The golden rule
Jun. 29th, 2010 12:41 pmThis was one of my daily dharma messages last week: "There is a magnet in your heart that will attract true friends. That magnet is unselfishness, thinking of others first. . . when you learn to live for others, they will live for you." (Paramahansa Yogananda)
I used to be quite a pessimist, cynic, what-have-you. In my unhappier moments, I still let my bitterness leak out. But at some point, I don't remember when but it was this century, I finally decided that I was happier believing things would turn out for the better--even if secretly I didn't believe this. To act as if everyone will be nice and things will turn out well may seem very naive or unreasonably idealistic. In practice, it isn't true. People can be selfish bastards. But people can also be incredibly generous and kind, and I find I'm happier if I go about life expecting this result than if I expect to be screwed.
And now I have mathematical proof! (Of sorts.) I was recently reading K.C. Cole's The Universe and the Teacup, a pop-math book from 1998, which discusses the application of mathematical principles (generally speaking--there's very little math in the book) to realms like beauty, justice, and business practices. In a section on fairness and game theory, Cole discusses an experiment run by Robert Axelrod in the 1980s. He invited game theory experts to submit strategies for winning at "the prisoner's dilemma." In this scenario, you and an accomplice are being interrogated separately. You're each offered a deal if you will rat the other one out. What do you do? The most successful strategy was submitted by Anatol Rapoport (U Toronto): "Called Tit for Tat, the program's first move is always to cooperate [i.e. to remain faithful to your accomplice]. After that, it simply echoes whatever its opposition does" (118). When Axelrod later pitted a bunch of programs against each other, cut-throat programs that put themselves first initially did well but then "ran out of prey" (119).
This tells me that I should go about life expecting good things and treating people how I want them to treat me. And if they screw me, their ass is mine.
I used to be quite a pessimist, cynic, what-have-you. In my unhappier moments, I still let my bitterness leak out. But at some point, I don't remember when but it was this century, I finally decided that I was happier believing things would turn out for the better--even if secretly I didn't believe this. To act as if everyone will be nice and things will turn out well may seem very naive or unreasonably idealistic. In practice, it isn't true. People can be selfish bastards. But people can also be incredibly generous and kind, and I find I'm happier if I go about life expecting this result than if I expect to be screwed.
And now I have mathematical proof! (Of sorts.) I was recently reading K.C. Cole's The Universe and the Teacup, a pop-math book from 1998, which discusses the application of mathematical principles (generally speaking--there's very little math in the book) to realms like beauty, justice, and business practices. In a section on fairness and game theory, Cole discusses an experiment run by Robert Axelrod in the 1980s. He invited game theory experts to submit strategies for winning at "the prisoner's dilemma." In this scenario, you and an accomplice are being interrogated separately. You're each offered a deal if you will rat the other one out. What do you do? The most successful strategy was submitted by Anatol Rapoport (U Toronto): "Called Tit for Tat, the program's first move is always to cooperate [i.e. to remain faithful to your accomplice]. After that, it simply echoes whatever its opposition does" (118). When Axelrod later pitted a bunch of programs against each other, cut-throat programs that put themselves first initially did well but then "ran out of prey" (119).
This tells me that I should go about life expecting good things and treating people how I want them to treat me. And if they screw me, their ass is mine.