Stop Playing Ego Games
Post 37 - How you're playing games where there are no winners but very clear losers
At the suggestion of Naval Ravikant, I have checked out a little bit of Game Theory. It is a fascinating area of study and it is interesting to see it play out in real life. However, (and I know I might sound arrogant here) I think there is a tiny gap in the field of study when it comes to human interactions. To me, thinking about this idea, it seems that it is only applicable to human interactions. Here goes—
Game theory is the study of strategy and decision-making in situations where two parties interact in a competing setting. So games such as basketball, chess, poker, monopoly, businesses, economies, etc. Game theory is based on the two parties either winning or losing.
Probably the most famous example of a ‘game’ according to game theory is the prisoner’s dilemma. Here’s how it plays out—
Two criminals are arrested, let’s call them A and B and they have no way of communicating with each other. The prosecutors however do not have enough evidence to dish out severe sentences to both of them but enough to get them small sentences. So, they negotiate with the criminals.
If one of the criminals can rat out his co-conspirator, they will have enough evidence to convict him. Here’s what they propose to A and B—
The first one to snitch on his co-conspirator gets to walk free and his partner gets sentenced to 10 years. If they both keep quiet, they get sentenced to only one year in prison. Here’s what the payoff matrix looks like for this problem—
Regardless of what your partner does, you are always better off ratting him out, considering you are a rational decision-maker. Here’s why— If you rat B out and he keeps quiet, your sentence drops from 1 year to 0. Suppose B does betray you, your sentence drops from 10 years to 5 years.
Of course, A and B both betraying each other is not the optimal solution because you could have come to a compromise and gotten a 1-year sentence. However, that configuration is unstable and not in equilibrium because one person could always betray the other.
Here’s my idea— Even though in the prisoner’s dilemma situation, they are worse off in every decision they take, there still is a clear winner and a loser. Betraying your partner will be the winner’s call. However, we often play games that have no winners whatsoever but have clear losers. I call these games— ego games.
The idea came about when I was riding my scooter to get somewhere. My patience when dealing with terrible drivers is non-existent. I’m constantly cussing drivers out, trying to overtake them, and block them a little to create tiny inconveniences for them.
Just the other day, as I was riding, a dude passed by me and cut me off. My road rage kicked in. I decided to chase the dude and cut him off as well and I was doing so, I almost got run over by a bus that was coming the opposite way.
Something clicked— I am constantly playing games, or partaking in situations where there is no clear winner but can potentially be very clear losers. Overtaking the rider and cutting him off does nothing as far as me winning anything, except probably satiating my ego (hence the name), but one misstep and I could potentially be very badly hurt or even die.
Road racing is an ego game. These games are played for no other reason than your ego being hurt. The more I look into it, the more I realize that we do this a lot.
You have had a bad day and you get back home. Your mom asks you to get something done and you lash out, for no other reason than your emotional peevishness and an argument ensues. There is no winner in this case, except the caressing of your ego, but there are very clear losers.
So, the next time you find yourself a little peeved in a situation of conflict, ask yourself if you’re playing for an objective or to soothe your hurt ego.