Author Robert Wright explains “non-zero-sumness,” a game-theory term describing how players with linked fortunes tend to cooperate for mutual benefit. This dynamic has guided our biological and cultural evolution, he says -- but our unwillingness to understand one another, as in the clash between the Muslim world and the West, will lead to all of us losing the “game.” Once we recognize that life is a non-zero-sum game, in which we all must cooperate to succeed, it will force us to see that moral progress — a move toward empathy — is our only hope.
Robert Wright — Non-Zero Sumness
Wright is an historian who, although pessimistic regarding the world today, maintains that civilisation is improving. He points out that several thousand years ago, people in one tribe or city-state didn’t even consider people in other tribes or city-states to be human. Nowadays, while racial and religious prejudice persists, it is not to the level of denying people their humanity and this is certainly progress.
Wright has created a model he calls Non-Zero Sumness that he maintains helps describe civil evolution. The opposite of Non-Zero Sumness is Zero Sumness, which is a description of win-lose, a system that balances to zero. In contrast, Non-Zero Sumness describes how both sides of an “equation” rise and fall in the same direction, they go either up or down together. He points to an example of an increasingly violent American foreign policy (trying to snuff out Muslim extremists in Iraq) to an equally rising and violent Muslim response to this policy.
Wrights major messages are that:
• because of technology, and global communication and interaction, everything that happens in the world has a radiating effect. Civilisation is now so complex and interconnected that parts of it can’t be isolated. We can’t expect interventions to remain localised.
• to improve the world (or to avert catastrophe) we need an improvement in morality.
• the pathway to improve morality is to appeal to people’s self-interest. This means, in Non-Zero Sumness, what is good for you is also good for me (as is what is bad for you is bad for me).
How do you promote improved morality? Wright says that understanding the “other side” or creating empathy is essential. If people act in their own self-interest, then explaining to them that (given the model of Non-Zero Sumness) it is in their best interest that the other side does well. Wellness begets wellness. Illness begets illness. He promotes learning about those with whom you are in opposition.
Our discussion:
How you go about creating moral improvement. Harnessing people’s self-interest, bringing them to realise we are all connected and what hurts “them” will be bad for “us” as well. This is true in all natural systems and it is only recently, now that we have the technical ability to see the interconnectedness of the Earth’s people is no different to any other living system.
To improve morality, people have to learn about those who are different, understand others so they can empathise, and recognise that our fates are intertwined.
Manipulation. We talked about ways to change people’s minds and behaviour. Is getting people to understand something a form of manipulation? Some of us thought yes. Some of us had difficulty with the term. Is manipulation a bad thing that is used by shampoo marketers to convince you of the benefits of buying their product? Isn’t manipulation also bringing people around to understanding something, isn’t it one way to describe teaching children? In the end, I think we agreed it was a matter of semantics.
Truthfulness. How does being truthful intersect with improvements to morality. Is speaking the truth self-evident? Is there a line between truthfulness and manipulation? Why would “the truth” carry the day, given that the truth may well be subjective and illusive?
Doing good for the sake of doing good. Does the idea that “people act in their own self-interest” deny that people do good for the sake of good? I think we came up with: perhaps some people do. But for a model about human behaviour, self-interest is a more reliable premise. We noted that religions, the things that promote morality, utilise self-interest (Christians and Muslims: do good and you will go to heaven. And Buddhists: all your acts of goodness improve your karma and you chances for a better position in the next incarnation) and is a good example of Non-Zero Sumness.
How to influence change. In relationships (personal or in groups) modelling behaviour can be an effective way of making your point, rather than telling. Modelling listening in a relationship can be effective because it: a) lets me hear what the other person is saying and therefore better informs my response, and b) informs the other person they are being heard and they will be more likely to respond in kind.
Perhaps the idea of morality is tied to leadership, that our leaders need to model morality. The value of raising morality can be communicated by our leaders in terms of enlightened self-interest— and Wright’s Non-Zero Sumness.Dave
You can find Patty Griffin's "I Don't Ever Give Up" on Children Running Through and it is available on her website.Crowded House's "Heaven that I'm Making" from the CD Time on Earth is available via their website
1 comment:
Robert Wright seemed to be arguing for empathy on the basis that it is in our best interest to co-operate. We considered how he is counting on society’s inclination for self interest rather that examining why we can not be truly altruistic.
We related this to the underlying reasons for our actions within our group.
We described this in terms of a painting being created as a work of art. It was suggested that the painting should look good at every step of the process. Relating this to our meetings we should look legitimate at every step of the process. For some of us the essential truth of what we are doing at every step was essential. Others were willing to skip through some moral elements in the best interest of the group. For example some can enter meetings quite willing to be manipulated into a group process that may be being modeled with the intention that their ego is willing to let that happen for the sake of the group moving forward. At that point of the painting they are willing to accept that we could be stuck at that stage of creativity if they are too caught up in transparency and making it look good at that point in time. Their eye is on the prize more than on that moment.
It made for interesting conversation and maybe there is value in all the ways that we operate in the group and the strength is actually in these differences rather than looking for any one way of being.
Post a Comment