Selfish behavior is detrimental to society

Selfish driving causes everyone to pay the Price of Anarchy

While the result of this study is not surprising, the fact that this study was done and the methods it used are really interesting.

An illuminating observation that the study brings is the "Nash equilibrium" (a point at which no benefit will be realized if one's strategy is changed unilaterally) is reached when more and more people move away from the global optimum. What this means is that if a single person decides to start playing by the rules on the roads, he will still be late if the people around him don't follow the rules. The whole setup needs to change to benefit everyone. Sample this quote from the paper's abstract:

Uncoordinated individuals in human society pursuing their personally optimal strategies do not always achieve the social optimum, the most beneficial state to the society as a whole.

In India, and Bangalore especially, driving is little short of anarchy. In my earlier grouses on the matter, I have consistently held the opinion that people need to pay heed to the law to benefit not only themselves but the entire society and indirectly themselves as well.

In the book "Games Indians play" by V Raghunathan, the author touches upon this point. But he states that this condition is unique to India. However, this study by scientists from KAIST (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) while focusing on traffic shows that this is essentially a "human" problem.

The system cannot be optimized for maximum possible individual benefit without substantial costs. Optimization for maximum system benefit is what is needed; which will translate to significant individual benefit as well. There are plenty of team games that illustrate the same point quite well.

I was reminded of a set of brilliant essays (Collection titled "The Quest After Perfection") I am reading now by none other than the philosopher-sage Professor M Hiriyanna. In his essay on the "Ethics of the Upanishads", he defines evil to be two fold (I am paraphrasing here).
1. The urge for instant self-gratification as opposed to deferred pleasure.
2. The prioritization of one's own pleasure over that of society and the environment.

To be not-evil, therefore, one should have deferred gratification of pleasure and keep societal needs before the individual's, which is essentially the same point the authors of the paper make.

Dharma is a central Indian concept that involves putting society before one's self. The idea here is that it will make life easy not just for yourself but the entire society, while benefiting each individual finally.

In this age, individual liberties are held to be more important than societal good. The assumption behind this seems to be that a bunch of individually happy people will make society happy as a whole. Unfortunately, studies such as the one referenced show that individual maxima do not translate to a system maximum.

The questions that arise in my mind are:
1. To what extent can individuals forego "personally optimal strategies" to benefit society as a whole?
2. Which one is preferred? A non-optimal society where people have a little more "freedom" to pursue personally optimal strategies? Or an optimal society which, by design, will be less "free" to pursue personally optimal strategies? Is there a meeting place for the two?

The paper itself can be found here.

Is this our news sense?

I wish to draw your attention to this picture to our left from the world's largest read English daily. (Yes, that is the Times of India, if you didn't know that already).

Something wrong about it? Look at the news item that got pushed down. That is not a day old as I type up this post. 146 human beings with 30 children dead; rather killed by a rumor of a landslide. TOI's editors found it convenient to push it down all the way to the second India item - with a cash sting item preceding it. Of course, this was not terrorism. Neither was it a star couple's marriage. The tragedy was that I didn't find it surprising that this item was pushed all the way down. It seems to me that we have lost even the feeling of wounded surprise as this kind of reporting has become so routine and predictable in India.

146 souls - dead; not naturally; but at a holy place. Is this somehow unimportant in the larger scale of things?

We probably deserve the news we see. After all, the media is pandering to our attention, right? Aarushi and other sensational stuff somehow hogs the limelight, but such items (as about this stampede) of immense magnitude, causing irreparable loss to the families of the living, get overlooked. What if the same people had died in say, an aircrash or a train wreck? (Of course, on Friday more than 30 people got charred in a train and we've already forgotten about it).

Have we become so desensitized to the whole thing that death, if not of a person close to us, is meaningless? Don't these souls deserve at least our moment of concern while reading the news? I feel horrible at this blatant indifference.

Anyway, it looks like our selfish gene is at work while picking up news worthy items too (as in other spheres of human activity as well). Because, terrorism for instance, affects the living people of India "more" than a stampede in a tiny corner of the country. "More" because people want to continue living; because for most people, nothing is higher than the preservation of one's own life.

Article by the real Charles Van Doren of "The Quiz Show" fame

Personal History: All the Answers: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

"The Quiz Show" is a movie directed by Robert Redford that had me riveted. Every time I watch it I cannot but think of the then successful Charles Van Doren whose life becomes miserable at the end of the movie.

Now the real Charles Van Doren speaks after quite a long media hiatus. His recollection in the New Yorker is pretty neat.

Some bad decisions taken on the spur of the moment haunt us for life indeed. Charles Van Doren is the example for this.

VW's expensive but amazingly fuel efficient car

Laugh at High Gas Prices With a 282-MPG VW | Autopia from Wired.com

This is a stunning car (with an equally stunning price tag). Now, you can zoom with style without worrying about rising fuel costs as this gives an amazing 235 Miles per Gallon that translates to a whopping 99 kms per litre (of course, two wheelers in India are already north of 100 km per litre).

Now for the simple matter of money - the car costs a paltry 20K to 30K Euro (INR 13,53,800 to 20,30,700). The article concludes thus:

"That's a lot of money. But then, the One-Liter, despite its diminutive size, is a lot of car."

There are some great pictures in that link too.

25 year anniversary of the World Cup win - losers' celebration?

Brands rule Lord's '83 celebration, Tricolour missing

Up until now, I was happily reminiscing about that famous '83 win and about what a great achievement it was. And then it struck me - we are a bunch of losers!

1983 was the third edition of the world cup. India were the underdogs and they scripted a fairy tale win over the formidable reigning champs. For me, it constitutes an interesting, pleasant and even uplifting memory. But, would we want to celebrate the anniversaries of that? 25th? 30th or 50th?

The Windies won the Cup in '75 and '79. Did you see the likes of Lloyd and Richards celebrate their 30th anniversary of winning the cup anywhere? Or at Lords? Or, did Australia under Border celebrate the 20th anniversary of their first cup win in '87 in Calcutta?

Australia, especially, have made a habit of winning world cups regularly that celebrations don't matter at all. However for us, one win 25 years ago is all so important that we focus on that like an obsessive stalker (me included). That is what makes me sad. A tiny bulb shines in a pitch dark room. But even if a single bright light comes on, our tiny light gets completely overshadowed. The tiny bulb of our win in '83 is the only source of light for us. By celebrating the single light, we are unwittingly celebrating the darkness around it or in this case - the lack of significant wins since.

It is not that I don't like celebrations of events bygone. But the event has to be of some significance and should, IMO, be a one time occurrence. For example, India's independence day is an event worth celebrating. Not winning a once-in-4-years-world cup 25 years ago; unless that was the only time you won it - in which case, the celebration would be of the losing streak.

With apologies for my cynicism,
-N