Abstract
How can we best interact with others? This simple question, debated by philosophers for thousands of years, was illuminated from a totally different perspective in the 1940s by the new science of game theory. One of its most shocking conclusions was that the rational pursuit of self-interest, a cornerstone of Western society, can often land us in situations where self-interest is the last thing that is being served. Mutual trust can help resolve such problems, but only if all parties demonstrate “credible commitment” to maintaining the trust. Here, I argue that Carl Rogers’ principle of unconditional acceptance, especially as illustrated by the inner workings of encounter groups, can generate credible commitment at least as effectively as the logic-based strategies proposed by game theorists. It provides a novel and powerful route to overcoming the deadly social dilemmas that have been exposed by game theory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Socrates’ basic axiom appears in several different guises in the Socratic dialogues reported by Plato. This particularly clear paraphrase is that which is used on the Lander University philosophy course website (http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/socrates.html) under the heading “Socratic Paradox”.
- 2.
Note that these are not the psychological games that Eric Berne refers to in Games People Play (1964). Berne does not refer to mathematical game theory in his book, even though it was written 20 years after formal game theory had been established.
- 3.
I am not a practitioner in either field, but a scientist who has written and lectured extensively on game theory in everyday life in an effort to make its socially important discoveries more widely known (see, for example, my Rock, Paper, Scissors: Game Theory in Everyday Life (Fisher 2008)). My appreciation of the person-centred approach has come principally from my wife Wendella, a counsellor who uses and has great experience with the person-centred approach, and with whom I have attended a number of encounter groups.
- 4.
If you think that this little story has uncomfortable parallels with the U.S. practice of plea bargaining, you are dead right. This is why plea bargaining has been made illegal in many countries.
- 5.
This example is due to Bill Poundstone (1993).
- 6.
Formal logical analysis requires a concept known as the Nash equilibrium, which is not difficult to master, but which I have avoided using in the context of this chapter. A description of the seven deadly dilemmas in terms of the Nash equilibrium may be found in my book Rock, Paper, Scissors (Fisher 2008).
- 7.
This “reward” motive provides an interesting link between psychology and game theory, as I discuss in detail in Rock, Paper, Scissors (2008).
References
Allesina, S., & Tang, S. (2012). Stability criteria for complex ecosystems. arXiv:1105.2071v1.
Anon, J. (2005). Homo economicus? Sound economics may lie at the heart of humanity’s evolutionary success. The Economist (April 7th). (http://www.economist.com/node/3839749).
Berne, E. (1964). Games people play. New York: Ballantine Books.
Cameron, L. (1995). Raising the stakes in the ultimatum game: Experimental evidence from Indonesia. Working paper #345, industrial relations section, Princeton University. In R. Slonim & A. Roth (1998) Learning in high stakes ultimatum games: An experiment in the Slovak Republic. Econometrica, 66, 569–596.
Fisher, L. R. (2008). Rock, paper, scissors: game theory in everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Harbaugh, W., Mayr, U., & Burghart, D. (2007). Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science, 316, 1622–1625.
Hobbes, T. (Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury). (1651). Leviathan, or the matter, forme, and power of a common-wealth ecclesiasticall and civill. London: Andrew Crooke, at the Green Dragon in St Paul’s Church-yard. http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/hobbes/Leviathan.pdf.
Kuhn, H., et al. (1994). The work of John Nash in game theory nobel seminar (December 8). http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1994/nash-lecture.html.
Machiavelli, N. (1532). The prince (W. K. Marriott, Trans.). Chapter XVIII. (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149p/chapter18.html). The actual quote is “a wise lord cannot, nor ought he to, keep faith when such observance may be turned against him.”.
May, R., Levin, S., & Sugihara, G. (2008). Ecology for bankers. Nature, 451, 893–895.
Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1053–1060.
Moll, J., Krueger, F., Zahn, R., Pardini, M., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Grafman, J. (2006). Human fronto–mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (Vol. 103, pp. 15623–15628).
Nash, J. (1951). Non-cooperative games. Annals of Mathematics (Vol. 54, pp. 286–294). This is surely one of the shortest papers ever to have won its author a Nobel Prize (the 1994 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics).
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419–422.
Poundstone, W. (1993). Prisoner’s dilemma. New York: Anchor.
Rand, A. (1964). The virtue of selfishness. New York: Signet. See also Rand, A. (1992). Atlas Shrugged (35th anniversary edition). New York: Dutton.
Rogers, C. (1942). Counseling and psychotherapy. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered therapy. London: Constable.
Rogers, C. (1961). This is me. In On becoming a person (p. 20). London: Constable.
Rogers, C. (1970). Encounter groups. London: Penguin.
Rousseau, J. (1754). A discourse on a subject proposed by the Academy of Dijon: What is the origin of inequality among men, and is it authorised by natural law? (G. D. H. Cole, Trans.). Rendered into HTML and text by Jon Roland of the constitution society. (http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq.txt).
Russell, B. (1959). Common sense and nuclear warfare. London: Simon and Schuster.
Smith, L. (1996). Daughters of darkness. New York: Simon and Schuster (This is the second novel in her Nightworld series).
Tankersley, D., Stowe, C., & Huettel, S. (2007). Altruism is associated with an increased neural response to agency. Nature Neuroscience, 10, 150–151.
von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Warneken, F., Hare, B., Melis, A., Hanus, D., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Spontaneous Altruism by Chimpanzees and young children. PLoS Biology, 5, e184.
Wilkins, P. (2010). Unconditional positive regard reconsidered. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 28, 23–36.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fisher, L. (2013). How Can I Trust You? Encounters with Carl Rogers and Game Theory. In: Cornelius-White, J., Motschnig-Pitrik, R., Lux, M. (eds) Interdisciplinary Handbook of the Person-Centered Approach. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7141-7_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7141-7_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7140-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7141-7
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)