I felt that aftershock at 11:20: Using a particular game theory model may help us identify failure modes, but these are always subject to the particular 'game frame', and reframing allows us to hypothesize and test superior models, to discover a better 'game frame'.
It seems like strong communities are really important with managing commons. The more diffused the responsibility, the harder it is to foster that community. There's not a lot of litter on my street but there's a lot on the highway. I wonder what we can do to make people feel community ties on a broader level.
Totally - I think Ostrom's framework doesn't really work without embedding people in a context & giving them some stake in the success/failure of their comrades. It makes me wonder about things like deliberate efforts at atomization - if we can't hang together...
Dude, no joke. Good on you for all the years of great stuff. I probably subscribed 8 years ago and I'm always happy to see your videos pop into my feed. Respect.
It's incredible how folks like Hardin will vehemently argue for authoritarian world-spanning population control based on some back-of-the-envelope math, but won't look out their window! 🤣
The 8 guidelines only work if there is communication between the parties. This might not be the case if they are too many or too far apart in space or time.
I mean it always has come down to a form of government control, be that an official government or just a group of locals who band together - they're functionally a form of government too
I have two interlinked thoughts on this. My initial thought is that the thinking of tragedy of the commons - not Hardin's work as such, but it reuse over time especially in economics - is rooted in a particular vantage point, which is the various societal systems of The United States. Though I could think of other systems, the first that come to mind is the political and civil judicial system of The United States. The political system is driven by "winner takes all" rules. And the civil judicial system is among other things driven by tort law, which grossly expands the opportunity and occurrence of litigation. Within both systems there is a very pronounced tendency to game the system at the expense of local cultural norms and values. So I don't find it surprising that the tragedy of the commons have had such a resounding impact on neoclassical economics considering the geographic origin of the latter. My second thought was that while I agree that the tragedy is overstated to say the least, the American vantage point makes sense if one is talking about phenomena that embodies extreme/predatory capitalism, that is, where there is seemingly no friction of culture to ward (protect) a commons.
Why does rule no. 3 remind me of what happened in Ohio vote recently! Keeping the simple majority to implement petitions to change rules rather than make it harder!
This seems like the ol' Anarchy vs Authoritarianism debate. On the one hand you have people saying society needs strict rules, and therefore rulers, otherwise things will turn to chaos. On the other hand you have people saying humans are naturally cooperative and want to achieve good, so anarchy will produce the best result.
The last argument is actually two, that don't need to go together. Cooperation will produce the best result, but it's not natural. It's learned behaviour that requires reflected, collective reinforcement :) and by that I don't mean imposition, but watchfulness over social conditions such that competition isn't overwhelmingly tempting and doesn't become the norm
Quality video! I've basically always believed in TOTC as a fatal trap for humanity and never had that challenged convincingly. I will share this video widely!
Freerider problems like the prisoners dilemma only work if you can't build up a relationship. Even in game theory, if you have an iterated prisoners dilemma with an unknown length, tit for tat, and thus cooperative relationships, can form. The graduated punishment is interesting because that would make tit for tat even more effective. If we imagine a scenario with two 'tit for tatters' but one starts out cooperative and the other starts out defecting, they get stuck in a destructive loop. However, with graduated punishment this cycle might be broken. If I observe that the other player is playing tit for tat, I might react to their 100% defect with a 99% defect, a trivial cost for me, but an invaluable signal that i'm willing to put the past behind us. If they respond with 98% we can climb ourself out of the spiral. I wonder if someone has written a paper on that. On a more psychological note; I wonder if spreading the myth of the homo economicus, might make people act more like the homo economicus? Like, if you think everyone is out to defect, are you more likely to defect?
If there are few cooperators that can get the snowball rolling, then everyone can convert to cooperation.Likewise the opposite, few defectors can spread the defection pandemic.
the race to the bottom problem feels more like capitalism than socialism, particularly these days. I like these 8 guidelines, they make a lot of sense to me. Will be sharing this vid with others to garner thoughts
I thunk there are 2 major factors that make those communities work, but are sadly not present in some grand real-life situations: 1. effective communication is possible - they are small enough for majority of members to know each other and communicate. I would expect this to fail in a system with more then say 10k participants. 2. people have closely aligned interest. in the modern world the reasoning regarding whether or not to burn another 10000kg of coal might have very different for an middle class EU-citizen and starving farmer somewhere in rural India.
The communities Ostram describes in her book, probably go back centuries. That's essential in understanding why tragedy of the commons is not an issue there. Their whole identity is formed in relation to each other. Most likely Marriages between groups happened etc. Also they probably are bound to the land. Being selfish in those communities is not being selfish in our individualistic society. For them it probably is a matter of honor and simply not worth the consequences.
Very well thought out video, and I won't dispute that most people understand the tragedy of the commons to mean that managing resources in common is untenable. It's a bit more nuanced than that since there are extra conditions which must be met for the tragedy of the commons to occur. Most in the comments mention trust and communication, which historically are effective methods of making communities work on all manner of levels. But it is bound to occur if there aren't sufficient connections within and controls upon the community, which Ostrum got a start on outlining. I think the best take away is to not underestimate the power of self-interest and to try to harness it whenever possible rather than fighting it. Having a private property system can be quite effective, especially once it's established as a Schnelling point. I believe that it was a Stossel video where he pointed out that Thanksgiving wasn't so much about being taught by the natives how to cultivate crops but actually more about their harnessing of private property arrangements to escape the famine they were on course to experience on account of their trying to manage their lands in common. But again, other systems can be quite effective if the proper social structures are in place. Private property just is a good solution for enabling economizing and commerce in the absence of such structures - with self-defense as the enforcement arm. Obviously there's a lot more that could be said, but my suggestion for those interested in these kinds of ideas would be to check out David D. Friedman's works - especially The Machinery of Freedom.
13:30 Solution, because you create COMMUNITY. WOW. We've done this for 2 million years, heck 300 million years, and humanity REINVENTS THE WHEEL! Everybody look at that. People are not assholes, but the people that assume the assholes, are in fact the assholes. WOW!
II always thought the tragedy of the commons was just a simplistic little reminder and folk wisdom of how badly the human race rapes the earth if ever given the opportunity. And short of some kick-ass system of management, uses every last resource until it's gone, in order for the industrious and ambitious among us to make their fortune. And duly provide for ourselves as well, to be fair, so as to survive and thrive. Which we have certainly done, and on account of that we're in real danger of some horrible times ahead of us in the not too distant future. But it turns out it was a little more rigorous than that. I didn't realize this one dude wrote it all out like that.... And while this was another excellent video, the real key factor in people managing their affairs sustainably, in a sort of communitarian fashion or whatnot, and avoiding the canard of the tragedy of the commons, is not that we're incapable of it, in theory or in practice. That's pretty straightforward. But rather that powerful men with guns will eventually show up if it ever starts to become too widespread. And put a quick and violent end to it. After all there are no utopias, and such men are there to remind of us that.... And I hate game theory as well and have never understood why it's such a hip, cool mathematical innovation. Maybe it really works in business or high finance in certain specific scenarios....
The tragedy of the commons is a failed analysis. It's the equivalent of saying that a craftsman should produce their crafts cheap and sell them expensive to maximize profit. Everyone with half a brain cell knows this is not how things work. Your profit is also a function of customers. If your product is expensive but shit, you loose customers and loose profit. The commons is the same exact scenario but on the opposite end. Instead of customers being shared self-limiting resource, it's the shared supply that's self limiting resource.
I felt that aftershock at 11:20: Using a particular game theory model may help us identify failure modes, but these are always subject to the particular 'game frame', and reframing allows us to hypothesize and test superior models, to discover a better 'game frame'.
If there are only losing options, play a different game!
It seems like strong communities are really important with managing commons. The more diffused the responsibility, the harder it is to foster that community. There's not a lot of litter on my street but there's a lot on the highway. I wonder what we can do to make people feel community ties on a broader level.
Maybe what the Romans did along the Via Appia?
@@Autists-Guide are you talking about building the road, or crucifying slaves along it?
Totally - I think Ostrom's framework doesn't really work without embedding people in a context & giving them some stake in the success/failure of their comrades. It makes me wonder about things like deliberate efforts at atomization - if we can't hang together...
Dude, no joke. Good on you for all the years of great stuff. I probably subscribed 8 years ago and I'm always happy to see your videos pop into my feed. Respect.
Totally agree.
Empirical research wins again!
It's incredible how folks like Hardin will vehemently argue for authoritarian world-spanning population control based on some back-of-the-envelope math, but won't look out their window! 🤣
Cute pun on " Hardin"
It also assumes the cattle is privately owned but the grazing land isn't.
The 8 guidelines only work if there is communication between the parties. This might not be the case if they are too many or too far apart in space or time.
Totally - this is partially why I mentioned the Prisoner's Dilemma. Communication is important!
Very thorough presentation. I enjoyed it. Nice work, Josh!
Tyty! 😁 Glad you enjoyed it!
I mean it always has come down to a form of government control, be that an official government or just a group of locals who band together - they're functionally a form of government too
yes but there are crucial differences between the state form and egalitarian self-management
I have two interlinked thoughts on this. My initial thought is that the thinking of tragedy of the commons - not Hardin's work as such, but it reuse over time especially in economics - is rooted in a particular vantage point, which is the various societal systems of The United States. Though I could think of other systems, the first that come to mind is the political and civil judicial system of The United States. The political system is driven by "winner takes all" rules. And the civil judicial system is among other things driven by tort law, which grossly expands the opportunity and occurrence of litigation. Within both systems there is a very pronounced tendency to game the system at the expense of local cultural norms and values. So I don't find it surprising that the tragedy of the commons have had such a resounding impact on neoclassical economics considering the geographic origin of the latter.
My second thought was that while I agree that the tragedy is overstated to say the least, the American vantage point makes sense if one is talking about phenomena that embodies extreme/predatory capitalism, that is, where there is seemingly no friction of culture to ward (protect) a commons.
Why does rule no. 3 remind me of what happened in Ohio vote recently! Keeping the simple majority to implement petitions to change rules rather than make it harder!
This seems like the ol' Anarchy vs Authoritarianism debate. On the one hand you have people saying society needs strict rules, and therefore rulers, otherwise things will turn to chaos. On the other hand you have people saying humans are naturally cooperative and want to achieve good, so anarchy will produce the best result.
The last argument is actually two, that don't need to go together. Cooperation will produce the best result, but it's not natural. It's learned behaviour that requires reflected, collective reinforcement :) and by that I don't mean imposition, but watchfulness over social conditions such that competition isn't overwhelmingly tempting and doesn't become the norm
"self-modifying social code"
🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯 *explosion noises*
Quality video! I've basically always believed in TOTC as a fatal trap for humanity and never had that challenged convincingly. I will share this video widely!
Freerider problems like the prisoners dilemma only work if you can't build up a relationship. Even in game theory, if you have an iterated prisoners dilemma with an unknown length, tit for tat, and thus cooperative relationships, can form. The graduated punishment is interesting because that would make tit for tat even more effective. If we imagine a scenario with two 'tit for tatters' but one starts out cooperative and the other starts out defecting, they get stuck in a destructive loop. However, with graduated punishment this cycle might be broken. If I observe that the other player is playing tit for tat, I might react to their 100% defect with a 99% defect, a trivial cost for me, but an invaluable signal that i'm willing to put the past behind us. If they respond with 98% we can climb ourself out of the spiral. I wonder if someone has written a paper on that.
On a more psychological note; I wonder if spreading the myth of the homo economicus, might make people act more like the homo economicus? Like, if you think everyone is out to defect, are you more likely to defect?
If there are few cooperators that can get the snowball rolling, then everyone can convert to cooperation.Likewise the opposite, few defectors can spread the defection pandemic.
the race to the bottom problem feels more like capitalism than socialism, particularly these days.
I like these 8 guidelines, they make a lot of sense to me. Will be sharing this vid with others to garner thoughts
If you can't come up with an intro pun, will you make the video?
I don't understand what you mean by "can't come up with an intro pun" ... doesn't everyone just think of puns all the time in all contexts?
I thunk there are 2 major factors that make those communities work, but are sadly not present in some grand real-life situations: 1. effective communication is possible - they are small enough for majority of members to know each other and communicate. I would expect this to fail in a system with more then say 10k participants. 2. people have closely aligned interest. in the modern world the reasoning regarding whether or not to burn another 10000kg of coal might have very different for an middle class EU-citizen and starving farmer somewhere in rural India.
The communities Ostram describes in her book, probably go back centuries. That's essential in understanding why tragedy of the commons is not an issue there.
Their whole identity is formed in relation to each other. Most likely Marriages between groups happened etc. Also they probably are bound to the land.
Being selfish in those communities is not being selfish in our individualistic society. For them it probably is a matter of honor and simply not worth the consequences.
Love your content. Have you ever examined the infamous Rat Utopia experiments for methodology issues and flaws?
Very well thought out video, and I won't dispute that most people understand the tragedy of the commons to mean that managing resources in common is untenable. It's a bit more nuanced than that since there are extra conditions which must be met for the tragedy of the commons to occur. Most in the comments mention trust and communication, which historically are effective methods of making communities work on all manner of levels. But it is bound to occur if there aren't sufficient connections within and controls upon the community, which Ostrum got a start on outlining. I think the best take away is to not underestimate the power of self-interest and to try to harness it whenever possible rather than fighting it.
Having a private property system can be quite effective, especially once it's established as a Schnelling point. I believe that it was a Stossel video where he pointed out that Thanksgiving wasn't so much about being taught by the natives how to cultivate crops but actually more about their harnessing of private property arrangements to escape the famine they were on course to experience on account of their trying to manage their lands in common. But again, other systems can be quite effective if the proper social structures are in place. Private property just is a good solution for enabling economizing and commerce in the absence of such structures - with self-defense as the enforcement arm.
Obviously there's a lot more that could be said, but my suggestion for those interested in these kinds of ideas would be to check out David D. Friedman's works - especially The Machinery of Freedom.
13:30 Solution, because you create COMMUNITY. WOW. We've done this for 2 million years, heck 300 million years, and humanity REINVENTS THE WHEEL! Everybody look at that. People are not assholes, but the people that assume the assholes, are in fact the assholes. WOW!
II always thought the tragedy of the commons was just a simplistic little reminder and folk wisdom of how badly the human race rapes the earth if ever given the opportunity. And short of some kick-ass system of management, uses every last resource until it's gone, in order for the industrious and ambitious among us to make their fortune. And duly provide for ourselves as well, to be fair, so as to survive and thrive. Which we have certainly done, and on account of that we're in real danger of some horrible times ahead of us in the not too distant future. But it turns out it was a little more rigorous than that. I didn't realize this one dude wrote it all out like that....
And while this was another excellent video, the real key factor in people managing their affairs sustainably, in a sort of communitarian fashion or whatnot, and avoiding the canard of the tragedy of the commons, is not that we're incapable of it, in theory or in practice. That's pretty straightforward. But rather that powerful men with guns will eventually show up if it ever starts to become too widespread. And put a quick and violent end to it. After all there are no utopias, and such men are there to remind of us that....
And I hate game theory as well and have never understood why it's such a hip, cool mathematical innovation. Maybe it really works in business or high finance in certain specific scenarios....
This is basically how communism. Literally in the name, COMMONism. Communities organize themselves accordingly to their specific circumstances.
The tragedy of the commons is a failed analysis. It's the equivalent of saying that a craftsman should produce their crafts cheap and sell them expensive to maximize profit. Everyone with half a brain cell knows this is not how things work. Your profit is also a function of customers. If your product is expensive but shit, you loose customers and loose profit.
The commons is the same exact scenario but on the opposite end. Instead of customers being shared self-limiting resource, it's the shared supply that's self limiting resource.