“Sloppy” choices help humanity to progress
Humans are constantly weighing up options and making decisions. But whereas it was previously always thought that there could be a “perfect strategy”, the “imperfect strategy” appears to be surprisingly advantageous in the long run. UvA researcher Marta Couto calculated this using evolutionary game theory. “Leaving the washing-up can be the smarter choice in the long run.”
The tower of dirty pans in your student flat’s kitchen is getting bigger and bigger and is starting to look suspiciously like the one in Pisa. You give in and start the big clean-up. But what is a logical and rational choice – because you’d like a tidy kitchen – can end up working against you. Because if you hadn’t been bothered by how high that tower had grown, you would have waited longer and your flatmate might well have tackled the huge pile of washing-up.
The social dilemmas arising from domestic scenarios such as this can be tested in computer simulations. Marta Couto, a researcher at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) specialising in computational social sciences, uses mathematical methods to determine what the most strategic decision is. Together with Fernando Santos and Christian Hilbe, Couto is conducting research into the “evolution of noisy decisions”. In other words: why do people not always opt for the most strategic choice, and how does human behaviour change? The research group recently published their findings in the journal PNAS.
“Sloppy” choice
Couto’s research shows that people do not always make the most logical or, in the short term, the most strategic choice. And that is beneficial, because making a “sloppy” decision can pay off in the long run. The researchers find this surprising. Couto: “It’s paradoxical, because in the moment you might make a silly decision, as you still want a clean kitchen and you don’t know whether other people will actually clean it.”
They calculate this by looking at a person’s sensitivity to the immediate outcome of a “game”. “We call this outcome or pay-off sensitivity,” explains Couto. “It’s about how likely you are to respond to a strategy that presents itself and can immediately lead to a better outcome.” Translated back to the washing-up metaphor: the better strategy would then be to do the washing-up yourself, as that would immediately yield a beneficial outcome, namely clean crockery. Couto therefore discovered that low sensitivity does not always lead to a worse outcome.
The game
Time for a lesson in game theory. Game theory is a branch of mathematics in which models are developed to understand people’s decisions in certain dilemmas. In this theory, which is applied across various disciplines, human behaviour is assessed using mathematical methods. Perhaps one of the game types will ring a bell: the prisoner’s dilemma. Two friends are arrested and face a choice: confess or remain silent. If neither of them says anything, they will each serve a year in prison. If they both betray the other, they’ll be locked up for two years. But if one talks and the other doesn’t, the one who confesses goes free and their partner gets three years. Without knowing what the other person is going to do, a decision must be made. Do you put yourself first or remain loyal to your friend?
That is precisely what game theory tests, explains Couto. What is the most logical strategy and choice when this is also influenced by the actions of others? “In our lives, we are constantly playing games of this kind and making these kinds of trade-offs,’ says Couto. “But as modellers, we never know exactly what game someone is playing or what other factors might be at play. That makes it difficult to control or predict with precision.”
Low sensitivity
After crunching the figures, the researchers concluded that what is the most strategic choice in the long term does not yield immediate benefits in the short term.
To go back to the washing-up for a moment: of course, you don’t know whether your flatmate will actually do the washing-up. So in this situation, a lower sensitivity to an immediate “pay-off” is more advantageous, because attaching less value to the washing-up done means you don’t have to do it yourself.
And that surprises the researchers, because in most game simulations, a higher sensitivity means a better assessment of the most strategic choice and thus the best individual outcome. “You’d expect the value someone attaches to the outcome to increase indefinitely,” explains Couto. But that turns out not to be the case. “It sometimes grows to a certain point and stops there. That means there comes a point at which being more sensitive to a particular outcome no longer yields any benefit.” So imperfect decisions can sometimes actually be “smart”, Couto concludes.
Evolutionary advantage
Being less receptive to what is happening can be smart not only for yourself: it also benefits humanity. Making the imperfect choice can lead to “collective progress”, says Couto. Because it is precisely the out-of-the-box choices that can encourage experimentation with strategies and lead to new solutions, Couto explains.
