4 ms·
This seems like the hawks and doves Nash equilibrium in game theory: http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/kprestwi/behavior/ESS/HvD_intro.html http://college.ho
by Moodles 8y ago
This seems like the hawks and doves Nash equilibrium in game theory: http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/kprestwi/behavior/ESS/HvD_intro.html http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/kprestwi/behavior/ESS/H...
On one hand you want some doves because they work together well and society is nice, but on the other hand if there’s too doves then hawks will thrive. But if everyone is hawks, then society as a whole doesn’t work as well together. So there’s push and pull of both and in the end the natural equilibrium is mostly doves with some hawks. I suspect this is how it works for psycopaths in society.
- AmericanChopper 8y agoI’ve worked in teams comprised entirely of “hawks” that were entirely functional, and incredibly effective. As long as you all share a mission and respect each other then it can be great and involve almost no conflict.
- Moodles 8y agoProbably disagreeing over the meaning of hawk then.
- AmericanChopper 8y agoI’m pretty sure we’re not. They can work very well together as long as they all see each other as competent.
- TuringTest 8y agoProbably. But knowing human condition, that arrangement seems particularly unstable. If there's no emotional bonding, any stumble in competence can throw trust off, and then things may spiral down very fast.
- dasmoth 8y agoI’m not convinced it requires empathy to recognise that the occasional stumble from someone with a solid track record doesn’t mean they’re not going to perform well again tomorrow.
- TuringTest 8y agoNo, but it erodes trust, and may start a quarrel. Then, without empathy it will be harder for people to deescalate tensions, or want to collaborate with someone they've had a confrontation with and are angry with.
- AmericanChopper 8y agoThis particular group of people pretty much never fought about anything. They practiced a very extreme version of candor which prevented tension from developing to begin with.
- Moodles 8y agoNo, I think we're disagreeing. Look at the link I made in my original post. By definition, hawks are ones that don't get on well with each other.
- AmericanChopper 8y agoThey’re just people who are aggressive and disagreeable. Those people are prone to conflict, but can actually get along very well in the right environment.
- Moodles 8y agoAs I said, we are just disagreeing on the definition of hawk.
- goatlover 8y agoBut would this work for an entire society? Because your teams are part of a larger society that has various rules and codes of conduct already in place. But a society of hawks would have to come up with their own rules, which aren't based on any sort of empathy or inherent morality (ie all people have rights).