Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gargoyle.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: The free market Message-ID: <237@gargoyle.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Nov-85 19:02:39 EST Article-I.D.: gargoyle.237 Posted: Thu Nov 7 19:02:39 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 07:25:39 EST Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept. Lines: 48 Me: >>[The point] is to show that one cannot simply add up individual decisions >>and assume the total to be a simple sum of the decisions; at some >>threshold the aggregate consequences may negate the individual's >>intentions... JoSH: >So what else is new? [quotes Adam Smith on "invisible hand"] What is new is that Schelling describes, analyzes, and classifies the situations in which macrobehavior is more than a simple sum of micromotives. I especially recommend Chapter 7 of *M&M* ("Hockey Helmets, Daylight Saving, and Other Binary Choices"). This chapter deals with binary choices in which one's choice affects either the choice or the reward (payoff) of others. Examples are: keeping your dog leashed or not, voting yes or no on ERA, staying in the neighborhood or moving out, joining a boycott or not, carrying a gun or not, driving with headlights up or down, getting vaccinated or not, etc. Multi-person Prisoner's Dilemmas are a common class of situations that can arise from such binary choices with externalities. Chapter 7 explains "Schelling diagrams" for the analysis of such collective action situations. This chapter is not especially long or difficult, but it greatly clarifies one's understanding of collective action problems. Sample quote: ______________ Shortly after Teddy Green of the Bruins took a hockey stick in his brain, *Newsweek* (October 6, 1969) commented: Players will not adopt helmets by individual choice for several reasons. Chicago star Bobby Hull cites the simplest factor: "Vanity." But many players honestly believe that helmets will cut their efficiency and put them at a disadvantage, and others fear the ridicule of opponents. The use of helmets will spread only through fear caused by injuries like Green's -- or through a rule making them mandatory.... One player summed up the feelings of many: "It's foolish not to wear a helmet. But I don't -- because the other guys don't. I know that's silly, but most of the players feel the same way. If the league made us do it, though, we'd all wear them and nobody would mind." The *Newsweek* story went on to quote Don Awrey. "When I saw the way Teddy looked, it was an awful feeling.... I'm going to start wearing a helmet now, and I don't care what anybody says." But viewers of Channel 38 (Boston) know that Awrey did not. --T. Schelling -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes