a sprinter and a long-distance racer. The sprinter will always win in a short dash because s/he consumes oxygen at such an unsustainable rate that within a few seconds a tremendous oxygen debt is created which forces the sprinter to stop and pay it off. But for the same reason, the sprinter will always lose out in a long race to the long-distance runner who runs at a rate which is slower but which can be physiologically sustained.)

This paradox is neatly expressed in “The Prisoner’s Dilemma”. This problem from Game Theory has been usefully applied to economics, warfare, politics, negotiations. It nicely captures the challenge posed by the Second Law, making it especially relevant to environmental issues.

The dynamics of the Prisoner’s Dilemma is captured by the following simple instructions used in psychology experiments that research human response to this dilemma.

“In this experiment, you will be playing a game with someone in another room. That person has the same chart of payoffs as you do. Study the chart. In five minutes, you will both be asked to choose A or B. The combined choices you both make determines what each of you will receive. There is no communication possible between the two of you. The only thing you have control of is whether you choose A or B. Similarly, the only thing the other person has control of is whether they choose A or B.”

	Other chooses A	Other chooses B
You choose A	Other gets 3 points You get 3 points	Other gets 5 points You get 0 points
You choose B	Other gets 0 points You get 5 points	Other gets 1 point You get 1 point

Before reading further, study the chart and decide what choice you would make.

Before discussing the choices, let me just mention that psychologists have studied many angles of this. For example, they will mention that the other person is a “he” or a “she” and see if the subject responds differently depending on the other subject’s gender. The material for my discussion of the Prisoner’s Dilemma came from the book, Prisoner’s Dilemma, by William Poundstone.

There are two ways to study this chart. You can study it in terms of points for oneself. In that case, a logical analysis will lead you to choose B. After all, B will deliver more points than A no matter which choice the other person makes. (If the other chooses A, you get 5 rather than 3. If the other chooses B, you get 1 rather than 0). Most subjects will choose B – as will the other subject. Which leads to both of them getting 1 point each.

The other way to study this chart is in terms of points for the greater system (the two of you together). In this case, choosing A will lead to more points for the greater system no matter what the other person chooses. (If Other chooses A, the system gets 6 rather than 5. If Other chooses B, the system gets 5 rather than 2.) From this point of view, the worst possible outcome (a measly 2 points for the entire system) is the one that, in fact, tends to be chosen the most often when people think only of themselves.

Of course, the heart of the dilemma lies in “What if I choose A and the other person chooses B? Then that cheating, self-centered twit will get rich while I, noble and selfless, will be reduced to poverty. Rather than appearing the gullible fool, shouldn’t I protect myself and choose B? Understand, I’m not choosing B to cheat the other person. I’m only doing it to protect myself. And even if the other person is a noble, selfless person like me, they will probably be following the same line of reasoning I am. In that case they will choose B to protect themselves so I better also choose B to protect myself.”

This dilemma truly captures that aspect of the Second Law that I call “Easier to destroy than create”. It is much easier for the two people to talk themselves into choosing B rather than A, much easier for their concerns to shrink to the smallest sub-system rather than expand to encompass the greater system.

Analyzing our response to the Prisoner’s Dilemma makes us aware of an often unconscious attitude we carry towards the world. Do I see others as opponents or as potential team members with which we can work together for a greater good?

There has been lots of talk about the lack of “community” in modern America. I am coming to believe that the heart of community lies in the assumption (which is then affirmed through daily interactions) that the other people around you are working towards the same goals. The goals of community are noble but difficult; they are achievable only through teamwork. (A classic example is all adults helping look out for the safety of all children, not just one’s own.) What kills community is an assumption that the others around you are either opponents or, at least, not teammates. From this perspective, advertising which relentlessly hammers away at status, makes comparisons between you and those around you, conjures up fears about what others are thinking behind your back – that such advertising helps kill community by killing the assumption that your neighbors are pulling with you.
 

The classic Prisoner’s Dilemma is a one-shot, no-communication-allowed situation. Ecologically, however, that is not the situation humans are in. Since we are all in this one biosphere together for a hopefully long time, we get to play the “game” many times over. When experimenters change the Prisoner’s Dilemma to an ongoing series of choices between two players, the psychological dynamics change. Each choice becomes a form of communication.

Psychologists have conducted “contests” to find out what approach to an ongoing series of choices leads to the highest score. Should a person be nice, ruthless or some combination? The games were done between computer programs so there was no communication other than knowing what choices the other program made in the past.

The clear winner in these contests was a simple program called Tit for Tat. It had only two rules. On the first play, choose A (the one that benefits the greater system). Thereafter, choose whichever choice the other person chose last time. In an ongoing series of choices, B can acquire a new meaning. Instead of being self-centered or being a defensive reaction, it can be a moral lesson, a message that self-centered play will not be tolerated, that it won’t be allowed to acquire points at the expense of the greater system. However, a more important lesson to derive from such contests is the wisdom of creating more communication than simply that of knowing what the other player did in the past. One needs to communicate visions of the future.
 
 

The most revealing thing I learned from the book was “According to the researchers, the subjects were more interested in beating their opponent’s scores than in maximizing their own scores. The researchers speculated that “a kind of culturally imposed norm leads people who are strangers to each other to act guardedly, It is better to assure one’s self of at least equal footing with the other person than to run the risk of being bested by him.”

This is especially revealed when the point system was changed to:

	Other chooses A	Other chooses B
You choose A	Other gets 4 points You get 4 points	Other gets 3 points You get 1 point
You choose B	Other gets 1 point You get 3 points	Other gets 0 points You get 0 points

Poundstone writes, “Now this isn’t even an interesting game. There’s no reason to [choose B] at all. No matter what, you’re penalized a penny for pushing [B]. But the subjects did [choose B], 47 percent of the time.

“Here defection must derive from a competitive impulse. Players who always cooperate rack up the maximum scores possible – but the game is a “tie.” By defecting with a cooperating partner, a player wins less but increases his score relative to his opponent.”

[My wife, after reading this section, said the Prisoner’s Dilemma captures the poisonous atmosphere of put-downs that pervade most junior high schools. Put-downs are a form of choosing B, of temporarily building oneself up relative to another person – even though the greater system is run down in the sense that trust and openness is eroded and that further put-downs become the only psychologically safe (in the short-term) banter to exchange. B choices perpetuate B choices.]

To complete the quote from Poundstone: “This finding is probably a very telling one. People learn how to play games not from the prisoner’s dilemma but from tic-tac-toe, bridge, checkers, chess, Trivial Pursuit, Scrabble – all of which are zero-sum games. They are zero-sum games because all they have to offer players is the psychological reward of being the winner, a reward that comes at the expense of the losers.”
 
 

We need to nourish a different, non zero-sum game, relationship with our neighbors. As sketched above, ecosystems don’t work like a zero-sum game. Currently, we view the world as resources and feel that if we don’t harvest the resource, we “lose” – either because someone else gets it or it goes to waste. But the important point is that what we call resources are parts of living systems that contribute to the work of sustaining and expanding the environment we depend on. The greater system is engaged in the looping back (2) work that alters the sustaining flows of materials and energy through the systems which sustain us. Therefore, we win in the long run by harvesting less than we are technologically capable of – an action which is called “losing” when it is seen from a zero-sum game point of view.

I experienced a non-zero-sum game while playing tennis with Glenn in the summer between my junior and senior year of high school. We had known each other since kindergarten, though we didn’t have a lot to talk about. But we both played tennis at the same level. We would go on the tennis courts in the evening cool and play under the lights until 11. We were definitely playing to win but not in order to beat the other person. We were playing to win because the only way to win was to push ourselves beyond… No, “push” isn’t the right word. In playing the game for all it was worth, the game inspired us to feats beyond our normal play. We played hard to win – but the moment the game was over, we forgot about it and turned eagerly to the next game to experience further exaltations. These extensions and exaltations were the true winning – and so we were both winning. We were working together as teammates even though we behaved like opponents. A non zero-sum game.

In this spirit, I seek to learn how to honor my opponents. I see multi-national corporations that clearcut the world as enemies that I somehow want to beat. But my higher self is coming to believe that such ambitions are a mistake. Such ambitions contribute to a feedback loop that is as negative and hard to pull out of as the loop of put-downs that dominates so many junior high schools.

What I am cultivating instead is the image of a respectful, Japanese-like bow to those forces I oppose. Together we are playing a game, the magical game by which humans determine their role within the biosphere. What makes the game so interesting and challenging is that we have different strengths and weaknesses. It isn’t like a board game where we all start off the same. And so in playing the game, these opponents that I tend to curse will teach me, inspire me to develop strengths and compensate for weaknesses in ways I could never do without their presence. They will instruct and inspire me like a great teacher. And so I bow to them with both respect and gratitude. And in the midst of that bow, I feel the shift toward respect already strengthening me more than my former attitude of cursing did. The bow changes a conflict into a more inviting game with the intriguing potential to deliver inspiration at unknown moments. Together we will inspire one another to bring more focus and grace into our lives, to serve moral powers greater than we would ever encounter on our own.