yego.me
💡 Stop wasting time. Read Youtube instead of watch. Download Chrome Extension

Game theory can explain humanity’s biggest problem | Steven Pinker


3m read
·Nov 3, 2024

Processing might take a few minutes. Refresh later.
  • The ideals of the Enlightenment—that we can use knowledge to improve human well-being—aren't particularly natural. For most of our history and pre-history, there was no knowledge that you could act on to do things like reduce infection, reduce tribal warfare, or to extend life. Until recently, that would've been a crazy thing even to hope for. So it's not intuitive, and there's always a tendency toward backsliding.

For example, there's the blowing off of scientific findings, of the efficacy of vaccines, the reality of climate change. The war in Ukraine, another bloating of enlightenment values: the idea that the ultimate good is the lives of people. For Putin, maybe several hundreds of thousands of people dying, their schools, their hospitals, their apartments reduced to rubble, a small price to pay for the glory and the avenging of the humiliation of the Soviet Union.

We're not wired for enlightenment humanism, but nonetheless, we ought to endorse it. We ought to advance it. We ought to remind ourselves of what's so great about it. One idea that is essential to make sense of our current predicament comes from ‘game theory.’

Game theory is: What's the rational thing to do if you are in a situation where the outcome depends on what other rational people do. And the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ is a game-theoretical predicament where what everyone does that's rational for them leaves everyone worse off when everyone does it. There are lots of situations in which tragedies of the commons confront us: If I wait for the bus in the rain instead of driving my SUV, I'm not gonna save the climate, so it makes sense for me to take the SUV. Well, if everyone thinks that, then we're all in danger of being cooked.

An additional arena in which that we have a tragedy of the commons is rationality itself. You got a person who thinks, "Should I believe this, or should I believe that? Well, if I believe this, I will be a hero in all the people that matter to me." Another member of the group thinks that and another member, and they all think, "Well, if you doubt that, then you're making us look kind of stupid and evil."

And if everyone believes that, then you can have two sides, each of which is kind of individually rational in the sense that each one gets the respect of his buddies, his pals, his colleagues, but the whole society is worse off because you just have warring tribes instead of a joint search for the truth. In the case of the rationality comments, you want the commitment to truth as more important than a slogan that makes your side look good in order for everyone to enjoy what is objectively good for everyone.

With all of the threats from the identitarian left and the populist right and the nationalist leaders and the religious fundamentalists, is there any hope? Civilization, in general, tends to drift slowly in directions of greater rationality. Our science really does know more than it did 50 years ago or 100 years ago. A lot of superstitious beliefs have been marginalized. Not just factual beliefs, but moral beliefs.

Slavery, thank goodness we don't have that debate anymore, but 150 years ago our country did. Disenfranchising women, criminalizing homosexuality, segregation of schools. The list goes on of things where we really have made progress.

Humanistic values have a kind of built-in advantage when you think about them in that they're the only things that you can defend when you have a negotiation with someone who is like you.

We'd all rather be alive than dead. We'd rather be healthy than sick. We'd rather be educated than ignorant and illiterate. There's a long list of things that we share because we are human, despite all of our differences in race and religion and ethnicity and nationality—enlightenment humanism is just appealing to that common humanity. It's not particularly intuitive, but it always has that built-in advantage.

  • Get smarter, faster with videos from the world's biggest thinkers. To learn even more from the world's biggest thinkers, get Big Think+ for your business...

More Articles

View All
When to walk away
Most people don’t want to be cowards. Generally, we want to stand our ground, not give up what we have, and hang in there until things get better. For example, we don’t want to be quitters, so we keep working at our jobs, even though the environment is to…
Baker v. Carr | National Constitution Center | Khan Academy
[Kim] Hi, this is Kim from Kahn Academy. Today we’re learning more about Baker versus Carr, a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1962. Baker versus Carr grappled with an incredibly important issue: whether one person’s vote is equal to another person’…
The Unspoken Rules of Society
You wake up in the morning, head outside and you say good morning to your next-door neighbor. You walk down the street and you see a familiar face, so you nodded them to let them know that you acknowledge them. You get into a bus and an old lady walks in …
Startup Experts Reveal Their Favorite Pivot Stories
You don’t know what the thing is that you’re chasing when you wake up every morning? Then you probably need to pivot. Right? So many founders have to work on the wrong thing before finding the right thing. It’s like they’ve internalized, “I’m gonna fail, …
2019 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting (Full Version)
Thank you, good morning and welcome to Berkshire Hathaway. For those of you who have come from out of state, welcome to Omaha. The city is delighted to have you here for this event. For those of you who came from outside of the country, welcome to the Un…
Setting up 2 step expressions
My book is 58 pages. I have already read 13 pages. I plan to read five pages each day until I finish the book. Which equation could I use to find out how many days, d, it will take to finish reading the book? So pause this video and see if you can figure…