When I said that I thought the best thing for us is to cooperate and trust each other, it’s not that I don’t think (and believe) cheating is the best outcome event in game theory on a short run. But on further reasoning, I also think that in the long run, it’s better for everybody to co-operate than to cheat. But not everybody has went so far with game theory because some of them are living their lives on a day-to-day basis. In their lives, the longest they can think of is today. I don’t think I can blame them for not thinking past that point. But I think people who can think of that should be the ones who understand it and change their behavior accordingly to correct for these biases.
This is something in India that I have seen, I’ve felt many shopkeepers had shortchanged me in our first transaction, but they corrected it the second time and started doing the kind of business I wanted to do. I guess they use a different kind of Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) strategy that goes like this. Their strategy is that they defect once, but if you don’t do a tit-for-tat in the next game, they start co-operating with you from there on. They are the people who think of short term gains, but given a second chance, would co-operate. because at that point they realize it’s better for them.
There are also people who would defect even after we don’t do a tit for tat, those are the people who we need to keep away from. There would be a point where they eventually start co-operating. I think that’s a high risk option, but we would never know until we try it out.
I think my PD strategy is co-operate twice in most cases before I think of a tit-for-tat depending who I play it with in an repeated PD experiment. I think I’d rather stop playing after two and write off the losses as learning. I think I’m saying this because if I give away the strategy that people could use to beat me, then I can think of ways to understand better the people who intend to use that strategy while avoiding playing with them.
Everybody we see are in phases of their lives that we once were or may be at some point of time in our lives. We would never know. So why wouldn’t we do the things we would have done if we didn’t know where we would end up in the first place? This thought makes us more just and makes us see some of our own biases and change our behavior accordingly to the way we would like to be treated if we were them.
Karma is a bitch in the long run. We reap what we sow. So in our best interest, it’s better for us to co-operate and give more chances because we never know who can change our lives and whose life we may be changing by our seemingly trivial actions. At this point, we start giving chances to people because we are selfish.
If we want to be in a world that we like to see ourselves in, we have to be selfish in surrounding ourselves with people who share the visions of our “good life”. That way, one could argue that the people who give the most selflessly are the most selfish ones. That’s probably the only time I think I feel good about being selfish.
So many people wrote me lately, thanks to everybody. Talking to many of you made me look at things in a new way. It looks like this is an experiment to check the reproducibility of existing things (which Science is now doing less often than it should). The worst case is that we might find a way to do things better and change to it.
I also looked up “Believe-in-a-stranger” project thinking that it cannot be an original idea and found the Strangers Project (Check it out, you’ll end up spending more time than you intended to). That’s a project I’d love to redo some day combining it with my current street photography project. I’m looking for collaborators who would be interested in doing it with me. Thinking of it, I guess I also drew some inspiration from Brandon Stanton of Humans of New York, but I never liked to photograph the people whose stories I’m telling because I wanted my pictures to say the story themselves or the viewers to come up with their own stories. But I’m rethinking now, maybe this is part of my evolution too.
I also looked up other BIAS projects thinking that could also not be original. The only other BIAS project was Bayesian methods for combining multiple Individual and Aggregate data Sources in observational studies which made me biased towards my BIAS.