What’s got me in my feels this week is this question: is the human race the survival of the fittest or the survival of the nurtured?
To try to answer this question I wanted to use Game Theory. Originally used by economists and the like, but social psychologists also use game theory in a version called the prisoners dilemma to talk about the different choices when you are competing or collaborating. Here is my example of what would be used in this “game”. Kate and Kyle can both choose to compete or collaborate, and the quadrants here show the different consequences.
If you look at the drawing you can see if both people choose to collaborate they both get a moderate amount of money, $50. If one person chooses to compete but the other chooses to collaborate, the person who competes gets A LOT of money, $100. If they both choose to compete they get $25 each, which is lower than any other category but still something.
Social psychologists do this situation in a bunch of different environments, they prime people differently, they do it over and over and over again to see how long it will take people to crack and compete. There are a bunch of different versions. But what is interesting is when the first person, whether it be Kate or Kyle, chooses to compete to get the honeypot $100 reward, the collaborator really can’t go back. Maybe they choose to collaborate a few more times and the other person playing continues to choose to compete. Well, if they continue to do so the collaborator is left with nothing. $0.
People who have logic about the situation might say “always compete, there’s no point to not competing.” But if you view it in a more social context in real life, if one person decides to compete vs collaborate, then everyone else is forced to. In this situation and real life situations that are similar, you can see that people who mean to do well and want to work with others are taken advantage of. And the consequence is that we all get less if we are all competing instead of collaborating. In the game, $50 vs $25 doesn’t seem like a big deal but if you zoom out to an economy or a community of people, competing vs collaborating can be the difference between everyone getting their needs met or not. And swindling someone (choosing to compete when they collaborate) only really works once or twice unless you are a transient that keeps moving to different towns, or you’ve done a inventory on all of the people who have no boundaries and keep hitting them up, or if you have significant power in a situation in some way.
For another example, they’ve also applied this to nature. Let’s say a group of animals decides to get together and whatever food they find they split amongst themselves. This ends up in the animals getting a moderate amount of food, even on days where their hunting/gathering is not as successful. But it also means when they are super successful they have to share. Everyone’s needs are met more consistently, and this is the basis of relying on each other.
So let’s go back to my original question: Are we the survival of the fittest or the survival of the nurtured? Is life just a big competition or are we here to learn to rely on each other? My answer is that it is literally your choice. It is your choice how you perceive life and it is your choice every single day to choose to compete or collaborate.
As for me… I try to take the leap of faith to collaborate as often as I can. I usually give people the benefit of the doubt maybe a few too many times. Sometimes I think showing people my underbelly will demonstrate there is a kind of courage and freedom in turning away from the belief that others are out to get you, and there is another way to be. I can choose to trust you, knowing there is a risk you may hurt me. There is a wisdom in knowing when to walk away as well, and focusing on the people who you have been able to rely on in the past.
Thanks for reading sweet friends.