Sure. There are two separate problems, which I can illustrate in this hypothetical scenario:
A group of people need to fill a glass of water.
Each person can only add one drop of water per minute, maximum.
So...
1.Underestimating small-impact actions: This is the phenomenon I describe in my post. Often used as an excuse to avoid responsibility or to shift blame to others. An action with a very small impact is “rounded down” and is considered to have zero impact. i.e. Adding one droplet has insignificant impact, so why bother doing that? Let’s push for a change of the rules, so we can fill the glass all at once.
2. Overestimating small-impact actions: This is the phenomenon you describe. Often used to settle for a minimal effort. An action with a very small impact is “rounded up” and is considered to have “enough impact”, so we oversee further action we could take. i.e. I’ve already added one droplet. I’ve done my part. What do you want from me? Now it’s up to others!
These two traps prevent individuals from taking an optimal strategy:
Add as many droplets as you can.
Suggest to others that they keep adding droplets.
And sure, ALSO, keep pushing for a change of the rules, so that water can be added in a faster manner.
I think this example is misleading; I could fill a water glass by myself one drop at a time, although it would take a long time. But, with many large problems such as pandemics and climate change, there is no feasible scenario where one person’s action makes a difference. Perhaps an example where I try to fill a swimming pool one drop at a time, while hundreds of gallons per minute pour out through the hole in the bottom.
Fair. (I was only trying to model a super specific aspect of this debate, not the entire problem).
Your example of filling the swimming pool one drop at a time while hundreds of gallons per minute pour out through the hole in the bottom is much better, and kind of disheartening to think about.
What’s a good strategy in that scenario? (maybe adding a twist: If the pool completely empties, we all die)
In that scenario, the strategy is probably to stop the leak or find a new pool, rather than trying to coordinate to fill it fast enough. Or perhaps just to enjoy the remaining water before we all die.
I’m reminded of the old military recommendation: “Sir, what should I do if I step on a mine?” “The recommended strategy is to leap 10 feet into the air and splatter yourself over a wide area”.
Good question! I don’t think it’s usually possible to estimate that accurately.
That’s why I think it may make sense to play it safe, and just adopt a strategy of “doing our personal best”, while trying to promote other changes too (inspire others to do their best, push for policy changes, etc).
Nothing in the facts of the scenario layed out in the OP indicates that anybody engages in underestimating. The scenario is completely compatible with everyone estimating the effects of their actions correctly but at the same time are unwilling to pay the price for them.
Fair enough. Presumably there could be many different reasons to be unwilling to “cooperate”. One of them could be an underestimation of the effects of one’s individual actions, but there could be other reasons.
Sure. There are two separate problems, which I can illustrate in this hypothetical scenario:
A group of people need to fill a glass of water.
Each person can only add one drop of water per minute, maximum.
So...
1. Underestimating small-impact actions: This is the phenomenon I describe in my post. Often used as an excuse to avoid responsibility or to shift blame to others. An action with a very small impact is “rounded down” and is considered to have zero impact. i.e. Adding one droplet has insignificant impact, so why bother doing that? Let’s push for a change of the rules, so we can fill the glass all at once.
2. Overestimating small-impact actions: This is the phenomenon you describe. Often used to settle for a minimal effort. An action with a very small impact is “rounded up” and is considered to have “enough impact”, so we oversee further action we could take. i.e. I’ve already added one droplet. I’ve done my part. What do you want from me? Now it’s up to others!
These two traps prevent individuals from taking an optimal strategy:
Add as many droplets as you can.
Suggest to others that they keep adding droplets.
And sure, ALSO, keep pushing for a change of the rules, so that water can be added in a faster manner.
I think this example is misleading; I could fill a water glass by myself one drop at a time, although it would take a long time. But, with many large problems such as pandemics and climate change, there is no feasible scenario where one person’s action makes a difference. Perhaps an example where I try to fill a swimming pool one drop at a time, while hundreds of gallons per minute pour out through the hole in the bottom.
Fair. (I was only trying to model a super specific aspect of this debate, not the entire problem).
Your example of filling the swimming pool one drop at a time while hundreds of gallons per minute pour out through the hole in the bottom is much better, and kind of disheartening to think about.
What’s a good strategy in that scenario? (maybe adding a twist: If the pool completely empties, we all die)
In that scenario, the strategy is probably to stop the leak or find a new pool, rather than trying to coordinate to fill it fast enough. Or perhaps just to enjoy the remaining water before we all die.
I’m reminded of the old military recommendation: “Sir, what should I do if I step on a mine?” “The recommended strategy is to leap 10 feet into the air and splatter yourself over a wide area”.
How is impact correctly estimated (or its order of magnitude)? (And how can it be correctly estimated?)
Good question! I don’t think it’s usually possible to estimate that accurately.
That’s why I think it may make sense to play it safe, and just adopt a strategy of “doing our personal best”, while trying to promote other changes too (inspire others to do their best, push for policy changes, etc).
Nothing in the facts of the scenario layed out in the OP indicates that anybody engages in underestimating. The scenario is completely compatible with everyone estimating the effects of their actions correctly but at the same time are unwilling to pay the price for them.
Fair enough. Presumably there could be many different reasons to be unwilling to “cooperate”. One of them could be an underestimation of the effects of one’s individual actions, but there could be other reasons.