| Chapter 5 | |
| Interpersonal relations | |
| When we decided to title this book, Why CanÕt We All Just Get Along?, we realized that one of the disadvantages of choosing that title would be that people might mistake it for a pop-psychology self-help book. ItÕs not that book. Honestly, we didnÕt choose that name just to increase our paperback sales at airports. | |
| How can we expect the US and Russia to get along, when we canÕt even be sure a bunch of college roommates wonÕt strangle each other? Now, these situations arenÕt exactly the same, because the roommates have a personal relationship with each other, and governments donÕt. WeÕre also not talking about the kind of individual, but impersonal, transaction a customer might have with a Starbucks barista. But any insights we can gain from improving personal relations might help in improving society. | |
| Surely any attempt to get people to be more cooperative with one another has to boil down to individual relationships. No matter how much it may be in peopleÕs best interests to cooperate, if people donÕt like each otherÉ. ainÕt gonna happen. No matter how much we present rational arguments for cooperation, if people donÕt feel good about cooperatingÉ. ainÕt gonna happen. If we canÕt get along with each other, all the technological advances in the world wonÕt result in a happy life. We canÕt ignore the emotional aspects. | |
| We donÕt have a magic formula for getting uncooperative people to cooperate. Neither, at the present time, does psychology, psychiatry, sociology, or religion. Marriage counselors have a dismal success rate. Psychiatrists and psychologists donÕt seem to be able to effectively deal with a large percentage of mental health problems. The criminal justice and prison systems have a shameful recidivism rate. Religion seems as much the cause of conßict as the cure of conßict. Politics, for its part, does claim to have a technique for forcing cooperationÑunfortunately, that technique is fear. So we need to search for a better one. | |
| We still struggle with these issues in our personal lives. And we arenÕt so presumptuous as to suggest that information technology, where our expertise lies, is intrinsically any kind of solution to what are fundamentally people problems. | |
| But some of the techniques of psychological and social sciences (and even religion, too) might help. ThereÕs good work in these areas, but like many other areas of research, even if the future is here, it isnÕt evenly distributed. Some genuine advances are quite recent. These fields are chronically cluttered with dirt, but that dirt hides diamonds. Because studded diamonds are easy to see, theyÕre out front on the surface. | |
| The basic problem is we donÕt know enough about how the human mind works. Especially its emotional and social aspects. We canÕt open the hood on the brain or download its software to see how it works. We can only surmise from very indirect experiments in biology or human behavior. These are pretty crude tools. | |
| ItÕs possible that sometime in the future, weÕll know enough about human thinking, emotion and social relations that we will be able to ÒcureÓ hostile, violent, or sociopathic individuals with drugs, talk therapy or surgery. Such treatments will raise issues of autonomy. We still donÕt have a clear idea of what a normal or acceptable range of human behavior is, and debates rage. | |
| WeÕre still in the voodoo stage of understanding the human mind. Maybe someday, todayÕs alchemy of understanding people will turn into chemistry. But for the moment, weÕre just trying to piece together what we can from psychology, cognitive science, neurobiology, and artificial intelligence. | |
| Some people are just broken. Human thoughts and behavior are dependent to a large extent (we donÕt know how much) on the hardwareÑneuroanatomy and chemistryÑof our brains. In severe psychiatric cases, antidepressants and anti-anxiety drugs have sometimes succeeded in ameliorating pathological behaviors where talk therapy and behavior modification techniques have failed. Maybe weÕll discover that more problems have chemical causes, and develop drugs for them. If we discover neuro-anatomical causes of psychiatric disorders, perhaps some kind of high-tech ÒrewiringÓ brain surgery will fix them. Some disorders wonÕt be curable at all, and coping strategies will seek to minimize harm to the patients themselves and others. | |
| Artificial Intelligence can contribute to better understanding of the mind by making computational theories of human thought and emotion, and testing them in computational test beds that are independent of the biology of the human brain. Early experiments like Eliza and Parry [Weizenbaum 1966] explicitly tried to model social and emotional aspects of human interaction. | |
| More recent books like MinksyÕs The Emotion Machine [Minsky 2006] postulate much more modern and nuanced theories of how the multiplicities of subcomponents of the human mind interact, giving rise to the vast array of human emotional behavior. It shows how emotion, far from being outside of, or opposed to, rational thought, is absolutely necessary to control and integrate our problem solving capabilities. | |
| PicardÕs Affective Computing [Picard 2000], MasonÕs Emotion-Oriented Programming [Mason 2008], CambriaÕs emotional commonsense knowledge base [Cambria 2015], LiuÕs Emotion Buddy [Liu 2003], and other intriguing works aim to elucidate computational theories of affective aspects of human behavior. Advances in cognitive modeling of emotional states will inform educational and talk therapy models. We see some of this in movements like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy [Beck 1995], which try to identify negative beliefs that people with psychological problems become fixated on. | |
| But aside from born sociopaths or others with serious medical conditions, society is full of instances of people failing to cooperate for emotional reasons, even when it would be in their best interests to do so and they are otherwise rational. Why do people act in uncooperative, aggressive, or overly competitive ways? Do people have an inborn need for aggression that no amount of intervention could overcome? We certainly hear people make such arguments when they argue for things like the inevitability of war. | |
| In some circumstances, negative emotions really can be the right thing. Sometimes itÕs beneficial to be angry with truly harmful people in order to protect yourself (but probably in fewer situations than people think). Sometimes itÕs necessary to be assertive, to avoid group think. You canÕt be friends with everybody. | |
| We argued that competition and scarcity have a mutually reinforcing relationship. Humans have uncooperative, competitive, aggressive behaviors, no doubt as a result of evolving at a time when scarcity was the norm. But in todayÕs environment we donÕt need the full amount of aggression our evolutionary heritage provides us [Gibbons 2014]. Not only do we not need it, it hurts us. | |
| One thing that the psychological literature seems clear on is that aggressive behavior is often motivated by insecurity and fear on the part of the perpetrator. One of our research projects was on the subject of combatting cyberbullying, online harassment of youth by their peers [Dinakar 2012]. In reading the literature on why children bully other children, blame was often placed on low self-esteem on the part of the bully. Fear of real or imagined threats, either physical or social, is often magnified far beyond anything actually justified by the situation. | |
| If you dig into the history of bullies or criminals, you often find that they experienced some kind of trauma in their lives. Perhaps they had dysfunctional families, and in the worst cases, experienced violence or rape. People who experience violence get angry, and their anger often turns into violence against others, perpetuating a tragic negative feedback loop. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) amongst military veterans is an example of this. Psychologists have a maxim: Hurt people hurt people. | |
| This violence-begets-violence dynamic is the same kind of feedback loop we see in the PrisonerÕs Dilemma. It is the fear of the other party defecting that leads one to choose defection. That, of course, is balanced against the hope that the other player will cooperate, which would lead you to choose cooperation. WeÕre always on the knife edge between positive and negative feedback loops. | |
| In AxelrodÕs initial iterated PrisonerÕs Dilemma simulations, Tit-for-Tat was one of the most successful strategies, and if players both cooperate, cooperation can continue. But two players playing PrisonerÕs Dilemma against each other with pure Tit-for-Tat strategies are unstable, because as soon as one player defects, the other will also defect, prompting another round of defection. | |
| Techniques for getting people to be more cooperative encourage a positive outlook. Rosenberg [Rosenberg 2003] analyzes communication patterns between people, and shows that the implicit stances behind peopleÕs communication can either encourage or discourage cooperation. Becoming aware of these patterns and their consequences is a route to improving communication. | |
| One of the books by the The Harvard Negotiation Project (source of the popular Getting to Yes [Fisher 2006] book series) explicitly deals with the emotional aspects of negotiation [Fisher 1991] and provides numerous practical techniques for managing the emotional aspects of discussions that may become contentious. Many other psychology, self-help, and conßict resolution books teach the same lessons. | |
| Even techniques from Eastern traditions like meditation, mindfulness, and yoga, or meditative and prayer techniques from Western religions, can be helpful in combatting fear and insecurity, and lowering emotional tension in disagreements. They can get us to step back and contemplate our shared commonality as human beings and as being part of nature. | |
| ItÕs not necessary to believe in God or in the truth of a particular religious tradition to use meditative or mindfulness techniques. They can get us to concentrate on our good fortune in receiving the gifts of life and love, and teach us to empathize with our fellow human beings. In this context, disagreements, social status games, and past hurts come to seem small and insignificant. We become more likely to bet on our hopes regarding other people than our fears. Perhaps if we had meditation sessions before every business and political negotiation, the outcomes would be better. | |
| Abundance to the rescue, sort of | |
| Many interpersonal problems are more than money-deep. But we suspect that quite a number of personal conßicts can be solved by reducing scarcity. | |
| One factor is density. The more people that live together, and the smaller space that they live in, the more likely it is that they have conßict. Individuals need more space, and they need to live only a few at most per house. But thatÕs often been unaffordable in the past, so interpersonal relations suffer. | |
| Communes are few, we suspect because of too many conßicting personalities. A similar phenomena happens in companies of people banding together for making a business, though its less severe because the employees can escape at night. In either situation, though, when people must spend a lot of time with each other in close quarters due to economic necessity, theyÕre wedged. | |
| Abundance helps with happiness but only up to a certain amount. [Short 2014] suggests that the amount is highly dependent on cost of living in a town. The average household income in the USA for which Òmore money doesnÕt make you happierÓ is $75k/year. | |
| Mental and physical health decrease with urban density according to [Recsei 2013]. We could not find studies supporting the hypothesis that happiness goes up with square feet per person so this hypothesis deserves study. Probably it too, like money, has a limit. We do observe that the 40-odd African countries are at the top of the Òchildren per womanÓ list [CIA 2017] and at the bottom of the Happy Planet index [Marks 2017], though other reports do indicate that Òbig happy familiesÓ actually do exist. | |
| If we solve scarcity, we will allow people to live with whom they want (or donÕt want), be that lots of people or few, resolving a lot of conßict. We need each other (at least for love, friendship, education, and entertainment but the ÒdosageÓ is crucial. Too little or too much, and itÕs bad. Abundance will allow us to adjust the dosage easily, thus benefiting interpersonal relations. | |
| Abundance will improve interpersonal relationships in a lot of ways. Aside from sexual issues such as infidelity, one of the top causes of divorce is said to be money issues [IDFA 2013]. Many interpersonal problems are caused by competition for societal status, and when money becomes less of a determiner of status, conßict over these issues will be reduced. Those with mental health or emotional issues will be able to more easily get professional help if they can afford it. | |
| Keeping up with the post-scarcity Joneses? | |
| Some might say that competition for resources will simply be replaced by competition for social status. In that case, simply removing scarcity wonÕt completely solve the problem, because people will invent new things to compete over. | |
| ItÕs another argument about what Òhuman natureÓ really is. If you take a pessimistic view of human nature, you can believe that fighting and competition for social status are ingrained and unchangeable. ItÕs easy to come up with things to fight over, even after peopleÕs basic needs are met. You can find things that are inherently rare (for example, singular art objects such as an original painting). If people want social status enough, they can arrange to fight over these objects. The most unnecessary is when the scarcity is artificially created around an imaginary construct, such as competition for honorary titles. | |
| We agree that there are good evolutionary reasons why such competitive instincts developed. Mainly, they had to do with the conditions under which people evolved, primarily those of scarcity, with many zero-sum situations. ItÕs worth asking the question, how much of these instincts are actually necessary and adaptive for the modern world? And even if they work well in the present, will the coming technological revolution that weÕre postulating change the game? | |
| WeÕve argued that abundance will Òtake the pressure offÓ scarcity-induced competition. But everybody knows examples of people who are well off, but manage to spend their time fighting over silly things. When thatÕs the case, isnÕt it an example of something we should be seeking to change, rather than held up as a proof of the irredeemability of human nature? | |
| Our competitive society selects for people with highly competitive personalities. It stands to reason that these people, even after they achieve material wealth, wonÕt be able to turn off the personality traits that got them there in the first place. So they keep going. Many middle-class people believe that if they emulate the personality traits of the upper class, that will likewise be on the route to obtaining economic security. But that may not be a slam dunk. Steve Jobs may have been both a success and an asshole, but that doesnÕt mean that if youÕre an asshole youÕll be a success. | |
| HereÕs an analogy: letÕs think about the activity of washing your hands. Washing your hands frequently, is good for health. Most people ought to wash their hands more often than they actually do. But thereÕs a limit. There are a small minority of people who feel compelled to wash their hands several times an hour, far more frequently than makes any kind of sense. We have a name for such people. They are victims of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). | |
| Money is a good thing. People need money to live. Most people could make good use of more money than they actually have. Again, though, thereÕs a limit. People who have an insatiable desire to acquire more and more money, beyond any plausible personal need for it, as most CEOÕs have, should also be viewed as victims of obsessive-compulsive disorder. No wonder some rich people, if they let their guard down, confess that their material success sometimes leaves them feeling empty or unfulfilled. | |
| So, no, we donÕt expect that, post-scarcity, competitive and hierarchical relationships will merely get re-instantiated over social status rather than material wealth. We expect social norms will shift away from rewarding and admiring hyper-aggressive people, towards favoring cooperation and personal expression. This of course wonÕt be true in every single case or every single time, but there will be a historic shift in the balance. Keeping up with the Joneses is a foolÕs errand. | |
| Conclusion | |
| Despite all the forces that threaten to divide usÑpersonal insecurity, fear of others, scarcity of resources for a decent life, competition for social status, past wrongsÑwe can learn to be resilient against problems that arise, and to adopt a positive attitude. | |
| We donÕt yet know enough about the mind and about social relations to be able to reach every single person, cure every psychological ill, and deal positively with every social situation. Pinker [Pinker 2011] shows that, indeed, viewed at a large scale, the arc of history trends positiveÑwe have fewer wars and violence and poverty than we have had at any time in the past, despite the unending ßow of negative headlines from the news media (and recent terrorist incidents, which still donÕt negate the long term trend). | |
| As psychology and other sciences improve, weÕll understand more about specific techniques that will help people feel better about themselves and get along better with others. Though there are some known good techniques, and we expect more to be discovered, education is, as it is in most situations, crucial. We canÕt all just get along, until each of us learns how to get along. | |
| Recap | |
| ¥ If weÕre going to have a new Age of Cooperation, we also have to think about individual person-to-person relationships, not just group relations in the economy and government. | |
| ¥ Psychology and related sciences still do not understand enough about the workings of the human mind and social relationships to be able to deal with all the reasons why people sometimes act aggressively or violently. Those emotions and behaviors are sometimes necessary, but we need to keep them in check. | |
| ¥ We fully expect that future advances in psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science and artificial intelligence will yield insights that will eventually enable a more scientific and effective approach to these problems. | |
| ¥ In the meantime, many techniques have been shown to be useful in setting contexts that put people in a more positive frame of mind, encourage cooperation, and discourage aggression. Meditation, mindfulness, and some aspects of religion can be helpful. Branches of psychology like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and Positive Psychology have shown promise. | |
| ¥ Future technology-based abundance will Òtake the pressure offÓ many people in dealing with problems caused by scarcity that exert psychological stress and cause fear. | |
| ¥ While aggressiveness may have been a legitimate response to conditions of our evolutionary past, it may now be maladaptive. We should be careful not to replace destructive competition for material resources with destructive competition for social status. |