Economics and math concepts are probably not the first thing that pops into your head during a heated argument with your significant other. Unless of course, your partner were to insult the proof you’ve been working on for over a month. That’s definitely a 🚩.
If that wasn’t the thing you were arguing about, maybe do start thinking more about math.
Relationships, and not just romantic ones, are about playing games. Not in the traditional sense, but the mathematical. So although we should be cautious when we apply “logic and rationality” to complex situations, as long as we embed those complexities and nuances as logical, I think we should be good.
We want something out of relationships, whether it’s mutually happiness, intellectual discourse, business opportunities, etc. In those relationships, we tend to have a habit of making poor decisions at the worse times possible. That’s when we’re relying on only short-term outcomes, as opposed to the reality for most relationships, i.e. long-term objectives.
Here, long-term is relative and doesn’t exclude ephemeral relationships, as long as that is the intended goal.
The game
In game theory, there is a concept of nash equilibrium. A state where neither parties have an incentive to independently change their behavior (without the other party also choosing to change).
An analog to this is the question after an argument: “Who apologizes first?”.
When there is an intrusion in the relationship, in the form of an argument, there are choices presented to each person. How each person decides to react is essentially their strategy.
People with whom we don’t really wish to develop a relationship, the game lasts only one episode (interaction). And even if it does last multiple episodes, our goals for that (non-existing) relationship have not changed. Therefore, the choice we make in that argument can be one that is “rationally maximizing“. I cringe even writing that phrase.
For all other scenarios, we generally want to build relationships. Society functions on meaningful interactions. What meaningful might mean to someone is subjective, but the strategy they use has to take into account the future games (interactions).
The Long* Game
In the heat of an argument, where our pride is distressed and emotions are laid bare, we can be tempted to lash out in anger.
We may say things we don’t really mean, or things that we know will only make the situation worse.
In our mind, we want to survive, we want to be able to recover in the crudest way possible. This may involve hurting the other person as well to have them feel the pain. It may involve being manipulative to garner emotional blackmail. Although emotions can be justified, actions are rarely so. In those situations, we have choices to make. Do we decide to create peace (provided the other person deserves it), or do we decide on a sub-optimal, yet nash equilibrium, where no one wants to be the first to apologize?
So how do we correct this game? How do we make that decision? Before that though, we have to determine how we think about the relationship. And this forces us to think about the future of the relationship.
Given the relationship is one you wish to continue, it’s important to find a strategy for resolving arguments that is sub-game perfect. The game is not a single-shot event where you make a single decision. Your relationship has an extensive set of interactions to be played, and how you play one action affects the actions of the other player(s) in every successive interaction.
A game, that is played over a long period of time has sub-games (each interaction is a subset of a larger game).
Let’s say you hate apologizing first and your strategy is to always let the other person come to you. Now, in the first argument, this might work well, but in future interactions, your partner may be less inclined to be as proactive as they were before, knowing you did not take the initiative before. This strategy can be categorized as competitive.
When playing (pseudo)infinite sequence games, the strategy that provides the most benefit is cooperation. Here cooperation means actions that not only reflect your own benefit, but the collective benefit. Even if your immediate benefit isn’t as great, because future interactions are based on the current interaction, the total happiness and value of the relationship will be much much larger.
Of course, cooperative actions require the other person to also be cooperative. If they tend to show behavior that is self-maximizing, the best choice there is to stop playing that game.
Your trust, your kindness, your business etiquette, regardless of the type of relationship, will be remembered. And your reluctance to apologize, or to react to an argument by trying to hurt the other person, is not a subgame perfect strategy. In the long run, it will only damage the relationship.
Once you realise most of life’s games are repeated, the desperation to out-win others in a single transaction disappears, and you develop an abundance mindset.
Idris Bello