4/16/2008

Winners don't punish

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

周末在礼堂看了《甘地传》,三个小时的片子,稀稀拉拉十几个人,看完了呆坐在椅子上好半天。脑子里一个问题在回响:“Winners don't punish, but why?”

Winners don't punish


这是上个月Nowak小组发表在Nature上一篇文章。我认为此文的结论有些问题,这是后话且不谈。本文的关键亮点在于首次将报复与反报复的机制放置于实验当中,结果确实很震撼。Milinski在同期发表的评论中将Gandhi作为一个典型的例子,我认为这个例子极好。

作恶之人有何惩罚不得?Gandhi有一句名言:“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."我想它就是来自于《马太福音》中的那一段话,虽然他是一个印度教信徒。这世上真正的执意作恶之人并不多,所犯错事多半属无意之举或是不得已而为之,对此类行为如缺乏宽容之心而严加处罚,往往会触发报复心理并使之蒙蔽心智。世间之绵绵战乱纷争大多起于此,如家族之世仇、民族之矛盾、国家之冲突、宗教之纠葛。

有人作恶,却惩罚不得,该当如何是好?耶稣说:转过另一边的脸给他打。这很愚蠢吗?不,至少在某些情况下,这样做很聪明。因为人类,至少是绝大多数人,并不是纯粹自私的经济动物,他们有这样一种奇怪的生理和心理反应,叫做“感动”,所以亚当斯密才要同时写两本书:《国富论》和《道德情操论》。无论是乞丐还是君王,发觉自己做了亏心事以后都不免“内疚”,这乃是人之常情。转过脸去给他打,正是为了唤起对方的愧疚,至少是尴尬。而若从耶稣那里算起,人们明白这个道理也至少有两千年了。不知道其他动物是否也有类似的感动现象,如果没有,那么人类的这种本能又是如何进化得来的呢?这是一个值得研究的问题。

当然,书本上的道理和实践中的运用是两回事情,不然的话,孔夫子当年也就不必四处流落了。感化往往需要一个渐进的过程,有时候要付出不菲的代价,所以人们本能地更倾向于简单粗暴的方法。而如果一个人能够始终如一坚持原则而控制自己的情绪,那么这个人大概就可算圣人了(比如耶稣、孔子和甘地)。如果想要暂时的太平,则尽可以倚重残酷严苛的法律,将违法乱纪者一律关押、流放甚至处死,从汉代的文景之治到现代的新加坡大概都是如此。但如果想要一个真正的和谐社会,感化就要比惩罚有效得多,动辄叫嚣武力威胁或是给人扣上一个反党叛国、阴谋破坏之类的大帽子,逞一时口舌之快,都无益于问题的解决,反而只能加深误解与敌意。

可惜,圣人太少,而我们都是无可救药的近视眼。

4 comments:

Harrison said...

An eye for an eye 是 tit for tat (defection) 还是 costly punishment? 这篇文章否定的只是costly punishment, 非理性的损人不利己。其中的实验结果显示 tit for tat 似乎还是胜利者的策略之一,以彼之道还治彼身的defection不算punishment, 不算vengeance.

Albatross said...

An eye for an eye is retaliation, not tit for tat. However, in this game, punishment can hardly be distinguished from defection, and I think that is why punishment failed. And please recall that tit for tat never win, but just did better than punishment.
In fact, the point in the game for me is that "turn the other cheek" worked well.

Harrison said...

"c, Defection for defection can sometimes restore cooperation. d, Turning the other cheek can also restore cooperation."
"Winners tend to respond by using D against D, whereas losers use P against D."
"Winners play a tit-for-tat-like strategy2, 4, whereas losers use costly punishment."
上面是作者的原话,paper强调的也是如何应对D,而非P. 这篇日志强调的是应对D还是应对P呢?如果Tit for tat 是D对D,P对P的话,那么D对D似乎还没有那么糟糕,只要别意气用事发展成P就行。
而C对D当然是最理想的策略了,虽然多数人似乎还做不到,或者还不知道。
The point in the game for me is that punishment at the cost of one's own benefit could never work well as expected, beacause no man/woman/party is God, who keeps the overwhelming domination.

Albatross said...

I'd like to answer with the same words that "in this game, punishment can hardly be distinguished from defection". In fact, it works like harsh defection as costly signaling. Tit-for-tat is not good, but not worse than others.