Thought Experiments in Game Analogy
Helping the Navajo Scorpion
.
A turtle is about to cross a river, when the scorpion asks if he could please ride on the back of the turtle to get to the other side as well. The turtle says "No, you'll sting me." The scorpion points out that if he does so, they will both drown. This convinces the turtle that he'll be safe, so he lets the scorpion on his back and begins crossing. Halfway across, the scorpion stings the turtle. The turtle then asks why, because now they will both drown. The scorpion simply says "I can't help it. It's my nature."
.
And that's the story of the Navajo Scorpion.
.
If the turtle were using Game Analogy, how would he have handled this situation?
.
The first and third element compel the turtle to find some way to help. The second element requires that he consider all possibilities. The fourth element tells him to consider what game the scorpion is playing, and the fifth element says to know oneself. All of this is considered while observing the IGGRE formula.
.
The turtle could look for sticks and small branches, bundle them together with some straw and grass, then tell the scorpion to hop. The turtle will push from behind, and the scorpion must face away from the turtle, as he cannot sting backwards. If he scorpion genuinely wants to get across, he'll accept, and this way, the turtle can remain safe. If the scorpion turns towards the turtle at any point, the turtle could just stop pushing, and the bundle of sticks, with the scorpion on it, will float away on its own.
.
Using this same way of thinking, if you see a homeless person with a sign begging for money so he can have something to eat, you could offer to buy him something to eat rather than give him money that he could use for drugs. If someone tells you they need to make an important call and then asks to use your phone because theirs is dead, or doesn't have minutes, offer to walk into a bank or somewhere secure with the person, then dial the number for them, then put it on speaker so you can hold the phone firm in your hands. This prevents the person from running off with your phone, as they'd have to pry it from your hands and then make it passed bank security, and still allows you to help them.
.
If the turtle couldn't find sticks and straw, or if you couldn't reliably hold onto and secure your phone while someone makes a call, then it's okay to simply refuse to help. You can't always achieve a tier one outcome, and that's okay.
.
The Blind Man's Sign (The Problem with Empathy)
.
The Russel Test
.
This one is particularly helpful for young men.
.
Imagine you're standing at a checkout line at a grocery store. The person ahead of you is perhaps the most beautiful woman you've ever seen. Everything about her is perfect. Her grocery bill is around 100 dollars, and she's unable to pay. Your paycheck was deposited yesterday. She looks right at you, and with the most innocent, enticing smile a woman has ever given you, complete with the lower lip bite, asks if you could cover her just this one time, and she'll "make it worth your while". She even gives you her number.
.
If you were paying attention to the Trolley Problem Betrayal, you'll know as soon as you pay, she'll take her groceries and that's the last you'll ever see of her. Also she gave you a fake number.
.
The difficulty is confusing what it means to be a "good person" with being a "simp". You don't want to be selfish and uncaring, but you also don't want to be made a fool.
.
Replace the beautiful woman with "Russel", and imagine you're interacting with him. Who is Russel? He's your average, everyday middle-aged working man with a beer gut, beard, and bald spot. He's a good guy. You've met him a few times, so he's not a complete stranger, but you're not close friends. There is absolutely no intimate attraction whatsoever. He's just a regular guy.
.
Russel asks you to help him with 100 dollars of groceries. Would you? Probably not. If Russel asked for 20 dollars, and he'd promise to pay you back next week, that'd be a different situation, and you'd be far more likely to agree. If he doesn't pay you back, well you lost only 20 dollars and you'll never lend him money again. Treat the beautiful woman the exact same way you'd treat Russel. That way you're being nice, but not being a fool.
.
The Russel Test is basically "If Russel asked me this / wanted me to do this, would I still say yes?"
.
.
A turtle is about to cross a river, when the scorpion asks if he could please ride on the back of the turtle to get to the other side as well. The turtle says "No, you'll sting me." The scorpion points out that if he does so, they will both drown. This convinces the turtle that he'll be safe, so he lets the scorpion on his back and begins crossing. Halfway across, the scorpion stings the turtle. The turtle then asks why, because now they will both drown. The scorpion simply says "I can't help it. It's my nature."
.
And that's the story of the Navajo Scorpion.
.
If the turtle were using Game Analogy, how would he have handled this situation?
.
The first and third element compel the turtle to find some way to help. The second element requires that he consider all possibilities. The fourth element tells him to consider what game the scorpion is playing, and the fifth element says to know oneself. All of this is considered while observing the IGGRE formula.
.
The turtle could look for sticks and small branches, bundle them together with some straw and grass, then tell the scorpion to hop. The turtle will push from behind, and the scorpion must face away from the turtle, as he cannot sting backwards. If he scorpion genuinely wants to get across, he'll accept, and this way, the turtle can remain safe. If the scorpion turns towards the turtle at any point, the turtle could just stop pushing, and the bundle of sticks, with the scorpion on it, will float away on its own.
.
Using this same way of thinking, if you see a homeless person with a sign begging for money so he can have something to eat, you could offer to buy him something to eat rather than give him money that he could use for drugs. If someone tells you they need to make an important call and then asks to use your phone because theirs is dead, or doesn't have minutes, offer to walk into a bank or somewhere secure with the person, then dial the number for them, then put it on speaker so you can hold the phone firm in your hands. This prevents the person from running off with your phone, as they'd have to pry it from your hands and then make it passed bank security, and still allows you to help them.
.
If the turtle couldn't find sticks and straw, or if you couldn't reliably hold onto and secure your phone while someone makes a call, then it's okay to simply refuse to help. You can't always achieve a tier one outcome, and that's okay.
.
The Blind Man's Sign (The Problem with Empathy)
.
A short video of this one can be seen here: https://youtu.be/QYcXTlGLUgE?si=12jiOldTNcF3m6vi
.
Outside a shop somewhere, there's a blind man with a cardboard sign, which reads "I'm blind, please help". By the end of the day, the man has 4 dollars put in his cup as charity. A woman comes by the next day, takes his sign, and changes it. The following day the man now has 400 dollars put in his cup. The man asks the woman "what did you do?" The woman says "I changed your sign so it now reads 'it's a beautiful day, but I can't see it.'"
.
This makes the typical middle-aged divorced woman with 3 kids and "Life Laugh Love" hung somewhere on her wall, tilt her head to the side and go "awww!" This illustrates two very important points.
.
First, what actually changed? The man was blind before. The man is blind now. Literally the only thing that changed was the message on the sign, and whether or not that made people tilt their heads and go "awww", which is typically described as "empathy" (and sometimes "compassion".) In other words, what you determine to be right and wrong -- your moral code -- is based entirely on whatever you happen to be feeling right now at the moment.
.
And that's the problem with empathy. You don't answer to a higher calling, to God, to the universe, or to a moral fabric that is transcendent and unchanging -- you answer to your whim. Your mood. Whatever gives you those "warm and fuzzy" feelings. Empathy can be useful in some situations, which is why it's still a virtue, but it is the lowest on the list of virtues and is also conditional (it only applies to some situations), and should not be your moral compass or guide. Placing empathy as the highest virtue is a sign of philosophical confusion. You should either give to the blind man or not give based on higher principles of right and wrong that are eternal.
.
Second, this is the morality of a typical 3D mapper. Most people decide right and wrong this way, and you're probably not going to "teach" them out of it. So using Game Analogy, simply work this into your calculous when dealing with other people. Do what needs to be done, say what needs to be said, and freely manipulate others knowing that their morality works this way, so long as you're following the 5 elements (and are genuinely making everyone better off.)
.
Trolley Problem Betrayal
.
This appears in the main Game Analogy text.
.
An out-of-control trolley or train is coming down the tracks and will either go down a set of tracks with 4 people tied to it, or you can flip a switch and send it down another set of tracks with only one person tied to it. In our version, let's imagine the single person tied down is your one true love. If you don't have a true love or romantic motivation isn't appealing to you, then replace this person with someone else who's tremendously important to you, more important than anyone else in the whole wide world.
.
Now, the train is coming. Your true love screams out to you, making eye contact with a desperate pleading look, saying all the right things to motivate you to save them. Do you flip the switch, ending the life of your true love right in front of you? Or do you allow it to run over the four people? Let's say for sake of this example that you decide to save your true love. The train runs over four people. You rush right past the carnage and untie your significant other from the tracks and embrace them.
.
After the warm embrace, your true love thanks you, but informs you that they've met someone else recently, that they'll be leaving you and spending their lives with this other person. Seconds later, the other person pulls up in a very nice car and the passenger door opens. Your former significant other rushes to the passenger seat, thanking you again for saving their life, then hops in the car and drives out for their new love. You're left standing there amidst the devastation, both around you and within you.
.
In the original text, you have a chance to go back in time and make a different decision, and Game Analogy teaches to always think of these possibilities beforehand (part of using a 5D map.)
.
This can be applied in all sorts of situations.
.
Let's say you'd like to join the Navy Seals. You are ready and willing to endure one of the most difficult physical training courses ever designed. However, what if there were a 1% chance that after successfully completing the course, you could be randomly selected to fail? Would you still attempt the course? Some would say yes, so what if there were a 10% chance? 50% chance? What you decide to do is up to you. Game Analogy simply says to always think of these possibilities (5D map along with the IGGRE formula), and consider your actions accordingly.
.
.
Outside a shop somewhere, there's a blind man with a cardboard sign, which reads "I'm blind, please help". By the end of the day, the man has 4 dollars put in his cup as charity. A woman comes by the next day, takes his sign, and changes it. The following day the man now has 400 dollars put in his cup. The man asks the woman "what did you do?" The woman says "I changed your sign so it now reads 'it's a beautiful day, but I can't see it.'"
.
This makes the typical middle-aged divorced woman with 3 kids and "Life Laugh Love" hung somewhere on her wall, tilt her head to the side and go "awww!" This illustrates two very important points.
.
First, what actually changed? The man was blind before. The man is blind now. Literally the only thing that changed was the message on the sign, and whether or not that made people tilt their heads and go "awww", which is typically described as "empathy" (and sometimes "compassion".) In other words, what you determine to be right and wrong -- your moral code -- is based entirely on whatever you happen to be feeling right now at the moment.
.
And that's the problem with empathy. You don't answer to a higher calling, to God, to the universe, or to a moral fabric that is transcendent and unchanging -- you answer to your whim. Your mood. Whatever gives you those "warm and fuzzy" feelings. Empathy can be useful in some situations, which is why it's still a virtue, but it is the lowest on the list of virtues and is also conditional (it only applies to some situations), and should not be your moral compass or guide. Placing empathy as the highest virtue is a sign of philosophical confusion. You should either give to the blind man or not give based on higher principles of right and wrong that are eternal.
.
Second, this is the morality of a typical 3D mapper. Most people decide right and wrong this way, and you're probably not going to "teach" them out of it. So using Game Analogy, simply work this into your calculous when dealing with other people. Do what needs to be done, say what needs to be said, and freely manipulate others knowing that their morality works this way, so long as you're following the 5 elements (and are genuinely making everyone better off.)
.
Trolley Problem Betrayal
.
This appears in the main Game Analogy text.
.
An out-of-control trolley or train is coming down the tracks and will either go down a set of tracks with 4 people tied to it, or you can flip a switch and send it down another set of tracks with only one person tied to it. In our version, let's imagine the single person tied down is your one true love. If you don't have a true love or romantic motivation isn't appealing to you, then replace this person with someone else who's tremendously important to you, more important than anyone else in the whole wide world.
.
Now, the train is coming. Your true love screams out to you, making eye contact with a desperate pleading look, saying all the right things to motivate you to save them. Do you flip the switch, ending the life of your true love right in front of you? Or do you allow it to run over the four people? Let's say for sake of this example that you decide to save your true love. The train runs over four people. You rush right past the carnage and untie your significant other from the tracks and embrace them.
.
After the warm embrace, your true love thanks you, but informs you that they've met someone else recently, that they'll be leaving you and spending their lives with this other person. Seconds later, the other person pulls up in a very nice car and the passenger door opens. Your former significant other rushes to the passenger seat, thanking you again for saving their life, then hops in the car and drives out for their new love. You're left standing there amidst the devastation, both around you and within you.
.
In the original text, you have a chance to go back in time and make a different decision, and Game Analogy teaches to always think of these possibilities beforehand (part of using a 5D map.)
.
This can be applied in all sorts of situations.
.
Let's say you'd like to join the Navy Seals. You are ready and willing to endure one of the most difficult physical training courses ever designed. However, what if there were a 1% chance that after successfully completing the course, you could be randomly selected to fail? Would you still attempt the course? Some would say yes, so what if there were a 10% chance? 50% chance? What you decide to do is up to you. Game Analogy simply says to always think of these possibilities (5D map along with the IGGRE formula), and consider your actions accordingly.
.
The Russel Test
.
This one is particularly helpful for young men.
.
Imagine you're standing at a checkout line at a grocery store. The person ahead of you is perhaps the most beautiful woman you've ever seen. Everything about her is perfect. Her grocery bill is around 100 dollars, and she's unable to pay. Your paycheck was deposited yesterday. She looks right at you, and with the most innocent, enticing smile a woman has ever given you, complete with the lower lip bite, asks if you could cover her just this one time, and she'll "make it worth your while". She even gives you her number.
.
If you were paying attention to the Trolley Problem Betrayal, you'll know as soon as you pay, she'll take her groceries and that's the last you'll ever see of her. Also she gave you a fake number.
.
The difficulty is confusing what it means to be a "good person" with being a "simp". You don't want to be selfish and uncaring, but you also don't want to be made a fool.
.
Replace the beautiful woman with "Russel", and imagine you're interacting with him. Who is Russel? He's your average, everyday middle-aged working man with a beer gut, beard, and bald spot. He's a good guy. You've met him a few times, so he's not a complete stranger, but you're not close friends. There is absolutely no intimate attraction whatsoever. He's just a regular guy.
.
Russel asks you to help him with 100 dollars of groceries. Would you? Probably not. If Russel asked for 20 dollars, and he'd promise to pay you back next week, that'd be a different situation, and you'd be far more likely to agree. If he doesn't pay you back, well you lost only 20 dollars and you'll never lend him money again. Treat the beautiful woman the exact same way you'd treat Russel. That way you're being nice, but not being a fool.
.
The Russel Test is basically "If Russel asked me this / wanted me to do this, would I still say yes?"
.
Everyone Has a Price
.
There is a very proper, upper-class lady who attends a party. A rich billionaire approaches her, and after some conversation, he asks "Madam, would you sleep with me for a 100 million dollars?" (Or pounds, or whatever your country's currency.)
.
The woman is shocked, but thinks for a moment. She's a woman of refinement, but 100 million is honestly quite a lot. After a long pause, she blushes, and says she'll think about it.
.
The man walks away, and a few minutes later approaches again. He now says "Madam, would you sleep with me for 10 dollars?"
.
Now the woman is outraged. Angrily, she says "What kind of woman do you think I am?"
.
The man replies "Madam, we know what kind of woman you are. We're just negotiating price."
.
This story reveals two things. First, Kantian style ethics that are considered "absolute" and never change are impractical in the real world. Life is complicated, and your morality has to be firm, but flexible. Sleeping with one guy for one night in exchange for enough money to forever change your life, your children's lives, and your grand children's lives, is nothing to be ashamed of. Second, most people are unaware that they have a price, and usually haven't given it any thought. Also, the issue isn't the fact that they have a price, it's them feeling comfortable and justified when it comes up. Freely use this knowledge when negotiating or interacting with others.
.
Everyone also has limits, and related to this is the Ticking Time Bomb thought experiment. Imagine there is a nuclear weapon hidden somewhere under the streets of New York. The bomb will explode in 48 hours. You capture a terrorist who knows of the bomb's location. Severely and brutally torturing this individual will give you the location of the bomb. Would you advocate using torture in this situation?
.
Basically: If an offer is good enough, people will abandon their principles and take it. If a situation is bad enough, people will break their rules and do whatever they have to. The problem is either not having a well examined moral system, or having one that's simply too inflexible for the complexities of life.
.
There is a very proper, upper-class lady who attends a party. A rich billionaire approaches her, and after some conversation, he asks "Madam, would you sleep with me for a 100 million dollars?" (Or pounds, or whatever your country's currency.)
.
The woman is shocked, but thinks for a moment. She's a woman of refinement, but 100 million is honestly quite a lot. After a long pause, she blushes, and says she'll think about it.
.
The man walks away, and a few minutes later approaches again. He now says "Madam, would you sleep with me for 10 dollars?"
.
Now the woman is outraged. Angrily, she says "What kind of woman do you think I am?"
.
The man replies "Madam, we know what kind of woman you are. We're just negotiating price."
.
This story reveals two things. First, Kantian style ethics that are considered "absolute" and never change are impractical in the real world. Life is complicated, and your morality has to be firm, but flexible. Sleeping with one guy for one night in exchange for enough money to forever change your life, your children's lives, and your grand children's lives, is nothing to be ashamed of. Second, most people are unaware that they have a price, and usually haven't given it any thought. Also, the issue isn't the fact that they have a price, it's them feeling comfortable and justified when it comes up. Freely use this knowledge when negotiating or interacting with others.
.
Everyone also has limits, and related to this is the Ticking Time Bomb thought experiment. Imagine there is a nuclear weapon hidden somewhere under the streets of New York. The bomb will explode in 48 hours. You capture a terrorist who knows of the bomb's location. Severely and brutally torturing this individual will give you the location of the bomb. Would you advocate using torture in this situation?
.
Basically: If an offer is good enough, people will abandon their principles and take it. If a situation is bad enough, people will break their rules and do whatever they have to. The problem is either not having a well examined moral system, or having one that's simply too inflexible for the complexities of life.
Comments
Post a Comment