RPS Ch. 4 & 5 Response

In Chapter 4, Fisher talked about the trifold balance of “Rock, Paper, Scissors” in the broader world. I was semi-confused by “Opting Out as a Third Strategy”. If I understand correctly, Fisher argued that a third choice is necessary to achieve this balance, but in his example scenario, his third additional strategy seemed harmful to the goal. He described kids who could continue to play with their toys or clean up, but they had no incentive to do so. He suggested adding in a third “opting out” strategy where the kids could have ice cream instead of cleaning or continuing to play. He also included an extra bonus ice cream for those who cleaned. While occasionally an additional incentive is necessary, this can be a harmful practice if overused. It is in the best interest of society to produce people who believe and support cooperative strategies intrinsically. Occasional rewards with children makes sense to help them develop this social conscience, but if the rewards are constant, no one would ever perform good deeds just because they’re a good thing to do.

On another note, I found Chapter 5 to be very interesting because it laid out all the different forms of communication that can overcome each of the Seven Deadly Scenarios described earlier in an earlier chapter. The concept of communication relates back to the “opting out” idea. If the teacher/the parents/any sort of authority figure do not effectively communicate the expectations to the kids then how are they ever to know that cleaning up is the expectation? When I was a kid, my parents would threaten to take away my toys if I did not respect them by cleaning up (and followed through on this threat). It only took a couple times for me to learn my lesson and no third option was required. Even now, I make a conscious effort to clean up after myself out of respect for my belongings as well as the people around me. Also in Chapter 5, the line a “genuine” agreement kept repeating itself in just about every section. This implies that even after striking an agreement, no conclusion is 100% guaranteed because there is always a chance that the other person could change their mind and act differently than agreed upon.

Fisher mentioned that he will discuss the idea of trust in the upcoming chapters, but as for right now, I’m curious how you all formulate trust. How do you form bonds of trust (because I sometimes feel like they unintentionally appear)? How can you tell that you trust a person? Have you ever assumed a bond of trust that didn’t exist/what factors made you think the bond of trust existed?

Posted on by Alexandra Smith
Categories: Uncategorized

5 Responses

  1. Micaela Willoughby says:
    September 16, 2018 at 6:23 pm

    I’m glad to not be the only one who found the opting out piece confusing. It seemed counterintuitive to me until I reached page 98. There, it was referred to as the Loner or Volunteer strategy and was said to potentially increase cooperation. Since you have people opting out, the cooperators work together more efficiently and closely. Then, of course, the Freeloader dilemma comes up because not everyone can just opt out.

    That helped clarify things for me a little, but I am still fairly confused about the whole thing because of the circular motion of having three people play Rock, Paper, Scissors… it doesn’t seem like anyone is going anywhere. The ‘Truel’ example also helped, but I think I just have trouble connecting the games to real life examples without the author spelling it out for me.

  2. Ahsan Ahmad says:
    September 16, 2018 at 7:33 pm

    I found Alexandra’s analysis of the Chapter 4 concept to be really insightful. While introducing a third option of ‘opting out’ might be a temporary solution to drive the system towards a balanced, trifold one, it is barely an effective one. It is true that when you introduce the ‘Loner’ option of opting out, it increases the co-operation between the fair-players (the kids putting their toys away) because their community is now smaller but it also adds to an atmosphere of laziness. As Alexandra mentioned, you want to have people that are intrinsically inclined towards collaboration and responsible behavior, not ones that are incentivized by material goods.

  3. Hyewon Hong says:
    September 17, 2018 at 9:58 am

    I think the part that really cleared it up for me was his three man duel example. When the man who is the worst shot has a higher probability of surviving if he doesn’t try to shoot anyone first. In this case, the worst shot man is “opting out”, essentially choosing not to play, because it benefits his statistical odds. In broader terms, it prevents the 1st party from really thinking that hard and praying that the other 2 parties will mess it up for them.

  4. Joseph Sterling says:
    September 17, 2018 at 10:21 am

    The thought about how even when an agreement is reached, it’s eventual end point is entirely determined by the willingness of those involved is, while a little sad, true. I myself have entered in agreements, followed through on my part, and then been burned by my compatriot(s) not doing their part. This hurt the trust (and the ability to place new trust) in those people and lead to the group project mentality of “I’ll just do it myself.” I don’t know what exactly forms bonds of trust (i just think it forms over time), but I do know that once they are broken, they take much longer to reform.

  5. Shanay Amin says:
    September 17, 2018 at 2:38 pm

    I think that you know you trust someone after you know enough about them. You can never trust someone the first time you meet them. I think trust bonds are created when you have something in common with people and you see you share a few views. After a little bit of time and experience with those people I feel like you can generate trust.