Spontaneous reasoning about the phenomenon of self-fulfilling prophecies. Part I

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

This article provides an example of free flow of thought reasoning. Starting the article with the paragraph below, I absolutely did not know how it would end, but only wrote down one thought after another, then I simply edited the logical connections, while removing unnecessary, dead-end thoughts, and got some result. In the future, all articles written in a similar way will be titled according to a similar principle and have the label “Thoughts aloud”. The general mood of the result of the article is conveyed by the picture below, although it starts from afar.

Imagine advertisements posted all over the city, which say that a crowd of fools will gather in the main square of your city at a certain time of a certain day, who will stare at each other in bewilderment. “Hurry to see this amazing sight!” - such an announcement will call. Indeed, people who want to see the "spectacle" gather in the main square of the city, and people look at each other in bewilderment. In short, the fools themselves. The prediction that fools would gather in the square was fulfilled precisely because of the fact of the prediction itself. So, if we speak "on fingers", and looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This term was introduced into wide use by sociologist Robert Merton, and on this topic he has quite comprehensive articles, references to which can be found in Wikipedia, there are also simple examples of such a prophecy from literature and cinema. Since there is enough information on this social phenomenon, here I would just like to freely speculate about it from the angle of general social unreasonableness and draw parallels with the issues of manipulation and control in general.

Let's start with an example.

There is a bank that functions normally. Suddenly, there is news that the bank will soon go bankrupt. Depositors all at once run to take their deposits - and the bank really goes bankrupt. This is how the 1907 banking panic in the United States began.

What do we see? We have a group of people who cannot by themselves come to agreed conclusions and agree on a specific strategy of action. On the part of people, there is an insufficiently deep understanding of reality, an inability to self-organization and, in general, a total misunderstanding of the world order. Now I will explain what it looks like in the case of two people.

Imagine that two inmates are interrogated in separate rooms and each faces 10 years in prison. The investigator says the same thing to the first and second: if both testify, then both will receive 2 years, if you testify against him, and he keeps silent, I will release you for helping the investigation, and he will be imprisoned for a full term, if both will keep silent, then according to the information available to the investigation, you will both serve six months in any case.

From a game theory perspective, where this problem comes from, there are two points. When everyone cares about their personal benefit, it is beneficial to pledge an accomplice, because at best there will be release (if the accomplice is silent), and at worst 2 years. If you keep silent, then the worst case will be to serve all 10 years, when the accomplice testifies. Of course, everyone wants to minimize the worst-case scenario, since they are unaware of the accomplice's behavior. On the other hand, if they could agree, they would certainly choose silence, since this will give the shortest overall time.

Now let's extend this example to people who ran to the bank for their money. They reasoned something like this: "since the bank may go bankrupt, you need to urgently take the money, otherwise the others will take it before me, and I will have nothing left at all."If they could agree not to touch the money and knew the economic situation more fully (would have a complete understanding of the game), then the crisis would not have happened. It's simple - the lack of data forces you to play with minimization personalrisk in the worst case. As a result, it maximizes generalrisk - and the worst case is for everyone. If we adhere to the strategy of minimization common risk, then if this strategy is followed by all participants in the game, the total risk will indeed be minimal, although not always zero.

So, in summary, we get the following. If everyone wants to mix their losses to zero, they will be the maximum for everyone. If everyone is willing to donate a little for a common cause, the losses will be minimal for everyone (but they will still be small). These are two extremes - and one gets the impression that the choice is obvious. But no! The main problem that prevents them from making this choice is that if only a small part sacrifices themselves, then this sacrifice will be complete, they will lose everything, but this can completely save the rest. Each person does not know how others will behave. What if he donates one, and the rest don’t? Then his sacrifice will be in vain. Better then try to fight. This is how an ordinary person will reason.

How does manipulation and control work in this strategy? For example, “from above” again they did not share some nonsense, a war began, people are sent to fight - it does not matter for what, why (there is always a certain legend for the masses), it is important that no one can refuse to fight. Just imagine, they would take everyone at once and stand still, no one is shooting at anyone, everyone is standing and looking at each other, someone, for example, starts picking flowers, then everyone turns around and goes home. Can this be? Maybe, but only if everyone is sure that everyone will do as he does. Otherwise, the end will come to him (for example, a tribunal or just their own will score). Since it is impossible to come to an agreement in principle, all that remains is to fight for your life.

The same happens everywhere. The Ministry of Education is carrying out reforms. Reforms are one worse than the other. Universities cannot refuse to execute new orders, because then the university can be deprived of the license for the right to give higher education, all employees will be dismissed and everything will be bad. But if all universities were to take and say “go to the bathhouse with your Unified State Exam”, the Ministry could not prevent this in any way. The same is happening inside the university. Teachers can be forced to do idiotic work, for example, to publish unnecessary textbooks to anyone (there are universities where this is done). Teachers cannot but do this, because if someone refuses, they will "somehow" be cut, and the rest will have a lesson. But if everyone would have taken and refused - no one would have forced them.

What to do? Is there really no way out? There is always a way out. Unfortunately, if I voice it, you will not like it, so I would like to think about how to make it the least unpleasant for you. Although it will not be completely painless for sure. But if you continue to solve this problem the way it is being solved now, it will be as bad as possible for everyone without exception.