 |
 |
The argument Adam cites is, I think, also made in Robert Axelrod's The Evolution of Cooperation, based on game theory. Whether it's true or not is another matter. As are the implications. After all, anyone who played the board game "Diplomacy" as a kid probably figured out that the best way to compete was to form a cooperative group to first wipe out everyone else. Rivalry with the outsiders is the most powerful source of cooperation inside. So I"m highly skeptical of the idea that cooperation is a matter of "altruism" as generally understood. On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Birch, Stephen <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Adam, > > > > I agree – remember Joe Stalin’s attempt to increase productivity in the > soviet enterprises by promoting competition among workers – failed > miserably (as he should have expected given that the soviet union was based > on notions of collectives). > > > > There is the story (I think it is in the Cairncross book on the history of > SU), of productivity incentives during the dark days of the Siege of > Stalingrad – needed more boots for the troops defending the city through > the depths of winter – competition/incentives led to increased number of > boots produced but when the troops put them on they found they were all > right boots. > > > > I now work in a Department that uses precisely this approach to manage its > faculty. Points are awarded based on a spurious table of point values and I > am told I should aim to be at the top end of the points distribution as > should everyone else. Just like Stalin’s idea of posting the picture of the > previous weeks hardest worker. Collaboration has been eroded as individuals > strive to maximise points. > > > > The tyranny of competition! (The absence of evidence) > > > > Steve > > > > > > *From:* Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > *On Behalf Of *Michael Gusmano > *Sent:* April-15-15 9:21 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: A point for discussion, maybe > > > > Thanks Adam. This reminds me of Michael Walzer’s “Spheres of Justice” > argument in which he suggested that we ought to use different methods of > social organization in different spheres to achieve what he called “complex > equality.” The social provision of goods in some spheres could counter the > atomizing effect of markets in other spheres -- reminding us about the > value of membership and reinforcing altruistic tendencies…Is that what you > are calling for here? If so, how should we determine which areas – or > “spheres” – should be left to the market and which ought to rely on > communal provision? We’ve been arguing about that for a long time (limit > non-market provision to narrowly defined public goods vs. a more expansive > use of social insurance…etc.). I am not sure if the work in behavioral > economics provides an answer – but I’d be happy to know if it does! > > > > Best, > Michael > > *From:* Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Oliver,AJ > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2015 8:33 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* A point for discussion, maybe > > > > If evolutionary biologists are coming to the conclusion (which they seem > to be) that altruistic groups (by which I think they often mean groups with > members motivated principally by positive and negative reciprocity) are > more successful than groups dominated by self-interest, might efforts to > promote competition in areas where a unified group identity (such as a > health care system, or an education system, or perhaps any public system > and many unified private systems) be a fundamental mistake in the long > term? Humans have different motivations that have probably evolved to fit > particular circumstances (in-group behaviour versus between-group behaviour > etc.). If you want to foster long term cohesion and efficiency within a > group, appealing to competition is perhaps not the wisest course of action. > > > > Best, > > Adam > > > > Adam Oliver > > [log in to unmask] > > 1969ajo >