Perhaps I have been assuming a broader concept of game theory. Building up a reputation for honesty and truthfulness, and jealously preserving it, are all part of the "game" of life too, are they not? Risking losing that reputation and your self-respect by engaging in theft is surely a stupid move within the game, not something OK in game theory.
In the example I gave, you wouldn't be risking your reputation if you knew you wouldn't be caught. As for your self-respect, that is another question entirely. You might say that the game of life is to survive it with your self-respect intact. I think that many people, myself included, would agree with that. But it comes at a financial cost. Building up a reputation for honesty and truthfulness might be a winning strategy, but it might not be. If you get paid a huge bonus for presiding over a company (could be a bank....) that performs badly, it might be unethical to accept it, but I don't think that game theory would have any problems with you accepting it. It would be a winning move. Even if your reputation took a hit, it probably wouldn't sink you and you'd retire with millions. There would no doubt be plenty of people who admired your spunk and would be prepared to give you another high-level job.
What's interesting to me is the simple fact that there is a placebo effect, and therefore that mental states and positive thinking can affect health outcomes. Fact. And that psychological interventions can boost performance outcomes. There is no meaningful distinction in my mind between the 'real world' and what's in the head. All our experiences of life are lived through the 5 senses, which in turn are turned into electrical energy that is processed, interpreted and filtered by the brain. Life as we know it is all in the head! The problem with applying placebos and psychology 'under the radar' is that - by definition - you can't predict the outcome for a particular patient/recipient in advance. Having survived cancer, I know the value of both superb medicinal care and anything that supports positive psychology during tough times (intensive chemo is pretty horrid). Speaking personally, being fully in the know was to be fully empowered to take responsibility for my life and health. Being responsible is the opposite of being a victim. Whether or not a health outcome is impacted by psychology we can debate, but however long I have to live (hopefully a long time for me, statistically the chance of further problems is only 5% - lucky me ) I'd rather live a high quality of life with a positive mindset than feel a victim or living life at the mercy of others. On a lighter note (ahem, sorry... you touched a nerve!), I just read a great book called "The Source" (a book about the inner experience and path of leadership, and how we "know" written by Joseph Jaworski, a contemporary of Peter Senge at MIT with whom he collaborates). There is some mind-blowing stuff in there that will challenge your ideas about the world. An example: some NASA scientists have been running experiments for years about the impact of thoughts on the physical world. In one experiment, they showed people images on a computer screen whilst their brains' reactions were monitored. They found that the brain reacts to the image 5/6 seconds BEFORE the image appears... ie the brain is predicting which of the random images will come up, which the computer chooses randomly, and reacting to it before it happens... Precognition as in that Tom Cruise movie! In another experiment (also quoted in Taleb's great book "Fooled by Randomness") RNGs (Random Number Generators) have been shown to be affected by people's thoughts, no longer generating random numbers under certain conditions. The physicist Bohm was interviewed by Jaworski, and was highly influential on his understanding that our thoughts in fact do change physical reality. Okay, not such a light note after all, but you did ask... Okay, you've mentally categorized me as 'loony' and nobody here will talk to me any more now, so time to sign off.
I agree, Char, the guy's a loony. But really, that post was an interesting read and very thought provoking Edit: Meant to say, the idea that everything we experience is experienced inside the head - it's a theme I've explored from time to time. In terms of a specific human observer, the only reality is perceived reality.
Indeed. The placebo effect is a real scientific fact which can be tested, measured and analysed; it is part of psychology and certainly it can be exploited to improve health outcomes and boost performance outcomes as you say. The trouble is its effects depend largely on lying, or at least not telling the whole truth. So how do we set about reaching an ethical balance between possible gains from the placebo and possible harm done by lying?
Dunno, you got me there Pete! I'm not wholly sure though that the effects are reliant on lying. In Sport, top athletes don't fool themselves into performing well... They learn what the 'flow state' feels like, and how to get there quickly by triggering changes to mental and physical states. They spend years and 1000s of training hours honing skills and developing bodily and mental self awareness, so key to elite performance. Reframing your problem statement, the real problem is that these psychological techniques take dedication to master, and so your average Joe who just wants to pop a pill can't get the placebo benefits for no effort. You might argue illness - and mind over matter healing - is different from sporting performance. But I'd argue living is a skill, and we all make choices. I know someone (70 years old!) who has cured her heart disease using Japanese Reiki meditation and energy work. She got up daily at 3am ("when the energy is cleanest") and meditated and self-healed herself for an hour. It took 6 months. She's now working on her eyes! But the dilemma remains what do you do if somebody could benefit from you lying to them? All anyone can do is make the best decision they can at the time, acting with the recipient's best interests in mind. Trouble is, we can't always trust others to act in our best interests, can we?
The placebo effect depends on belief. As is evident with hypnotised subjects, the human body is capable of astounding feats if belief is strong enough. I see no problem in suggesting to patients that they will get better whilst prescribing nothing more than a sugar pill. Where is the moral dilemma here? There is in any case no guarantee that a prescribed drug will do the trick in any case.
The moral dilemma is the choice between telling a lie which might have some immediate benefit and telling the truth but losing that benefit. For lies to be commonplace and expected would be widely corrosive of trust and honesty in society. So each course of action embodies both benefits and disbenefits, and therein lies the ethical dilemma.
But Pete, lies ARE commonplace and expected. You seem to be living in a world where everyone tells the truth at all times and introducing lies would be corrosive. That's not the world I live in.
I agree and that's from the leaders of this country right down to the lowest We all lie at some time and that can be from little White lies that will give benefit to some and to big huge ones that cost people dearly in whatever form that maybe If you lead with lies then you reap what you sow because you set that example so don't go moaning when your people do the same as you.
To get back to one of the original topics of confidence I have two good examples, both from personal experience. The first is fairly trivial, simply that I was convinced there was something the matter with an old 900ss I had back in the early 90`s. I was riding terribly, couldn't get my lines right, braking in the wrong place etc as I was sure there was a problem. I took it to my local dealer where the mechanic had a quick look and said all was fine and hey presto, on the ride home I was much better. The second example is far more serious but also more interesting. 7 years ago my brother was diagnosed with a brain tumour. He was taken in almost at once and had it removed. Luckily it was benign but about the size of his fist and the DR said had probably been growing for 5 years or more. Subsequently he has check ups every 6 months and 3 years ago he was told a new growth had appeared in the same place. He opted not to have any treatment of any sort but went on self healing and holistic therapy courses. He has convinced himself that he can control the growth and it is apparently shrinking. I hope I`m not tempting fate by relaying this story and there is no real way of knowing why the growth is shrinking this time but my brother would say it is all in the mind and down to his positive thinking.
My nephew was 14 when he had a cancerous brain tumour and the decision was made to tell him exactly what was happening. It was a tough decision, but it left him under no illusions how important it was that he fought the battle. It allowed him to say goodbye to his friends and even plan his funeral, which was probably more important than being lied to.
When I was 11 I had cancer of the large intestine......(if they hadn't operated within a day of me going into hospital, I would have died within two days) I earned a huge scar; drips; stomach drain; radiotherapy treatment every day from two weeks after the op.......they still thought I might kick the bucket inside two months of having the operation...........I was in the hospital for six months. I wasn't told what I had until I was twelve.....but apparently I got seriously fed up with being bed bound and became quite belligerent..........They reckoned it was my attitude that pulled me through.....and did as much as the treatment. Still 'kin here........just.
Argh! I hate it when people say that! We have way more than 5 senses ... gravity, balance, spacial awareness (where your limbs are), pain, temperature ... etc! But I do love getting people to watch this video as well... Is Your Red The Same as My Red? - YouTube
No, not really. I live in a world where, in one perspective, there is a continual Manichaean struggle between truth and lies, between decency and vileness, between honesty and fraud. The question each person has to decide is: which side of the struggle do you place yourself on? Of course lies are quite common, but that does not mean they have to be acceptable. The corrosiveness I referred to is nothing new, it has always existed but should be diminished. It is surely a bad thing if it is allowed to increase.
I came across this thread from five years ago. It involved discussion of homeopathy, and this week it has been announced that no longer will NHS money be wasted on the Homeopathic Hospital in London. In my opinion this is good news, although not without a downside. Concerning the eternal struggle between truth and lies, decency and vileness, honesty and fraud it seems painfully apparent that in the past couple of years the lies/vileness/fraud side has made massive gains. It remains to be seen whether the pendulum will swing back in due course towards truth/decency/honesty.
Truth/Decency/Honesty are all relative terms. In my view, the only way to make the pendulum swing correctly is education. It is utterly bizzare the views some people hold and the beliefs they see as 'gospel'. For want of a better phrase. I do not think social media has been beneficial in this regard. Its almost a 'bloke down the pub told me so, so it must be true' attitude. Its a sad reflection that in this modern (relative term) age, that people are prepared to remain as thick as shit and to revel in their own stupidity. For it seems to me at times, that this attitude protects their own selfishness and greed. For if they were to think for one moment about others, the guilt would be too much. Therefore thought has been replaced with impulse. Consideration replaced with gratification. There is no society. There is only I.
The "St Christopher" lump of shiny embossed metal (with a religious cross emblazoned across it) that my wife carries round in her car, didn't stop her from whackin' that bollard in the middle of the road last November.
