Rational Babies and British Soldiers of the 18th Century

[The_Q]

Here's to Guido and Chardish, again. Happy Easter! Alain, you get your name on the dedication, too. After all, you've been a great friend. I owe you. Ali, you inspired this one in me. Thanks for this, no thanks for the dumpage.

Rational Babies

You ever realize how cool babies are? They've got to be the most rational things money can buy (money can buy anything). When they want something they use blackmail. They make loud, unpleasant noises until their wants or needs are fulfilled. Anyone within an earshot of this noise wants to make it stop. How would that work? You have to give in to the baby's desires. Isn't it amazing how well that worked out for the babies?

Economics is not about money. It's about rational thinking. In a perfect world, economists would rule. In a perfect world, everyone would be perfectly rational. Unfortunately for economists, the world is not rational. Only about half of the time would an economist be correct in his predictions. Half the time is better than none of the time, though, isn't it?

In any case, economists do their damnedest to dismiss the thought of irrational behavior. In the world of the economist, everything must be assumed to be rational. This causes many dillemas, such as abstract feelings (Love, Valor, Honor and all other ideals that can be capitalized), to arise and taint our pretty mathematical equasions. We'll work around that fix eventually. So economists work on the assumtion that everything is rational. From that we decide why it is rational. Economics is used to explain why things are rational, even the things that appear irrational.

Rational Soldiers

You're a soldier in ancient times; most likely with allegience to your Gallic roots. A battle is occuring and your men are beginning to panic. Just about a half-mile away are the enemy's cavalry. All of your men are infantry. You have two choices: An every man for himself run-for-all in which nearly everyone is outrun and slaughtered by the cavalry or a neat square formation with spears set out front that could not only break the cavalry but possibly win the battle with very few casualties. Which do you choose?

The second, of course! Your batallion forms up and sets its spears. One by one, the men ready themselves. One has a thought. "If we win with only a small risk of me dying, that's great. Since I'm relying on my neighbors to help us win, I can slack off some. If I run now I have no risk of dying AND we'll still win." The same thought clicks through everyone's heads. Everyone runs. Your army ends up being slaughtered in a run-for-all.

What you just witnessed is a downfall of rational thinking. As a group, your soldiers knew they'd survive quite well if they stuck together. Since they all knew they would do better if they let the majority fight and simply let themselves sit back and enjoy the show, they'll all do so. The clash between the group and the individual is what kills. There are ways around this, though.

Nearly every U.S. History book I've gone through denounces the British for wearing huge hats and bright red jackets into battle. Marching in a straight line and beating a drum to signal their approach was a stupid move, right? The Americans hid behind trees and "cheated" their way through a lot of battles by taking out the soldiers before they could be seen. Smart move, right? Sure, if you're fighting a rebellion. Most of the British soldier probably didn't want to be there. If they had the choice of fighting and deserting, I'm pretty sure they'd choose deserting (Hey, I would. Screw standing in a line and waiting to be shot at).

That's why they had bright red jackets and shiny buttons. It's hard to hide from a battle when you can't hide from the eye. If a deserter is caught they'd be shot on the spot. If it's easy to be seen you've got less of an incentive to run because it'd be even more likely that you'd die. The fact that the British wore those bright uniforms means that they had overcome the clash of the individual over the group. Their men appeared much more loyal (and thereby boosted moral in the army and on the civil fronts).

Another example of overcoming the individual mentality for the sake of the group is a parable of six Chinese men hauling a block of stone. This stone was gigantic and, of course, heavy. It took six men to drag it across their province in a week. These men were paid a hefty amount if they could drag it so far in a week, if they couldn't make it they wouldn't get paid. So they all thought "we should drag this stone as fast as possible." They also each had two thoughts they kept hidden. "If everyone else is pulling hard enough to get the stone there in a week, I don't need to. But if everyone else isn't pulling hard enough, why should I?" Needless to say, the stone never got to its destination on time. Soon this problem was solved. All six men pitched in and used some of their money and hired a seventh man. The seventh man stood back and whipped the other six.

The Failures of Literature

I have always been a critic of Lit Crit (basically literature analysis) because of what I have been taught in school. Basically, you use vague textual evidence to support abstract claims that supposedly explain human nature. Generally, the conclusion is "human behavior is entirely irrational and all humans are evil in nature. We're all greed driven and that's bad." If you ask me, this is not a good way to think. It answers nothing about what it is set out to answer. Not only does it use a very iffy source of material but it doesn't set out to explain much past "this is irrational, let's move on." Why is it irrational, though? Isn't greed a good thing (Incentives Matter)? I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation for everything concerning Lit Crit. I'll get back to you when I figure it all out.

What you just saw was basic economics. Economics is not about money. It's about rational thinking. In a perfect world, economists would rule. In a perfect world, everyone would be perfectly rational. Unfortunately for economists, the world is not rational. Only about half of the time would an economist be correct in his predictions. Half the time is better than none of the time, though, isn't it?

In any case, economists do their damnedest to dismiss the thought of irrational behavior. In the world of the economist, everything must be assumed to be rational. This causes many dillemas, such as abstract feelings (Love, Valor, Honor and all other ideals that can be capitalized), to arise and taint our pretty mathematical equasions. We'll work around that fix eventually. So economists work on the assumtion that everything is rational. From that we decide why it is rational. Economics is used to explain why things are rational, even the things that appear irrational.

Q