Hi Tom, and Cherryl, good, now we're talking .... ;-)
The question of "being in one's favour" - whether the "game" is
competitive or collaborative - is a matter of "enlightened
self-interest" I believe is the jargon - finding a rationality that is
not focussed too simply, but more "holistic" or "inclusive" on what
"our" interests really are. (I mentioned Mary Parker-Follett - good on
achieving win-wins.)
Tom, the death-bed will example would be good to explore - for a lot
of people there would be an element of satisfying a need, not leaving
things unfinished, more than say the stress of doing it. The personal
"gain" could be valued many ways - there may well be genetic and
memetic cultural drivers (duty you called it) here in the interests of
the offspring ... a very complex case. (Doing one's duty is in one's
interest - unless it's a bogus duty.)
Game theory is still common sense, with "rational" agents ... we're
just working up a better idea of what rational is - or wise as we call
it here ?
Ian
On 3/20/07, Tom Milner-Gulland <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks, Ian, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily rational for an agent to
> make a choice *in his/her favour*. In the past I've given an example of an
> agent's making the choice, when on his/her deathbed, to undertake the task
> of writing a will, which yields no personal gain and might only be a source
> of stress. Yet a person who does such a thing is motivated by a sense of
> duty, and insofar as it is rational to fulfil one's sense of duty the act of
> writing the will is a rational act. To me rationality is a mere technical
> term; you don't ask what it *is*, as it's depedent upon premises.
> Cheers,
> Tom
>
|