Paul Watzlawick writes of something he calls "Semantic Punctuation", an example of which can be seen in magic tricks where the trick consists of forcing an audience member to select a specific card while under the impression they are selecting at random. For the magician the trick is punctuated so as to include forcing the card. For the audience the punctuation excludes the selection and the trick begins at some later time.
While watching the video "Best of Cooperation Lectures" I was caught by the term "social dilemma", a circumstance where what is rational for individuals isn't best for the group. My initial interest in cooperation studies actually comes from a quibble I have with standard approaches to the Prisoners' Dilemma in which the choices of confessing or not are labeled with the semantically charged and behaviorally influencing terms "defect" or "cooperate". Now I have a new quibble: The notion that what is rational for an individual is not best for the group can only be defended if the semantic punctuation is such as to define the group as the two hoodlums rather than the larger social body which includes the liquor store owner, the DA, the guards, &c. Widen the net and confessing is both the rational choice for the individual and the rational choice for the group.
I lean heavily on two notions when thinking about the Prisoners' Dilemma. First is the notion of concurrent games. Any one act will have a payoff value in any number of concurrent games (as in the punchline of this old joke: http://xrl.us/bmhr2). Second, we need to distinguish between determinate and indeterminate alternatives. Only the former are choices. In the Prisoners' Dilemma each player has two choices, confess or not. Each of those yields an indeterminate pair of alternatives over which a player has no control or ability to predict, as attempts at prediction yield an infinite series. For me the moral of the Prisoners' Dilemma is that we need to be able to make this distinction between determinate and indeterminate alternatives.
(I also take exception with Axlerod's changing of the scenario to include iteration but still calling his games "Prisoners Dilemmas". While in no way disparaging the value of his work, this is sloppy nomenclature. Introduce iteration and it is not the same game.)
Back to semantic punctuation. Ronald Coase's theories similarly stand or fall based on this, for it is a matter of semantic punctuation whether the market and the government are external to each other. So too with any issue of "Commons". Viewed through one lens TotC is a strong argument for privatization, as it would seem only private interests will be motivated to protect and conserve and even increase resources. And to the extent that "commons" means "not mine" then perhaps such an argument should prevail. But if the semantic punctuation is such that the commons is mine because it is ours and because I am part of us then my interest in protecting and conserving and building the commons is no less than that of a single private interest.
[]
static link
writebacks: 9 (writeback = trackback +/- comment)
Chris L wrote
You know, I wish we could discuss this over a Keith Richards because you pretty much lost me by the latter half of the second paragraph...
phaedral wrote
That's why it's here today before going live on Cooperation Commons later. I think most of folks at CoCo will parse it all easily enough, but I know I tend towards a higher fog content than serves my goals. :(
If there's enough to get you to formulate a specific question that would actually be a boon.
Chris L wrote
I guess this assertion, which seems unsupported, derails me: "The notion that what is rational for an individual is not best for the group can only be defended if the semantic punctuation is such as to define the group as the two hoodlums rather than the larger social body which includes the liquor store owner, the DA, the guards, &c. Widen the net and confessing is both the rational choice for the individual and the rational choice for the group." It might be true specifically for the prisoner's dilemma, but you are going to have to work pretty hard to convince me it's a generally true proposition... Let me put it another way... it reads to me that you are asserting that if we take the larger group into consideration then what is good for the individual must be best for the group. This is patently untrue isn't it? I feel a steep slope into eerily familiar discussions I've had not so long ago regarding the difference between groups, networks, collective, and connectives. How we are defining "group" here might change things.
Chris L wrote
I could swear I put paragraph tags in that last comment.
BTW, do you have a comment feed? How about an option to subscribe to comments?
phaedral wrote
Looks like you got p tags in both of those last two, at least based on my browser's rendering.
When I finally leave blosxom behind it will probably be over the issue of comments feeds. ;)
My assertion about the individual's best outcome aligning with the group's is Prisoners' Dilemma specific. But the existence of such an example belies your "patently untrue". There is no necessary relationship between the wellbeing of an individual and the wellbeing of a group absent a whole lot more context. As far as I can tell.
Chris L wrote
I think we agree... what I was saying is "patently untrue" is the implied assertion that what is good for the individual *must* be best for the group... there are just too many cases to the contrary.
I have a Watzlawick book on my ToRead shelves at home _The Situation is Hopeless, but not Serious_ -- should I move it up in the queue? It might have been your recommendation, but I don't think so...
Chris L wrote
To be more clear, I am responding to the notion that even with any amount of context there is a necessary relationship. You seem to say so again your last response: "There is no necessary relationship between the wellbeing of an individual and the wellbeing of a group absent a whole lot more context." implies that given more context there IS a necessary relationship?
Chris L wrote
And dude, why don't you upgrade? Assuming the existence of a way to import your old entries you could have a blog pretty much just like this one running on WP (or something) in an hour. And have a comment feed :)
phaedral wrote
It's pretty easy to construct a game grid (i.e., a context of payoffs for behaviors) in which the best interest of each individual is also the best interest of the group. In fact, this is the goal of all mediation, the "win-win".
Yeah, I might end up converting in the next few weeks.