h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Super-Rationality is generally a good policy, but in a world of uncertainties and unknowns another method works better in the human social world. And the question that needs to be asked is "CAN I TAKE THE HIT?" if the self detrimental outcome takes place.

For the prisoners deliema this might be "Do I have the money to hire a good lawyer or it's only a short sentence and I can afford to do a year in jail" When you can answer yes to the "Can I take the Hit?" question you follow the Super-Rational path and accept the consequences. If you perceive yourself as not being able to take the hit than you should look after your own self interest. If there is a shortage of gas and you are able to walk to work you don't freak out and buy as much as possible, but if you depend on your vehicle to get a pay check or receive health care than you fill up the tank and store some.

In this way those of us who have the most need can and are expected to look after their own self interest. Those of us who perceive their situation to be survivable don't freak out and often will benefit from the group theory.

In the prisoner delima, if you know that torture is going to be used than of course you can expect the other prisoner to confess and the other prisoner should be expected to realize that if torture is going to be used on you that you are going to confess.

In this way decisions and outcomes take in to account the survivability of the idividual. You can be super rational and enjoy all it's society benefits, but still protect yourself when necessary. This method benefity all not just the strongest and prevents a degeneration if the Tit for Tat method goes bad. Consequences are not usualy black and white for all participants.

In the stock market discussion, if a person does not sell in a down market they may benefit in the long run or even short run if many others are able to take the super rational path, but of course a person who has their life savings & retirement money invested should be expected to take their money out and not follow the super rational path. The non super-rational decision individual will not benfit, but will protect themselves.
You got to include risk assessement and consequences in the prisoner delima and apply that to the super rational method.

I guess the evil way of looking at this line of thought is: Only take advantage of someone if you feel you ultimately have to and don't be surprised if someone takes advantage of you when they really have to.
There are many other examples, but the important point is that we have to understand and expect that sometimes a person has to look after there own best interest based on a perceived (yes perceived that could be messy) desperate need and still take the super rational path when we "Can Take the Hit". In the short and long run we all benefit the most.

Maybe there is a techinical name for this "method", but I don't know it. You don't expect people to keep taking kicks when their down! What actaully will end up happening is eveyone becomes strong, but at a slower rate and most importantly no one becomes a casualty.

Hello, Jefree. I certainly wouldn't argue that there's anything wrong with a person acting according to their self-interest. The Prisoner's Dilemma problem is really premissed on the idea that it's written in the laws of nature that we're going to act selfishly, most of the time... so we'd better make the best of it we can, to prevent our own selfish impulses from acting to the detriment of ourselves and others.

The deeper insight underneath this is that someone who acts purely and blindly in their own self-interest at all times, is actually likely to be acting *against* their own interest in the longer run, because by ignoring the needs of others they help to undermine the social foundation that everyone needs to be able to thrive or even survive at all.

In your post, you seem to be assuming that there is necessarily a conflict between the self-interest of an individual and the wider interest. Your idea of 'taking the hit' seems (to me) to be based around this idea. For example, you write... "When you can answer yes to the 'Can I take the Hit?' question you follow the Super-Rational path and accept the consequences. If you perceive yourself as not being able to take the hit then you should look after your own self interest." You use the example of someone walking to work instead of taking the car, in order to save fuel - which, obviously, as you say, not many people are going to do on a regular basis, because for most people it simply isn't practical. So this approach would not really solve anything, as few would be prepared to 'take the hit' necessary for it to have any positive effect.

I didn't really write the 'Super Rationality' part of the article, by the way (as I recall, that was mainly contributed by Serendipity, another researcher)... but if I understand correctly it is an attempt to overcome the idea that there is, necessarily, such a conflict. The 'Super Rational' approach is not really about sacrificing your own interest for the sake of the general good, as you seem to be suggesting. Rather, it is about trying to think a way past this conflict to find solutions which do not compromise either yourself or your environment. The basis of this approach, as I say, is the insight that self-interest and wider interest are interlinked - if I help to destroy the environment that I live in, for example, soon I won't *have* an environment to live in, and without that I myself will die out eventually.

To refer again to the example you mention... We all like to have good heating, lighting, transport facilities, etc, and most of us need them in order to get anything done at all in our daily business. So instead of asking people to save fuel by walking to work (an act which only a handful of rather naive altruists are ever going to agree to perform), the 'Super Rationalist' accepts that most people are going to carry on taking the car (or plane, or bus, or train) regardless, and that therefore the only practical solution to the pollution problem we subsequently cause, is to work to try to develop cleaner, less destructive kinds of fuel.

The 'Super Rational' approach to the problem would be to search for sources of energy that would enable us to continue consumption at (something like) the same rate as now, but without having such a detrimental effect on the environment. In other words, the idea is to try to overcome the apparent conflict between the individual's self-interest and the wider interest, by finding an approach which combines the two. 'Enlightened self-interest' is another expression that maybe fits this type of approach.

The really galling thing is that good solutions to the energy problem already exist... Energy from renewable sources such as solar and wind power, if we invested in them properly, could provide for pretty much most of our existing needs without all the side-effects associated with fossil fuels. There are other associated benefits too :- it would probably work out cheaper, in the long run; it would leave less ugly scars on our scenic landscapes; it would reduce our political dependence on unstable parts of the world such as the Middle East...

The reason we consistently fail to do the right thing, in my opinion, is because of this misguided idea that the right thing always involves pain, that there is always a sacrifice involved. Overcome that idea, and there might be hope for us yet, who knows...

Anyway, thank you for your comments. It's nice to know people do actually read these articles sometimes... And welcome to h2g2. May it prove to be most of what you hoped for and only a little of what you didn't...

Lear