Through all three episodes of the documentary, it seems that the underlying issue is to what extent people are driven by their own self-interest, which makes sense to me, but still bothered me. Stemming from the fears of the Cold War, we had the Game Theory — assuring us, in a sense, that the Soviet Union would not want to destroy the United States because we had the same ability to anticipate their actions and counter strike.
I found some really interesting game examples for the Game Theory, including one called the “Prisoner’s Dilemma“:
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal: if one testifies (defects) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must make the choice of whether to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?
How would you act? It’s a very peculiar and pertinent question because it seems that people are always thinking of their own self-interest, and are thus drawn to the better option (still a dicey decision: to betray or not to betray). The main idea is that you need the appropriate trust for the other people. How can you realize if you trust someone? Surely, the United States couldn’t fully “trust” the Soviet Union and Americans had to trust psychiatry to tell help them with their problems. But what happens when you lack this trust, or if the trust is violated? Leaders must step in and coax the people, hoping that they can instill normality and predictability with the people–and better yet, tell the people what to trust and what to want (like in positive liberty).
Also, if we think back on “A Beautiful Mind” (yes, starring Russell Crowe), can we all remember the time when John Nash was in the bar with four other men and he uses Game Theory to get the men with a girl? No? Here’s a clip:
It’s Game Theory used in more practical ways!
I find it believable that the game theory would be so pertinent in a time like the Cold War because every move was almost like a life or death sort of decision. There was a lack of trust, a lack of faith. But, going through the three episodes of the documentary, I found it really hard to swallow that people acting on their own self-interest was/is such a major player from mental illnesses being merely artificial labels (leading them to take pills to become “normal” to be more predictable) to theories of liberty where in both concepts of positive and negative liberty, the people are motivated by self-interest (their need for “freedom”).
It was intriguing to see how even Tony Blair, who tried to improve schools and health services in Great Britain based on a rewards-system (hoping they’d work for that self-interest), the result was a big class gap and lack of service because people worked for self-interest, yes, but not in a way that benefited others. Blair could not have predicted that such a thing could occur, and there was no way for him to convince them to work for others than cheat as a means of their own self interest.
It seems, maybe, the government or society hopes that our stability stems from our freedom. We’re free to be clinically depressed, and trust that we’ll be given Prozac to help stabilize us; and, in the case of Great Britain, the government publicly lists all the best and worst performing schools in the country, and trust worse schools will rise to the occasion.
But because the government can’t predict us, and because we act on self-interest, they try to coddle us so we won’t do anything ridiculous–out of the ordinary–for our own self-interest to maintain stability. On the down side, when we have one day of sadness, we think depression is the key and leaders give us medication to keep us predictable, and the rich families move to the areas that have the best schools.
Have our leaders understood our own self-interests enough so that they can anticipate our needs and successfully accommodate us? Or, rather, they can help one group of lucky citizens and burden another? Governments want to predict what we do, and if they can’t do it easily, will they succumb to coercing citizens when they deem necessary? Maybe they really know how to make us better people, but how can they create positive liberty without coercion?
One Comment
I think the idea of creating a society of positive liberties without coercion is really interesting (obviously. I wrote my post on it.) because along with the freedom to do things, there is also an expectation that something should be done–and sometimes, even more specifically, an expectation of what exactly should be done. In an essence, this defeats the whole idea of liberty.
To be honest, up until this point, I was actually kind of a fan of negative liberties. I read “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill my freshman year and thought that was what the world needed–a way for people to live their lives as their little hearts desired without interference. In a way, I felt it promoted tolerance, albeit a somewhat forced, disingenuous tolerance.
But looking at it in the context of governments and revolutions and the way in which liberty can be constructed is kind of making me question that.