Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
"Rules of the Game"
I just read this: Rules of the Game, by Carl Sagan. I haven't had a lot of time to wrap my head all the way around what the implications of his thoughts may/may not be, but I was curious as to what you all think about this information as it relates to Buddhism. When I've had more time to process, I'll come back and post some of my own thoughts.
0
Comments
I have come across similar games to the Prisoner's Dilemma in business a couple of times.
One of the conclusions of the study referenced by Sagan is that players following the Golden Rule "always lose - from a superfluity of kindness". This of course conflicts with the Dharma which teaches that Loving Kindness is always beneficial in the long run, and the ruthlessness of the Iron Rule can only result in suffering.
Sagan suggests this point later one when he asks "do we (behave altruisticly) for emotional, not economic rewards?"
Much as the 'evolutionary biologists' and Dawkinsian neo-Darwinists may wriggle, compassion remains apparently counter-intuitive in terms of survival, particularly the survival of the 'individual'.
Forgiving enemies, granting the benefit of the doubt in all cases, acting out of self-denying compassion: these are "follies" but not as foolish as pretending (like La Rochefoucauld) that there is only self-interest. Most certainly, this attitude of mind and action causes ructions. As in Eric Berne's Game Theory, if we refuse to play, the other players must struggle twice as hard to keep the game going and will be seriously pissed at us. I recall an presbytery housekeeper who used to pray something along the lines of thanksgiving both for the saints and for the fact that she didn't have to live with one!
Of course, in the end, just as Mr Clinton appeared not to understand the word "is", I find it harder and harder to understand the concept of 'losing'. There is only coming and going, and then no longer coming or going.
For me it would have to be the Golden or Silver Rules, I struggle daily to overcome the others.
Les
But I have been thinking about this topic quite a bit. Interestingly enough, I also became really into the American television program Numbers and Game Theory is a hot topic on that show. So....
I guess there are a couple of options here that require different data. For one, you might be playing the game in your relationships, but not trying to get to the same end point as your partner. I may have a relationship with someone in which I want X and they want Y. I think the rules still apply if you know what the other person is seeking. You can choose to help them towards their goal if they help you towards yours. Sounds selfish, but what intrigues me about Game Theory is that there is endless forgiveness. No matter what the other person has done to you, if they make one move in your favor, you automatically make a move in their favor back. And ultimately that is in your best interest. That's still blowing my mind a little. Maybe I should try it on my husband. ;-)
That said, I guess you can operate completely outside the rules as well. It is possible to simply not care what happens to you as a result of your actions. Strangely, this makes me think of both sociopaths as well as Buddhists and other self-sacrificing behavioral types.
After I wrote that, I thought maybe sociopaths was incorrect. After all, they are really good at "playing the game." However, no matter how well they push your buttons to get what they want, ultimately they always go too far as they are playing only by their rules and operate in a world in which they do not perceive their own limits. Off topic?
Hahaha, so new question here: Does a buddhist want to avoid being sentenced to prison?
The dance between modern psychology and Buddhism will probably tell the tale of whether or not Buddhism does, indeed, take hold and thrive in the West, or whether it will fade and wilt, to be remembered in generations to come as either just one more religion or an off-beat variant of New Age mysticism.
In some respects, in this dance Buddhism has faired quite well. Mark Epstein's Thoughts without a Thinker—as well as other books on a similar theme, mostly with the word “zen” attached to the title—have been both popular, and, it seems to me, intellectually sound.
http://www.amazon.com/Thoughts-Without-Thinker-Psychotherapy-Perspective/dp/0465020224/
In most respects, however, Buddhism has not done as well as one might have thought. On such basic, well-researched aspects of psychology as dissonance, reactance, confirmation bias, self-handicapping, and a host of other common foibles that we are all heir to, Buddhism remains disturbingly silent.
There are two standard brush-offs to this point. The first is the notion that “had psychology been important to achieving enlightenment, the Buddha would have taught it.” This seems to me to be quite weak. Logically, it makes sense, but I daresay that systemic bias is as common to Buddhists as it is to anyone else. Really, now ... did all of your biases magically disappear when you became a Buddhist? And how did that happen, exactly?
Of course ... I know your biases will disappear when you're perfectly enlightened, and I know you're not perfectly enlightened yet, and neither am I ... but you could save yourself lifetimes of work just by going out to your local library and doing a little reading. For a basic introduction, this is the book that I would recommend—although there are other good ones out there as well:
http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Its-Own-Distorts-Deceives/dp/0393331636/
The second brush-off is that people living at the time of the Buddha were living in an era in which the pace of life was slower ... many of them had already spent years in meditation before they had even heard of the Buddha, and in that long process they had worked out the bulk of the things that modern psychology is now only discovering [or re-discovering, as it were].
This seems to me to be a bit stronger. It certainly seems to me that there is a world of difference between my presently semi-trained mind and the completely untrained mind that I had before I began sitting meditation. It seems conceivable to me that a person could attain a good number of the insights of common psychology if one spent enough time on a cushion.
There are, however, a couple of problems with this interpretation. One is that there is no shred of evidence that this ever happened. You would think that somebody, somewhere would have talked about it, developed theories, and passed the findings on to a later generation which would have put these findings into writing. But it didn't happen. No such written record exists. This, of course, does not constitute proof that it didn't happen ... but it certainly doesn't constitute proof that it did, either.
Conceivably, such insights were so commonplace that nobody even bothered to talk about them. That is possible. But, if modern insights into psychology did exist at the time of the Buddha, any cursory reading of Buddhist history would dispel any illusions that they persisted into the time of written records.
For anyone interested in such cursory reading, these are a couple of good places to start:
http://www.amazon.com/Text-Father-Seductions-Literature-Buddhisms/dp/0520242769/
http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-through-Zen-Transformation-Lilienthal/dp/0520237986/
More concerning modern history, but excellent:
http://www.amazon.com/Madmans-Middle-Way-Reflections-Modernity/dp/0226493172/
A curiosity: it is becoming accepted in neuropsychology [and, in some respects, evolutionary psychology as well] that the sense of self is an illusion. In other words, this “self” that we cling to so strongly is nothing more than the more-or-less coordinated firing of neural transmitters. You would think that this would generate a flood of interest not only by Buddhists, but in Buddhism ... but I have heard scarcely a peep. My guess is that is that it would have something to do with the fact, having postulated the theory, psychologists have not been subsequently falling over themselves, claiming to be enlightened.
Good reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Mind-Brain-Creates-Mental/dp/1405136944/
Nonetheless, psychological studies seem to have universally confirmed the benefits of meditation. That Buddhist meditation is inherently superior to any other form of meditation is, to the best of my knowledge anyway, yet unconfirmed, and is likely to remain that way until there is a more general agreement on what exactly “meditation” means in the first place. Does staring at a candle count? For how long?
Now ... all of this has been a lead-up to the big question, which I have mulled over for some time—and so far I have no definitive answer. The question has to do with the “tit-for-tat” rule that Sagan refers to, but first I want to elaborate the tit-for-tat rule somewhat with an extensive quote from John J. Ratey. He is talking generally about evolutionary psychology—keep in mind that Dawkins' contribution to Darwinian evolution is that it is the genes that are important, not the individual—Ratey goes on to say:
The evolution of social behavior starts with the interactions between a mother and her offspring. A mother who could lead her children to the best food sources or alert them to the danger of predators in the area created a better chance for their survival, and through them the perpetuation of her genes. Communication, through both language and emotion, is important to adaptation. Children who were effectively taught in this way would live longer and reproduce more. Social behavior directed toward the opposite sex was also important in order to maximize reproductive viability.
Kin selection goes a step further. It involves the idea of showing deference, and if need be, of sacrificing one's own survival to help blood relatives survive and pass on their genes to the next generation. Survival of the genetic line is more likely when this behavior helps an individual's kin to reproduce because relatives share many of the same genes, in siblings up to 50 percent. Helping your kin at a calculable cost to yourself is a benefit to those 50 percent of your genes. Robert Wright, in The Moral Animal, describes this well with an example of two brothers, Bill and Bob. Bill is drowning in a river. If Bill and Bob are from the “Nice” family and have a genetic predisposition to help each other, Bob will jump into the river to save his brother. There is some risk that they both will die, but there is a greater likelihood that they both will live. In this way, Bob is preserving the genes that he shares with his brother. If Bill and Bob are from the “Mean” family, however, Bob won't jump in, because he's not motivated enough to overcome his fear of self-destruction. He lacks the right combination of genes that code for altruism. In a less dramatic way, differences in the evolution of a genetic line may contribute to sibling rivalry in a family that runs a business, eventually bringing the business down with it, versus a family in which cooperative siblings develop the business for the family's common good.
The next degree of social behavior is that which is directed toward nonfamily and strangers. Reciprocal altruism—the “you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours” philosophy—is found in all human cultures. Even chimpanzees participate in this type of exchange. The problem with altruism is that it lowers the chances for an individual to reproduce while enhancing that of another; you give of yourself—your food, energy, stores—for the good of another. So why does this trait persist? First, the emotions of love and trust that evolved through the mechanism of kin selection sometimes extend to close nonfamily individuals such as member of the tribe or neighbors. Second, reciprocal altruism has a unique adaptive economy. Often it is easier for an individual to participate in an exchange relationship than to do everything for himself. Once you open a door for yourself, it requires only a bit of extra effort to continue to hold it for the person behind you. This little effort is rewarded with a lessening of your own burden when someone else holds a door open for you. This economic principle, which surfaces as little politenesses, helps make civilized society possible.
Critics will point out that cheating on reciprocal altruism can provide a greater benefit than actually following through with the altruistic act. Yet even if cheating exists in a population, selective cooperation will still work. This is the basis for the golden rule of all major world religions: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In 1981 Robert Axelrod and William Hamilton created a computer program called Tit for Tat that operated on this principle. They entered it in a competition with several dozen other programs that used cooperative, cheating, or exploitative strategies. The programs each interacted with the others about 200 times in the attempt to determine which one did the best in approaching the “prisoner's dilemma,” a classic test of survival based on cooperation. Tit for Tat, which followed the rule “Cooperate on the first move and on subsequent moves do whatever your partner did on the previous move” won hands down, and had the simplest software coding of any of the programs.
—from pp. 302-304 of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Users-Guide-Brain-Perception-Attention/dp/0375701079/
Which finally gets us to the $64,000 question. Suppose you are now an aspiring young bodhisattva. You have pledged yourself to the ideal that you will lead all sentient beings to enlightenment. All others may become Buddhas before you do. You will be the last. You will lead a life dedicated to selflessness and universal compassion.
Why would you not apply the Tit-for-Tat rule to your life?
The most obvious objection would be in the second move of the rule: “Do whatever your partner did on the previous move.” At first blush, this strikes one as being strikingly un-buddhist and ... well ... “normal,” somehow. Nonetheless, I would argue that this is not the case.
Suppose that you did act completely selflessly in every aspect of your life ... and gave all of your money to the poor ... what would you have accomplished? Would you have alleviated poverty? No. You would have actually added to the problem by becoming one more poor person yourself. Might have made a lot of fair-weather friends along the way, but my feeling is that you would have found very few true ones ... if any.
Note that the first move here is to cooperate ... this makes sense. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. We both benefit. I don't think that anyone would disagree that this is basically a good idea.
But if I continue to scratch your back while you discontinue cooperating, does that make me a bodhisattva [even if I have that as an ideal], or does that make me a damn fool? What's more, what does that teach you? Does the other person involved in this exchange ever learn anything more than some people can be easily taken advantage of? Keeping in mind that the Buddhist path consists of both wisdom and compassion, it seems to me that there is nothing wrong—and a great deal right—with demonstrating to others that they should fulfill the reciprocal obligations that they have taken on in a given relationship.
“Selflessness” in this case might benefit the self, but not the other person. The paradox then becomes that the Mahayana ideal of the bodhisattva actually results in the Hinayana benefit to the one who is acting selflessly.
Moreover, if the bodhisattva ideal is to benefit the group over and above that of the individual, the Tit-for-Tat program demonstrates that the group does, indeed, benefit more from this particular strategy than from any other. The members of the group learn that cooperation is better than noncooperation, and it is this learning that is what is important here.
Now, will this make for a perfect society? I hardly think so. The early sangha wasn't a perfect society, either ... not even in miniature. [If it had been perfect, there would have been no need for the Vinaya.] So the question is not, and never really has been, how can we make a perfect society? The real question is how can we best practice what we have learned? And at the same time continue learning?
It seems to me that the Tit-for-Tat rule actually combines both wisdom and compassion in the proper amounts to be quite compatible with the Buddhist lifestyle.
At this point, it is perhaps proper to add a disclaimer. None of the above has come to me by way of revelation. It did not come down from a mountain. It is not written in stone. These are nothing more than my thoughts on the matter, and these thoughts are still in the process of becoming fully formed. I fully reserve the right to be corrected and proven wrong. I also reserve the right to change my mind, modify my thinking, or alter my ideas in the light of new evidence, better arguments, or a good night's sleep.
I toss this out there only as food for thought, and nothing more. But I would suggest that if Buddhism is to avoid being marginalized in the West, it must somehow come to grips with the cutting edge of Western psychology, and this includes more than the studies that have been done by psychologists—it also includes Buddhists coming to terms with applying a little critical thinking to their own tradition. But it seems to me that the only alternative is best summed up by Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyon, in his work Against Heresies: “Don't ask questions. Just believe.”
And now, as my short vacation comes to an end, I will return to hibernation mode and post even less frequently ... a fond adieu to all. Happy sitting.
Llama-tip-of-the-day: Refer to end of context after first paragraph of any philosophy in order to avoid the ibuprofen.
Study the past if you would define the future.
Confucius Chinese Philosopher 551-479bc.
I don't think neo-darwinists are exactly 'wriggling': a central point of the neo-Darwinist view is that the most selfish thing for genes to 'do', from their own 'point of view', is to create individuals that will co-operate with others for their mutual benefit. Co-operation benefits the individual's survival value, and therefore benefits that individual's genes' survival value; thus leading to the genetic disposition for co-operation having a greater frequency in the gene-pool.
And does this not imply a 'teleology'?
In what way?
I thought I just gave an explanation for exactly how co-operation evolved without any need to invoke a designer. The way I WOULD need to do so was if I had no natural explanation at all. But as it is, neo-darwinian natural selection is the only way complex life and altruism could come about WITHOUT a deity of any kind. Far from implying a teleology, it was natural selection that destroyed teleology back in the nineteenth century, by showing that there was an alternative to both chance and design: natural selection, a non-chance yet natural process.
Let's not forget the lesson, known for over 100 years now, that teleologies can only account for good and beautiful things, like eyes, peacock tails or hummingbirds. It can't account for the bad and ugly, such as the south african worm that is perfectly and complexly formed to make its living burrowing through the eyeballs of small mammals- particularly human children. It's not the worm's fault, it's how it's made; the only way it can possibly survive is by burrowing through eyeballs. The number of 'design flaws' in nature could fill several encyclopedia collections.
Natural selection, however, is perfectly able to account for ALL complexity in nature, good and bad. It's much more satisfying as an explanation.
Peace:)
I currently find I have trouble being wise AND compassionate. It's easier when I'm calm and collected. Being calm and collected seems to get easier with experience.
I think my spiritual goals in this life consist of enjoying my time with the people I share this world with. Now if only I could keep it that simple. ;-)