Or how America went from the platonic ideal of goal-scoring to the messy theatricality of flopping. And whether we can stop it before someone get's stoned in the forum.
I love the flopping analogy. It complements Tainter’s complexity theory. He argued that society gains administrative complexity as new problems arise. But I do think there was a bit of a gap in the analysis. Solving more and more problems doesn’t seem like it will become a problem itself unless there is something else going on.
That something else could be that when people are exposed to the same rules for a long time they learn to exploit those rules.
So flopping = rules + cultural evolution, and then you need more rules to prevent flopping.
It’s like bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics.
The recent article on ACX about SEIU is another good example. People have learned to fully exploit the ballot initiatives.
I like that equation. I think it ties in well to the arms race aspect. I also think you're on to something with the SEIU stuff, I read that article and I didn't even make the connection.
Thinking of the meta-game is a powerful way to think about the mis-alignment that happens over time in any game. This happens even in evolution - our technology allows us to game our basic desires - we now produce copious amounts of sugar with ease instead of spending a lot of calories and effort and risk harvesting a beehive.
Paul Portesi's x.com feed is a great little insight into this big phenomenon. Also the recent book "The Score" is quite fascinating on this topic.
Does Portesi mention supernormal stimuli? Because that's another angle to come at things from. One I have written on. And I mean I think that's my basic point, the better we get at manipulating society the greater the risk we'll screw something up without even realizing it.
Assuming I got the right book (The Score: How to Stop Playing Somebody Else's Game) I picked it up. Look for a review in the next few months.
Good point, supernormal stimuli are the clear examples - he actually comes at it from almost the opposite direction - pointing out all the angles, ways, styles things subtely and slowly become gamified - even the those most seemingly wholesome and well aligned. As if identifying them as such (example: Science) is what eventually weaponizes them against their mission.
Great article. I missed on on first skim, but you do call this process of playing the rules rather than playing the game "gamesmanship" (as opposed to sportsmanship). Perhaps you are familiar with Stephen Potter's books on the subject? If not, you may be interested; I believe he coined the term, and his book is (I gather from reviews) a somewhat tongue-in-cheek guide to winning in underhanded but legal ways. (Fans of Magic the Gathering may be familiar with LSV's dilemma, "Genius or Grifter?" which gets at the same point).
Another good example imo is the filibuster, a rules oddity that transformed into a tradition but really has no place in a supposedly rational deliberating body.
Two related points:
You discuss how flopping was first addressed through shame, then a rule change without apparently much teeth (or conversely, perhaps too difficult to enforce in practice). I wonder which of the two may be more effective generally? If you have a situation where some are persuaded through honor, the introduction of a toothless rule seems like it might, by clearly delineating the unacceptable behavior, endorse behavior up to the line. "The exception proves the rule" as they say.
A useful concept here is the "chump." Chump is a term of derision for one who follows no longer current rules of conduct. Someone who gets taken advantage of because of their trust in their fellows. It adds insult to injury. All functional societies rely on people desiring to be rule followers, either as such or because they believe those rules correspond with the good. Take shoplifting. Most people don't do it because they believe in property rights and because they know what will happen in the situation where shoplifting is widespread. But if you are already in that situation, and the rights aren't enforced because of au currant theories of criminal justice, you feel like a chump. Rule-breaking is (in this hypothetical) being tacitly allowed, and not only are you not reaping the material rewards, the honor due to being assiduous is turned to scorn. This is a society switching from high trust to low trust, at least in this domain.
On the shame angle, I'm reminded of the famous story about the Israeli daycare, where parents were supposed to pick up their kids by a certain time. There was widespread tardiness so the daycare implemented a fine. This had the opposite of its intended effect. Rather than reduce the tardiness, placing a dollar amount on it made it seem like a service you could by. Oh, for 10 shekels I can opt for the "late pick up" option. I hadn't made the connection until you brought it up, but we could be seeing something very similar with soccer, that applying a penalty made the trade-offs more obvious.
The chump angle is also very interesting. I may have to think about that some more, but you could definitely imagine a state change where it goes from being a defection to it being the expected behavior. I feel like a chump a lot on flights when I shove a personal item under my seat, reducing my legroom, as seemingly everyone else shoves jackets, purses and oversized carry-ons into the overhead.
Yes, that daycare angle is exactly what I was gesturing towards. Thanks for the example.
Another example, and I'll open myself up for judgement. Disneyland has two lots, one near, one far. The near one required validation for parking from the local restaurants. However, it didn't get checked before noon. Back when we could afford passes, we would go for a couple hours, then leave before they started checking for validation. There was no posted rule saying "free before noon" only something to the effect of "lot for restaurant customers". My self-serving reasoning was, "The enforcement is the rule." Given at that time of day there were excess spots, I don't think it was necessarily to anyone's detriment, I still think that wasn't ethical behavior.
For a more important chump example, consider college exams where the proctoring is lax. If grading is on a curve and cheating isn't prevented, an equilibrium can develop that severely punishes virtue. In this environment, it becomes quite difficult to hew to integrity; indeed, I've have arguments with some mutual friends about what is actually the right policy to advise.
One last example, one I'm prouder of. People often joke about telling their kids to lie in order to get them reduced prices on restaurants longer than the policy actually allows. "Kids eat free? In that case, tell them you're still nine, just tall for your age!" I'm careful not to give my kids the impression this deception would please me. Their integrity had better be worth more than a meal out, even at our inflated rates.
I think what might help America and soccer is a balance between friendliness and reward. When we love reward too much, we might see opponents not as friends but as obstacles. Promoting friendship between Red and Blue America could be good. Soccer is inherently about competition, but politics, perhaps, could be inherently about cooperation, with adversarial elements retained in case individuals defect.
To me (my bias is having come from a missionary family, and perhaps for an LDS adherent it could ring true as well), what sounds good here are missionaries to the two Americas. Or maybe cultural exchange. This way people can become familiarized with people from the other culture. The missionaries might find their clear ideas of how convincing their own side is somewhat or largely reduced by contact with people who just don't see things that way and have to actually be talked to in an attempt to reach them, and somewhat the same for the people they go to. I hear a hatred of Democrats and Republicans that I think is part of the fuel of people like Trump who is high in "reward-seeking" and low in "friendliness" (you have to fight the "bad guys" with an unrelenting fighter, so that's who you vote for). Hopefully political missionaries could at least reduce that, even if they couldn't persuade voters to have their values.
I don't know that I would trust the Republican or Democrat parties to implement this, since they are loaded with "the psychopolitics of trauma" and are geared toward culture war. But maybe moderates (moderate conservative and moderate liberal Christians, particularly) could do it.
Yeah, but it's hard to do this sort of thing in a way that doesn't seem condescending. And you've got the instinctive distrust to contend with. Finally if your only focus is power, you're probably going to be better at seizing power than if your focus on power is diluted by compassion. And because of centralization, scale, and ever improving technology the rewards of power are pretty significant.
But yes, as a general matter, I certainly think we need a lot more understanding. And I've definitely tried to do that. My friends joke that I must have a file with the FBI and it has to be pretty weird since I've attended really far left events like Deep Green Resistance, and far right events like Natal Con. ;)
I love the flopping analogy. It complements Tainter’s complexity theory. He argued that society gains administrative complexity as new problems arise. But I do think there was a bit of a gap in the analysis. Solving more and more problems doesn’t seem like it will become a problem itself unless there is something else going on.
That something else could be that when people are exposed to the same rules for a long time they learn to exploit those rules.
So flopping = rules + cultural evolution, and then you need more rules to prevent flopping.
It’s like bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics.
The recent article on ACX about SEIU is another good example. People have learned to fully exploit the ballot initiatives.
I like that equation. I think it ties in well to the arms race aspect. I also think you're on to something with the SEIU stuff, I read that article and I didn't even make the connection.
Thinking of the meta-game is a powerful way to think about the mis-alignment that happens over time in any game. This happens even in evolution - our technology allows us to game our basic desires - we now produce copious amounts of sugar with ease instead of spending a lot of calories and effort and risk harvesting a beehive.
Paul Portesi's x.com feed is a great little insight into this big phenomenon. Also the recent book "The Score" is quite fascinating on this topic.
Great post.
Does Portesi mention supernormal stimuli? Because that's another angle to come at things from. One I have written on. And I mean I think that's my basic point, the better we get at manipulating society the greater the risk we'll screw something up without even realizing it.
Assuming I got the right book (The Score: How to Stop Playing Somebody Else's Game) I picked it up. Look for a review in the next few months.
Good point, supernormal stimuli are the clear examples - he actually comes at it from almost the opposite direction - pointing out all the angles, ways, styles things subtely and slowly become gamified - even the those most seemingly wholesome and well aligned. As if identifying them as such (example: Science) is what eventually weaponizes them against their mission.
Great article. I missed on on first skim, but you do call this process of playing the rules rather than playing the game "gamesmanship" (as opposed to sportsmanship). Perhaps you are familiar with Stephen Potter's books on the subject? If not, you may be interested; I believe he coined the term, and his book is (I gather from reviews) a somewhat tongue-in-cheek guide to winning in underhanded but legal ways. (Fans of Magic the Gathering may be familiar with LSV's dilemma, "Genius or Grifter?" which gets at the same point).
Another good example imo is the filibuster, a rules oddity that transformed into a tradition but really has no place in a supposedly rational deliberating body.
Two related points:
You discuss how flopping was first addressed through shame, then a rule change without apparently much teeth (or conversely, perhaps too difficult to enforce in practice). I wonder which of the two may be more effective generally? If you have a situation where some are persuaded through honor, the introduction of a toothless rule seems like it might, by clearly delineating the unacceptable behavior, endorse behavior up to the line. "The exception proves the rule" as they say.
A useful concept here is the "chump." Chump is a term of derision for one who follows no longer current rules of conduct. Someone who gets taken advantage of because of their trust in their fellows. It adds insult to injury. All functional societies rely on people desiring to be rule followers, either as such or because they believe those rules correspond with the good. Take shoplifting. Most people don't do it because they believe in property rights and because they know what will happen in the situation where shoplifting is widespread. But if you are already in that situation, and the rights aren't enforced because of au currant theories of criminal justice, you feel like a chump. Rule-breaking is (in this hypothetical) being tacitly allowed, and not only are you not reaping the material rewards, the honor due to being assiduous is turned to scorn. This is a society switching from high trust to low trust, at least in this domain.
On the shame angle, I'm reminded of the famous story about the Israeli daycare, where parents were supposed to pick up their kids by a certain time. There was widespread tardiness so the daycare implemented a fine. This had the opposite of its intended effect. Rather than reduce the tardiness, placing a dollar amount on it made it seem like a service you could by. Oh, for 10 shekels I can opt for the "late pick up" option. I hadn't made the connection until you brought it up, but we could be seeing something very similar with soccer, that applying a penalty made the trade-offs more obvious.
The chump angle is also very interesting. I may have to think about that some more, but you could definitely imagine a state change where it goes from being a defection to it being the expected behavior. I feel like a chump a lot on flights when I shove a personal item under my seat, reducing my legroom, as seemingly everyone else shoves jackets, purses and oversized carry-ons into the overhead.
Yes, that daycare angle is exactly what I was gesturing towards. Thanks for the example.
Another example, and I'll open myself up for judgement. Disneyland has two lots, one near, one far. The near one required validation for parking from the local restaurants. However, it didn't get checked before noon. Back when we could afford passes, we would go for a couple hours, then leave before they started checking for validation. There was no posted rule saying "free before noon" only something to the effect of "lot for restaurant customers". My self-serving reasoning was, "The enforcement is the rule." Given at that time of day there were excess spots, I don't think it was necessarily to anyone's detriment, I still think that wasn't ethical behavior.
For a more important chump example, consider college exams where the proctoring is lax. If grading is on a curve and cheating isn't prevented, an equilibrium can develop that severely punishes virtue. In this environment, it becomes quite difficult to hew to integrity; indeed, I've have arguments with some mutual friends about what is actually the right policy to advise.
One last example, one I'm prouder of. People often joke about telling their kids to lie in order to get them reduced prices on restaurants longer than the policy actually allows. "Kids eat free? In that case, tell them you're still nine, just tall for your age!" I'm careful not to give my kids the impression this deception would please me. Their integrity had better be worth more than a meal out, even at our inflated rates.
I think what might help America and soccer is a balance between friendliness and reward. When we love reward too much, we might see opponents not as friends but as obstacles. Promoting friendship between Red and Blue America could be good. Soccer is inherently about competition, but politics, perhaps, could be inherently about cooperation, with adversarial elements retained in case individuals defect.
To me (my bias is having come from a missionary family, and perhaps for an LDS adherent it could ring true as well), what sounds good here are missionaries to the two Americas. Or maybe cultural exchange. This way people can become familiarized with people from the other culture. The missionaries might find their clear ideas of how convincing their own side is somewhat or largely reduced by contact with people who just don't see things that way and have to actually be talked to in an attempt to reach them, and somewhat the same for the people they go to. I hear a hatred of Democrats and Republicans that I think is part of the fuel of people like Trump who is high in "reward-seeking" and low in "friendliness" (you have to fight the "bad guys" with an unrelenting fighter, so that's who you vote for). Hopefully political missionaries could at least reduce that, even if they couldn't persuade voters to have their values.
I don't know that I would trust the Republican or Democrat parties to implement this, since they are loaded with "the psychopolitics of trauma" and are geared toward culture war. But maybe moderates (moderate conservative and moderate liberal Christians, particularly) could do it.
Yeah, but it's hard to do this sort of thing in a way that doesn't seem condescending. And you've got the instinctive distrust to contend with. Finally if your only focus is power, you're probably going to be better at seizing power than if your focus on power is diluted by compassion. And because of centralization, scale, and ever improving technology the rewards of power are pretty significant.
But yes, as a general matter, I certainly think we need a lot more understanding. And I've definitely tried to do that. My friends joke that I must have a file with the FBI and it has to be pretty weird since I've attended really far left events like Deep Green Resistance, and far right events like Natal Con. ;)