When I was younger, I read voraciously. For a variety of reasons, I didn't like hanging out with people too much, so I spent most of my time curled up in any available nook or cranny with a book. My mother encouraged us to read The Classics, to which I attribute a number of British spelling tendencies and odd sayings , but what really caught my attention was scifi and fantasy. I was constantly being warned that I would rot my brain out by reading "useless stuff," and that it was just an escape from the real world, but I feel like I learned a lot from reading such novels.
One of the most important lessons I learned from books, I feel, was how to treat others. The Classics were very big on honor, nobility and ethics, something that would come in handy when I started working, but was a bit out of touch for modern-day kid/ early teen interactions. One day, as I was reading my way through the Xanth series by Piers Anthony, I came across a version of the Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma, and a simplified answer for it (since the book was aimed at young teens, after all.) Here is a brief summary:
And a simple version of the answer (shamelessly lifted from Wikipedia):
In a single game, it's statistically wiser to defect (betray your partner), giving you the option of 3 months or nothing, vs the option of 1 months or 1 year.
The situation in the book, however, was set up so that you had to go through this choice multiple times with the same partner/ opponent, and (skipping a lot of convoluted logic), the solution suggested was called "tough, but fair." The best solution was to start off by co-operating with your partner/ opponent, and then, in subsequent games, treating him as he had treated you. Naturally, some amount of forgiveness is needed, lest it turn into an endless game of revenge, but if you start off by being kind to your opponent, and s/he retaliates with kindness, you both end up with the best deal possible. (Go look it up on wikipedia if you want the breakdown, or read Golem in the Gears by Piers Anthony.)
Without knowing that this was an actual philosophical game theory, I was highly impressed. I try to assume the best of people around me, and it irritates me to no end when that is shattered for selfish reasons. Unfortunately, I also tended (at the time) to give people not only second and third chances, but also things like 104th or 298th chances, usually to my extreme detriment. Now, instead, here was something that was telling me that it was okay to not just turn the other cheek, and accept that I'd be walked on. "Fair," to me, meant "I scratch your back, and then accept that there are mitigating circumstances as to why you can't scratch mine," because I was sure those mitigating circumstances existed- 298 times in a row. Really.
But wait! That's not what fair means? Fair means I don't have to be someone else's carpet? Woah! I was blown away. I was further astounded when all those people who had been using me in a variety of ways actually backed down once I stood up to them and told them why I wasn't going to be used any more. To be sure, there was some whining and pushback, but when I didn't just lie down again, they accepted it and started treating me better. Apparently, there's a huge difference between being a "nice" guy, and being a "nice guy." Who knew?
Ever since then, I have made this my philosophy for dealing with people in my life. I will absolutely give someone the benefit of the doubt, go out of my way to help them, and try to make things as equitably easy as possible. If they prove to me that they are unwilling to retaliate, however, those perks get shut off until such a time as they are reciprocated. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'll be an utter jerk to that person, but they're downranked into the realm of professional politeness and work ethics instead of friendship and mutual benefit.
So, long story short: it's far better to treat others nicely from the start. Doesn't mean you have to be gushing bosom-buddies, just give them the decency and respect that all humans deserve. It will save a lot of apologizing, explaining, and bad feelings later on, and in the meantime, you both benefit. What's not to like? (Also, there are an amazing number of valuable life lessons hidden in scifi/ fantasy books. They're not just mind candy!)
One of the most important lessons I learned from books, I feel, was how to treat others. The Classics were very big on honor, nobility and ethics, something that would come in handy when I started working, but was a bit out of touch for modern-day kid/ early teen interactions. One day, as I was reading my way through the Xanth series by Piers Anthony, I came across a version of the Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma, and a simplified answer for it (since the book was aimed at young teens, after all.) Here is a brief summary:
Two men are arrested, but the police do not have enough information for a conviction. The police separate the two men, and offer both the same deal: if one testifies against his partner (defects/betrays), and the other remains silent (cooperates with/assists his partner), the betrayer goes free and the one that remains silent gets a one-year sentence. If both remain silent, both are sentenced to only one month in jail on a minor charge. If each 'rats out' the other, each receives a three-month sentence. Each prisoner must choose either to betray or remain silent; the decision of each is kept secret from his partner. What should they do?
And a simple version of the answer (shamelessly lifted from Wikipedia):
In a single game, it's statistically wiser to defect (betray your partner), giving you the option of 3 months or nothing, vs the option of 1 months or 1 year.
The situation in the book, however, was set up so that you had to go through this choice multiple times with the same partner/ opponent, and (skipping a lot of convoluted logic), the solution suggested was called "tough, but fair." The best solution was to start off by co-operating with your partner/ opponent, and then, in subsequent games, treating him as he had treated you. Naturally, some amount of forgiveness is needed, lest it turn into an endless game of revenge, but if you start off by being kind to your opponent, and s/he retaliates with kindness, you both end up with the best deal possible. (Go look it up on wikipedia if you want the breakdown, or read Golem in the Gears by Piers Anthony.)
 |
| Great books, once you get past the puns and the 80s-style covers. |
Without knowing that this was an actual philosophical game theory, I was highly impressed. I try to assume the best of people around me, and it irritates me to no end when that is shattered for selfish reasons. Unfortunately, I also tended (at the time) to give people not only second and third chances, but also things like 104th or 298th chances, usually to my extreme detriment. Now, instead, here was something that was telling me that it was okay to not just turn the other cheek, and accept that I'd be walked on. "Fair," to me, meant "I scratch your back, and then accept that there are mitigating circumstances as to why you can't scratch mine," because I was sure those mitigating circumstances existed- 298 times in a row. Really.
But wait! That's not what fair means? Fair means I don't have to be someone else's carpet? Woah! I was blown away. I was further astounded when all those people who had been using me in a variety of ways actually backed down once I stood up to them and told them why I wasn't going to be used any more. To be sure, there was some whining and pushback, but when I didn't just lie down again, they accepted it and started treating me better. Apparently, there's a huge difference between being a "nice" guy, and being a "nice guy." Who knew?
Ever since then, I have made this my philosophy for dealing with people in my life. I will absolutely give someone the benefit of the doubt, go out of my way to help them, and try to make things as equitably easy as possible. If they prove to me that they are unwilling to retaliate, however, those perks get shut off until such a time as they are reciprocated. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'll be an utter jerk to that person, but they're downranked into the realm of professional politeness and work ethics instead of friendship and mutual benefit.
So, long story short: it's far better to treat others nicely from the start. Doesn't mean you have to be gushing bosom-buddies, just give them the decency and respect that all humans deserve. It will save a lot of apologizing, explaining, and bad feelings later on, and in the meantime, you both benefit. What's not to like? (Also, there are an amazing number of valuable life lessons hidden in scifi/ fantasy books. They're not just mind candy!)
No comments:
Post a Comment