Trust, Game theory, and Pavlov; What Do They Have in Common?
-Caligula23x
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second edition of Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus defines “Trust” as: trust (trust) n. [[< ON traust]] 1a) firm belief in the honesty, reliability, etc. of another; faith b) the one trusted 2 confident expectation, hope, etc. 3 responsibility resulting from confidence place in one 4 care; custody 5 something entrusted to one 6 faith in a buyer’s ability to pay; credit 7 a combination of corporations to establish a monopoly 8 Law a)the fact of having nominal ownership of property to keep, use, or administer for another b) such property -vi. to be confident -vt. 1 to have confidence in 2 to commit (something) to a person’s care 3 to allow to do something without misgivings 4 to believe 5 to hope; expect 6 to grant business credit to -adj. 1 relating to a trust 2 acting as trustee -in trust entrusted to another’s care.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not that I lack respect for our good people at Webster’s (on the contrary, I feel lexicography should have its own nationally observed holiday fit with all the trimmings like no mail service and the mass closing of banks and schools), it’s just that there is so much more to be said about “Trust”. I’m sure you’ve heard it said that “Trust is the basis of any good relationship”… Or, is it “communication”? Well, in any case, Trust is an imperative. |
The Professor and The Madman (Author: Simon Winchester. Publisher: Harper Perennial). My favorite book regarding lexicography. |
Boxers: Flores (left) and Donoghue (right) in 1951. Sadly, Flores died as a result of this knockout; Donoghue quit boxing shortly after. |
For example: Why would you do a background check on a potential babysitter? Well, probably because you don’t know them well enough to trust them with your kids. So, you want to gather information regarding their past performance (their “record”) in order to theoretically anticipate their future performance (their “next move”). Essentially, making a decision whether to trust someone (or something) is a thought experiment using what mathematicians call “game theory“. Using another analogy… Imagine that you’re a boxer (“Boxer A“) and you find out that you’re scheduled to fight “Boxer B”. It will prove beneficial to learn as much as possible about your opponent before fight night. So, in addition to your usual training regime, you spend the weeks prior to the fight studying videos of Boxer B’s previous fights. In watching them you learn that your potential opponent ALWAYS seems to start round two with the same combination (left jab, left jab, while simultaneously lowering his right arm approximately eight inches). What’s more is that apparently previous boxers have never taken advantage of Boxer B’s “round-two-jab-habit”; therefore, Boxer B has had no reason to adapt. Based on the information you’ve gained you have come to “trust” that Boxer B will send two left jabs at the beginning of the second round while -at the same time- allowing you an eight-inch window of opportunity for a devastating left hook. This is game theory in action. |
Another example of game theory and trust is when the neighbor (“Joe”) asks if he can borrow your new car. It’s likely that in the few seconds it will take you to respond your mind has already undergone the following… What kind of person is Joe? How long have I known him? Have I ever trusted Joe before… and what was the outcome? What is Joe’s motive (need) to borrow the car? Will he be covered by my insurance (what is at stake)? How well do I like Joe? Will saying ‘yes’ set a precedence for future favors? Will saying ‘yes’ interfere with my personal agendas (do I need it right now)?… It only takes a second for your brain to crunch the data and come up with a response but essentially you’re deciding whether “trusting” Joe with the car is a gamble you want to take at the time.
Let’s step it up a notch. |
Schrodinger's Cat (Thought Experiment) |
you begin eliminating what you consider invalid options (or, to continue with the net analogy…”throwing back fish“). [In a way you are hedging your chances of success by reducing your chances of experiencing an undesired result]. Next you continue to filter your options by attempting to gain more information about the potential candidates. You participate in Email correspondence, Instant Messaging, even exchanges over the phone in order to research the applicant as much as possible; you want to know not only if they can be “trusted” but if you can “trust” your chances of succeeding (that is, getting whatever it is that you want out of the date) [Ultimately you’re trying to determine whether they (it) are (is) a “safe bet”]. Eventually you decide on a particular person (with the lowest estimated risk and highest estimated pay-off) and you arrange a meeting somewhere like a restaurant or movie theater [also reducing your risk-factor having used a “neutral” (safe) arena of operation]. And you go on your date… you have just -unwittingly- employed the simplest aspects of game theory in a complex situation.
Now… Let’s step it WAY up (increase the stakes) and discuss the consequences when we lose the “trust game”. |
legally-binding). So, what you have ultimately signed up for is a gamble of sincere importance… You are trusting that you will be happier with your life having entered into an agreement with your spouse to spend it with them opposed to going it alone (or with someone else). Serious indeed. You are not only “trusting” this is a safe bet but you are making an educated-gamble that you can “trust” your spouse.
And herein lies one of the greatest quandaries in the world of game theory… The human variable. |
had thought to be present in some other way, like deciding she isn't "in love" with you anymore, and packs up her things -and your children and abandons your marriage while you're at work)… Or, say your husband gets involved in illegal dog-fighting (that’s an unforeseen random variable) and he starts losing all your money forcing your family into a world of poverty and instability… Or, say there are things you had no foreknowledge of like your wife had still legally been married in another state… Or, your husband is subpoenaed for paternity testing after having been tracked down regarding a tryst several years ago… There are thousands of sub-scenarios we could play around with but, the point is… What then?
Most marriages aren’t likely to deteriorate entirely after having lost a mere round, or two, in the “trust game”. Nonetheless, we are a species of animal deeply influenced by respondent conditioning. Just like the experiment conducted on “Little Albert” in 1920, if we are “injured” (or in his case, scared) repeatedly or more often than “rewarded”, while playing the trust game with our spouse’s/mates, we will almost certainly develop trust issues rendering us incapable of investing faith in their reliability. By this same token, however, we can say that in the event of a hurtful situation (a breech in trust) we aren’t necessarily a lost cause. Trust can often be reestablished if a significant amount of time passes without a negative experience (and, of course, positive experiences along the way will speed up the trust-building process). |
people with whom we share relationships are not evil; and the decisions (bets) we’ve made will probably pay off. I just wanted to spend some time with you looking at social behavior and our decision making process in a way that perhaps you haven’t in the past.
I hope you’ve enjoyed our discussion on trust. (I trust you did). For more information about some of the things we’ve gone over check out the following links:
Game Theory. net Game Theory Society Reflex and Pavlovian Conditioning
Science of Gambling Learning to Trust Again Trust Again (medical)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------