Tag: tom slee

MarketThink

MarketThink is a particular way of thinking and talking about the world. It is described in the book ‘No-one makes you shop at Wal-Mart: the surprising deceptions of individual choice’ by Tom Slee.

MarketThink assumes that:

  1. We live our lives as a series of one-off, unconnected decisions. At every step along the way, we make whichever choice will maximize our own individual happiness.
  2. Consumers, and not corporations, have all the power. Consumers vote with their wallets, and therefore corporations have to do what consumers want.
  3. Markets are the most efficient possible way of providing people with things they want. As a consequence of this, if the market provides something then people must really want that thing, even if they say they don’t.

Because it assumes that the market works perfectly and people get what they want (or what they deserve) MarketThink can be seen as a sub-type of the Just World Fallacy. Believing that the world is fundamentally just sounds rather nice and warm and fuzzy, but paradoxically it implies that people’s misfortunes are entirely due to their own individual failings – people get what they deserve. This leads to accepting unjust situations rather than trying to change them, and to blaming the poorest and most marginalised people in society for their own misfortunes.

The term ‘MarketThink’ is reminiscent of Newspeak and Doublethink in the classic dystopian novel ‘1984’ by George Orwell.

Advertisements

The Parable of Tit for Tat

Tit for tat is an English saying meaning “equivalent retaliation”. It is also a highly effective strategy in game theory for the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. The strategy was first introduced by Anatol Rapoport in Robert Axelrod’s two tournaments, held around 1980. Notably, it was (on both occasions) both the simplest strategy and the most successful.

Wikipedia: Tit for tat

An except from No-one makes you shop at Wal-Mart by Tom Slee p 80-82, slightly paraphrased:

The winner was to be the strategy that accumulated the most points over the tournament. The conditions for victory did not include “beating” opponents in individual games, all that mattered was the number of points scored overall. Sophistication was not the key to success: the winner was the simplest strategy, the now well-known Tit-for-Tat:

  • On the first move, co-operate.
  • On every subsequent move, play what the other player played on the previous move.

Tit-for-Tat exemplifies reciprocity. It successfully encourages, using a mixture of carrot and stick, other strategies to take part in mutually beneficial co-operation. Overall it got the most points of any strategy even though, or perhaps even because, it can never do better than any “opponent”. Instead, its success at encouraging co-operation means that games in which it plays are high-scoring.

There is no unambiguous “best strategy” for the game. Nevertheless considerable empirical evidence supports the observation that under a wide range of conditions, Tit-for-Tat and similar strategies are highly successful. Most of these successful strategies shared traits which Axelrod highlighted in his analysis:

BE NICE. Co-operating on the first move makes it possible for a mutually beneficial pattern of co-operation to be established.

BE UNEXPLOITABLE. By responding to defection with defection, Tit-for-Tat avoids being exploited by strategies designed to take advantage of overly generous opponents.

BE FORGIVING. If the opponent co-operates just once, Tit-for-Tat will forget about all previous defections. This prevents mutually destructive cycles of revenge from being established.

BE CLEAR. It’s easy to see what Tit-for-Tat is doing, making it easy for other strategies to settle into patterns of mutually beneficial co-operation.

The Parable of Tit for Tat

How to be kind, without letting others abuse your kindness? How to act with compassion and openness, when the world seems to punish these things? How to build a life of bountiful co-operation instead of endlessly competing in zero-sum games?

The parable of Tit for Tat suggests a way: be optimistic and friendly by default, but punish immediately those who harm you. Let others see clearly how you protect and care for your allies, and let them see clearly what they have to do in order to become your ally.

Let them see that you are as immovable as the bedrock. You are playing the strategy that seems best to you, and you will not be swayed from it. They cannot convince you or cajole you. They cannot change your behaviour, they can only change their own.

Is Tit for Tat morally good? Is the wrong question. It’s just a good strategy, a technique that can be used for good or for ill. But it’s interesting to note that Tit for Tat is exactly the way you should treat a child who sometimes misbehaves, or an adult who is hurting too much to fully take care of themself. Which is to say: most adults, if we’re honest.