theindicscholar.com

Tag: decision-making

  • The Long History of Free Will: From Greece to India to China

    The Long History of Free Will: From Greece to India to China

    Introduction

    Since the beginning of human history, one question has always troubled human cognition and, in turn, human philosophy: Does free will exist? For millennia, scholars, thinkers, philosophers, and theologians have sought to answer the question in their own way, considering their time and place. In this blog, we discuss various theories regarding free will from twenty ancient philosophy schools across Greece, India, and China. We also discuss their basic ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology, which helped determine their stance on free will.

    Chapter 1: Platonism

    Platonism was the ancient Greek school, based on Plato’s teachings. They believed that moral goodness comes from aligning the soul with the good. They considered the soul to be eternal and indestructible, while the material world was considered to be continuously changing.  For them, the ultimate virtue was knowledge, while the real evil was ignorance. According to them, free will depended on recollection of knowledge. The more the soul makes a decision based on knowledge and reason, the more freedom it has over its will. In short, free will increases with rational thinking. Although officially, the school ended, their idea of free will shaped early Christian theology, creating an amalgamation of idealism and moral realism.

    Chapter 2: Aristotelianism

    Aristotelians gave more priority to practical knowledge over reason and induction. For them, the substances were composites of form and matter, and causes explained changes. Thus, they believed that humans have complete free will, as they could make informed choices, assisted by rational thinking. Aristotelianism gave the foundation to modern Western ethics as well as many concepts within psychology and psychoanalysis.

    Chapter 3: Stoicism

    Stoicism was an hellenistic school, which considered living according to reason and nature as the highest virtue. According to them, everything unfolded necessarily, as the cosmos was governed by Logos (a kind of divine universal reason). The external events were already determined, but the inner ascent based on knowledge gained was free, thus giving assurance to a limited free will.  Stoicism, centuries later, strongly influenced modern CBT and psychology.

    Chapter 4: Epicureanism

    The Epicureans were the descendants of the ancient Greek Atomist school. They considered that the world is made of atoms, roaming freely in space, thus denying an overlooking God. They believed pleasure (absence of pain) to be the highest virtue and the sensory experience to be the foundation of knowledge as free will. Since the Epicureans defined the world to be independent of any external forces, they advocated for complete free will, breaking strict determinism. Epicurean thoughts can be found within modern secular ethics and materialism, particularly in the Western world.

    Chapter 5: Skepticism

    The Skeptics were rationalists with no claim about either an ultimate reality or an overlooking power. They considered knowledge to be always contestable and preached living life pragmatically. The skeptic school believed in free will and avoided any theory regarding predestination. Skepticism shaped scientific reason and critical thinking, even centuries after the school formally ceased to exist.

    Chapter 6: Cynicism

    The Cynic school had a radical virtue that rejected any type of convention and promoted living according to nature in a minimalistic and anti-speculative way. They believed that truth is lived, not theorized, and intellectual systems corrupt authenticity. When it comes to free will, they avoided answering that directly and considered true freedom came from detachment from social and psychological constraints. Cynic values are today found in some form within anti-consumerism and moral minimalism.

    Chapter 7: Neoplatonism

    It was a school that rose at the end of the Hellenistic period and influenced the Roman Empire after Greece became a colony of Rome. They were the believer of a hierarchical world. The highest of the realities was the One, an ultimate reality beyond thought, followed by the Intellect or Nous, where thoughts and ideas thrived. The third level was that of the Soul or Psyche, which animated the world and acted as a bridge between the higher and the lower levels. The final bottommost level was the material world, a gross world filled with imperfections changing continuously. The school gave intuition priority over reasoning, and believed that the soul is free to turn inward or outward to the material or the intelligible realms. Neoplatonism greatly affected Western mysticism as well as medieval and early-modern philosophy.

    Chapter 8: Sāṁkhya-Yoga

    Sāṁkhya and Yoga were two of the oldest Indian philosophy schools. The twin schools were dualistic in nature, believing the world is made of Puruṣa (consciousness) and Prakṛti (nature). They considered liberation as a result of acquiring discrimination between consciousness and matter. To them, although psychological processes were determined, they believed in limited free will through the process of non-identification and detachment. The schools gave birth to meditation techniques for various Eastern traditions and also contributed to the modern mind-body dualism debates.

    Chapter 9: Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika

    They were the proponents of ancient realist pluralism. The Nyāya school used highly developed logic with great emphasis on inference and debate, while Vaiśeṣika believed the world is made up of smaller indivisible particles called Anu, thus both school rejecting a creator God. They believed that humans are moral agents capable of choice, and their karma (action) determines the karmaphala (outcomes). The schools, although nearly extinct today, became the foundation of logic and epistemology for the Indian religions.

    Chapter 10: Mīmāṁsā

    It was a non-theistic school that emphasizes dharma (righteous conduct) and rituals over everything else. The followers gave importance to language and testimony (Vedas) as the authoritative sources of knowledge. They believed in limited free will, as they debated that will is mostly determined by the moral and righteous act, thus limiting free will to a lower importance. Mīmāṁsā influenced the later Hindu rituals as well as the rule-based ethics system.

    Chapter 11: Advaita Vedānta

    The Indian non-dual philosophy school and tradition, Advaita Vedānta, believes that only Brahman (collective consciousness) is real, while the entire universe is merely a reflected/limited projection of it because of Māyā (cosmic illusion). For the Advaitins, avidyā (ignorance) causes bondage, resulting in the debate of whether free will exists or not. But acquiring self-knowledge (jñāna) makes one realise that everything is Brahman, so the question of free will becomes somewhat meaningless. The Advaita Vedantā school still exists today and strongly influences consciousness studies and non-dual philosophies all over the world.

    Chapter 12: Theistic Vedānta 

    All the other Vedānta schools (Vedānta means that which ends or completes the Vedas, i.e., the Upaniṣads, which all the Vedantins follow) except Advaita Vedanta are theistic in nature, i.e., they believe in a personal God with qualities or attributes. Important schools like Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedanta and Dvaita Vedanta believed in a creator God, independent consciousness, and a very real world. Although the schools ranged from qualified non-dualism to complete dualism, all of them believe that real and moral free will exists within divine governance, and thus emphasize bhakti (devotion to God) over jñāna (self-knowledge). They are some of the dominant philosophical schools in India today and have heavily impacted Hindu cultural ethics and devotional theology.

    Chapter 13: Theravāda Buddhism

    They are the oldest branch of Buddhist philosophy, which emphasizes that reality is impermanent and conditioned. They believe that no enduring self exists, and true insight can be gained through mindfulness and direct experiential observation. They believe in a conditioned free will, which can be transformed through rigorous disciplinary practices. Theravāda is most famous today in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia, and has greatly impacted mindfulness-based therapies, meditation, and cognitive psychology.

    Chapter 14: Mahāyana Buddhism

    Mahāyana or the Greater Vehicle Buddhists believe that emptiness (śūnyatā) denies the fundamental nature of all phenomena, and everything is relative. They emphasize interdependence and compassion as some of the highest virtues. Regarding free will, they believe that the freedom of someone increases as they get to understand the relativity of everything around, and also the importance of relational causality and interdependence. Mahāyana today exists and dominates the Himalayan regions as well as the East Asian countries, and contributes heavily to the ethics of care and interdependence.

    Chapter 15: Jainism

    Jains are the proponents of absolute non-violence. They believe in pluralistic realism, as souls are distinct and eternal. According to their epistemology, truth can have multiple interpretations, suggesting that different people perceive it in various ways. This principle is called anekāntavāda. Regarding free will, they have a strong emphasis on individual responsibility and self-control over complete freedom. Jainism today exists mostly in western India and is a true leader when it comes to ethics, environmentalism, and agency debates. 

    Chapter 16: Cārvāka

    It was the Indian materialistic school that believed neither in any consciousness nor in any afterlife. They were the ultimate anti-ascetic, pleasure-oriented, pragmatists, who saw only perception as a valid knowledge. They believed in complete free will, which is unconstrained by any God, karma, responsibility, or anything. As they believed nothing exists after death, they advocated living life to the fullest. Although the original atheistic school went extinct, it gave rise to early secularism and rational critique of any kind of metaphysics.

    Chapter 17: Confucianism

    Confucianism is an Ancient Chinese school which gives emphasize or moral cultivation through roles, rituals, and virtue. It advocates deep respect for tradition and self-cultivation. According to the school, true freedom lies in self-discipline, and not in individual autonomy. Confucianism is completely absorbed within most of the East Asian cultures and acts as a guide for social ethics, proper education, and political philosophy.

    Chapter 18: Daoism

    The Daoists believe in effortless action (wu-wei) and harmony with nature. They consider Dao as the ultimate source or principle of the universe, which also maintains the natural order over everything. They emphasize intuition over analytical reasoning and believe that free will emerges from non-resistance to natural flow. Presently, Daoism is greatly present in China, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam as it continues teaching systematic thinking along with considering the ecological consequences.

    Chapter 19: Legalism

    Legalism was a Chinese philosophy that considered law and order as more ethically important than virtue. They had a pragmatic worldview and considered knowledge as a tool for power. Regarding free will, they had the belief that human nature should be shaped externally with law and punishment. Legalism significantly influenced the political realist and authoritarian governance model in China over the centuries.

    Chapter 20: Mohism

    Mohism was an important school in ancient China based on universal concern and social utility. It was naturalistic and anti-ritualistic. The Mohists considered that humans have a considerable amount of free will, as they can make decisions based on logical argument and reason. The school strongly impacted the scientific and logical development in the Sinosphere throughout the millennia.

    Conclusion

    Thus, we see that the question of free will was answered by different ancient philosophical schools differently. While the Epicureans and the Cārvākas believed in complete freedom, the Cynics and the Legalists advocated nearly no free will. Most schools tried answering not whether free will exists, but whether free will should be exercised in their own way. From Neoplatonists to Advaitins, from Daoists to Jains, all had their own conclusion. Hope you followed the individual perspectives of these schools regarding free will clearly. 

    That is all for today. Hope you enjoyed it. Please like, share, and subscribe to keep me motivated. And finally, thank you for reading the blog.

  • 5 Game Theory Models in Action: Historical Decisions That Follow Logic

    5 Game Theory Models in Action: Historical Decisions That Follow Logic

    Introduction

    Human Beings are social animals. Since the development of their cognition, humans have developed various kinds of tactics and strategies to survive and evolve at both personal and social levels. Game theory is the science related to strategy, developed in conjunction with mathematical models, to determine the best outcomes with respect to the implemented strategy.

    Although officially, game theory was developed by the Hungarian-American mathematician John von Neumann and the German-American economist Oskar Morgenstern in the 1940s, the various “Games” or strategies had been used by human civilizations throughout history. They had taken important decisions for their survival across different cultures and societies on earth, based on their Nash Equilibria. Now, a Nash Equilibrium is a situation inside a game, in which none of the players can improve their state through strategies, without changing the strategies of other players. Its name comes from its developer, the American mathematician John Nash. In the Nash Equilibrium, all players are basically in their best response state and will remain so until one or more players deviate to other strategies. Many games have been developed and studied among the economic, mathematical, business, and even philosophical circles. Each games create a certain interactive situation, with a certain Nash equilibrium, or equilibria. In this blog, we discuss the five most famous games and strategies, along with one historical example for each, showing how certain geopolitical powers acted and reacted in accordance with their specific Nash Equilibrium. So, let’s begin.

    Chapter 1: Prisoner’s Dilemma

    The Prisoner’s Dilemma is perhaps the most well-known, studied, and discussed game in game theory. It is a paradoxical situation developed, which includes two players, each deciding for their general self-interest without knowing the decision of the other. Let us imagine a situation: The police arrested two different individuals on suspicion of robbery in a building. They are kept in two separate cells such that they cannot interact with each other in any possible way. Now, the police went to the individual suspects and gave the following offer. If both of them confess to doing the robbery, both get 3 years of imprisonment. If neither confesses, they get 1 year of imprisonment. But, if one of them confesses to having robbed together while the other denies, the one who confessed is immediately released by the police, while the one who denied gets 10 years of imprisonment. Let us consider the two suspects, A and B. So, the following situation arises:-


    From the table, let us assess the choices of both A and B. As they cannot contact each other, their individual decisions should be based on assumptions about the other. So, if we consider that B confessed, the best decision A has is also to confess, as 3 years imprisonment is better than 10. Similarly, if B didn’t confess, the best decision for A is still confessing, as he would be released instead of serving 1 year of imprisonment. The situation is the same from B’s side. So, both confess and arrive at the Nash Equilibrium, which is confessing.

    Now, let us consider the Trench War Stalemate on the Western Front during the First World War in 1914. The German and Allied forces clashed in Belgium and France. But after both sides failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough, they dug continuous trenches in the ground to avoid catastrophic losses. After months of a potential stalemate, the options the armies had were to restrain, retreat, or continue bombardment. Although at first glance, restraint sounds like the best option in a stalemate, none of the armies could afford to do so without knowing the motives of the other. If one party had stopped bombarding and attacking, there could have been a possible “10-year prison” situation as mentioned before. Also, they could not run away, as this would lead to an unavoidable defeat. So, even after months and years, the two parties continued their aggression till 1918, in order to maintain the Nash Equilibrium of the Prisoner’s Dilemma game.

    Chapter 2: Game of Chicken

    The Game of Chicken is a very different model from the Prisoner’s Dilemma. In this game, there is not one but two Nash Equilibria. Let us consider a situation in which there are two drivers, A and B, driving their two cars towards each other. They had the pre-made agreement that the one who swerves will be trolled by being labelled as a chicken. Now, if none of them swerves and drives full speed toward each other, they will ultimately crash, resulting in severe injury, if not death. Let us consider the injury or death as 0 (the worst possible outcome), being called a chicken as 1 (the second worst outcome), the opponent as 3 (the highest positive outcome), and both swerve as 2 for each (as they neither won nor lost). So, the situation is as follows:-

    So, even though the safest outcome looks like both swerving, that may lead to humiliation for both. Also, neither of them swerving can lead to serious injury or death. Thus, unlike the Prisoner’s dilemma, the best possible outcome is if both players make the opposite decision from each other, i.e., only one of them swerves. This leads to two Nash Equilibria: either Driver A swerves or Driver B swerves and accepts the humiliation of being called a chicken.

    An example of this game is the Kargil War Resolution in 1999. At that time, both India and Pakistan were recent nuclear powers. In May 1999, Pakistani forces and militants illegally occupied high-altitude positions on the Indian Side of the Line of Control (LoC), which is a militarily sensitive region, in the hope of altering the status quo. Indian forces retaliated, and soon the 4th Indo-Pak war, also known as the Kargil war (Kargil being the region), began. India launched strategic, high-altitude operations while avoiding crossing the LoC. Pakistan, on the other hand, faced growing international pressure. Neither force could retreat at first, as it was a matter of pride and honor. For Indians, Kargil was legally part of their motherland, while for Pakistanis, it was their newly occupied territory. Thus, the war continued for two and a half months, until the Pakistani forces retreated. Already hammered and predicting more upcoming devastation, they had to accept defeat. The Indian forces, on the other hand, became victorious and restored the pre-conflict status quo. Thus, both parties attained the Nash Equilibrium of the Game of Chicken.

    Chapter 3: Stag Hunt

    Another interesting game, or model, is the Stag Hunt. It was devised by the French Philosopher, Jean Jacques Rousseau. As per the game, two hunters, A and B, could hunt together a stag, which is a large meal, or could hunt rabbits individually. But hunting together needs trust, as one could always betray the other. Also, hunting a stag alone is very difficult as it is a large beast. Here, we give credit to their accomplishments. If both successfully hunt the stag, we give 10 to each. If they individually hunt rabbits, each gets 2. If one goes for the stag and the other goes for the rabbit, the one hunting the stag is almost certain to fail and gets 0, while the one who goes for the rabbit gets 4, as he is the only successful hunter. Thus, the following matrix describes the situation:-

    From the matrix, we see that neither the hunter will go to hunt the stag alone, resulting in two possible Nash Equilibria: they either hunt the stag together or hunt rabbits individually. Although hunting a stag will give a better outcome, there exists a possibility of betrayal, whereas hunting rabbits gives a lesser outcome but no chance of betrayal, thus resulting in two different kinds of equilibria. The Stag Hunt model thus has two solutions: one based on more profit and the other based on more security.

    A real-life great geopolitical example for this model occurred more than two millennia ago, at the Battle of Salamis in 480 BCE. When Emperor Xerxes (Kshayarshsa in Old Persian) of the Achaemenid (Haxamanesi in Persian) Empire invaded Greece, many Greek states, of different customs and culture, allied under the Athenian general Themistocles. Thus, we see how the Greeks approached a trust-based Stag Hunt equilibrium, thus finally leading to their victory. If they hadn’t allied, it would have been nearly impossible to hunt a stag named Xerxes. 

    Chapter 4: Battle of the Sexes

    Let us suppose a couple where the man wants to watch an action movie together, while the woman wants to watch a romantic movie together. This situation gives rise to a game theory model called the Battle of the Sexes. In this situation, both want to watch the movie of their choice, but together. So, let us give ratings to their satisfaction levels. If both watch different movies, their satisfaction rating is zero, as they feel lonely, not surrounded by their loved ones. But if both watch the same movie, the person whose preferred movie is chosen is more satisfied, getting a satisfaction rating of 2, while the one who compensates for the movie to be with his or her partner gets a satisfaction rating of 1. This results in the following matrix:-

    In this game, we see that to achieve equilibrium, one of them must compensate and achieve a lower level of satisfaction. Thus, the Battle of the Sexes also has two equilibria where one achieves a lower level of satisfaction than the other.

    A classic example of this model is the imperial court arrangement of the Tokugawa Shogunate in Japan from the 17th to the 19th century. Japan, at that time, had two parallel sources of legitimacy: The Emperor in Kyoto, the sacred, ritualistic, and symbolic authority, and the Shogun in Edo (modern Tokyo), the military, administrative, and real power. In the 1600s, Tokugawa Ieyasu became the Shogun after centuries of chaos. He had 3 choices: if the Shogun dominated, a potential rebellion may arise due to moral illegitimacy; if the Emperor dominated, the chaos resumes,  and the only realistic choice was that both powers cooperate with some sort of compensation. Thus, the imperial court was designed such that the Emperor remained as the ceremonial head, while the Shogun took over the administrative, financial, and military powers. Thus, the Shoguns settled with more satisfaction, while the Emperors settled with a little less but were still satisfied. This system of equilibrium with respect to the Battle of the Sexes continued for more than 250 years till the Meiji restoration in the 1860s. 

    Chapter 5: Zero-Sum Games

    The previous games we explored above were all non-zero-sum games, i.e., when one player wins, the other player doesn’t need to lose. But in zero-sum games, when one player gains something, the other player loses the same amount, so that the total outcomes of the strategy remain zero. For example, in a coin toss, if one side picks heads and the other picks tails, only one side wins, and the other side loses. In zero-sum games, the Nash equilibrium is not about trust, fear, coordination, or compromise, like in the previously mentioned models. The only sensible thing each player can do is to assume that their opponent will try to harm them and thus choose a strategy that limits the damage, even in the worst case. In short, strategies here are individualistic.

    An example of a real-life zero-sum game is the Great Game in Central Asia. In the 19th century,  two expanding powers faced each other in Asia: the British Empire in India and the Russian Empire moving south through Central Asia. The central buffer states between them included Afghanistan, Persia, and the Central Asian Khanates. Both had the ambition of influencing these regions. Their options included a formal alliance, open war, and complete withdrawal, with each resulting in a moral or practical defeat. Thus, both empires chose a fourth option, an option of constant rivalry, with espionage, proxy influence, diplomatic pressure, and local interventions. Thus, both sides chose a zero-sum strategy, and when one got a small win, the other suffered a small loss. They interacted independently based on their individual interests and settled into balance, not through cooperation but through mutual limitation.

    Conclusion

    In this blog, we see how mathematical models dominated human interactions and decision-making, even before they were officially formalized. Game theory, however, is not limited to only human beings, but also affects plants, animals, and even algorithms and AIs. Every decision made by them can be modelled into a game of game theory. So, studying these games, which are numerous in number, can benefit those who want to understand human psychology, business interactions, and geopolitical decisions.

    That’s all for this blog. Hope you find this interesting. Please like, comment, share, and subscribe to my newsletters to be notified of future blogs and updates. Finally, thank you for reading this piece, and wish you all a Happy New Year, 2026.

  • Why Smart People Believe Dumb Things: 35 Fallacies and Cognitive Biases That Shape Our Thinking

    Why Smart People Believe Dumb Things: 35 Fallacies and Cognitive Biases That Shape Our Thinking

    Introduction

    Ever wondered why a well-educated, rational person sometimes makes the most illogical and baffling decisions? Why, despite being smart, do they fall into conspiracy theories and bad investments? The answer lies in some hidden glitches of the mind. They take shortcuts, rely on habits, and are constantly influenced by emotions, culture, and beliefs. These shortcuts are known as cognitive biases, and the common errors in reasoning are called logical fallacies, both of which can trick even the smartest brains into believing senseless and irrational ideas and concepts. In this post, we discuss the 35 most common fallacies and biases that shape how we think, decide, and sometimes misjudge the world around us.

    Logical Fallacies (Errors in Reasoning)

    1. Ad Hominem Fallacy- This is the error of attacking the person arguing instead of the argument itself. The fallacy includes the attempt to refute or win an argument by diminishing the intelligence, morals, education, and qualifications of the person in opposition. The major difficulty of identifying an Ad Hominem is to understand whether the personal attack is relevant or not. This fallacy is used by dictators and authoritarians to disintegrate the value of intelligence and motive of the opposing group.
    2. Strawman Fallacy- It is the act of misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. In a Strawman, the person making the argument turns the arguments of their opponent into a laughable parody, thus winning the argument without refuting or even challenging the actual argument. This is a dangerous tool that is used in media, politics, and even domestic arguments.
    3. False Dilemma- This fallacy happens when only two options or solutions are presented when more exist. It mainly happens like this, “……you either have to choose this or that.” Also known as a false dichotomy, where the opponent is led to a dichotomy of choice or preference despite having many more easier choices.
    4. Slippery Slope- It is the argument to claim that one small step will lead to an outstanding outcome. It is rarely included as a logical fallacy because the outcome is mostly action-based. But still, it is very common and is often seen among people who claim extraordinary achievements can be achieved through ordinary efforts and resources.
    5. Circular Reasoning- It is the fallacy of using a conclusion as part of the argument’s premise. It is an argument where A is because of B, and B is because of A. It is also the act of repeating the same argument in different ways by concluding from different directions. This fallacy is very common in people who have a strong tendency to lie in every situation.
    6. Hasty Generalization- It happens when a conclusion is drawn from limited data. In a hasty generalization, the error is in jumping to an outcome without clearly analyzing and interpreting a sizable amount of data to achieve a logical outcome.
    7. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc- It is the act of assuming that because one event followed another, the latter is likely to be the cause of the former. Here, if the event A is followed by the event B, the person making the fallacy argues that A is likely to be the cause of B.
    8. Appeal to Authority- It is the fallacy of believing something is true because an authority says so. Here, the person, in order to win an argument, proclaims that his reasoning is true because it is backed up by some sources of higher authorities, which may or may not know about the topic in question itself. It is a very common fallacy that is commonly seen in political debates and even in academic arguments.
    9. Appeal to Emotion- When a person tries to win an argument by manipulating emotions instead of logical reasoning, the act is known as Appeal to Emotion. Commonly seen in orthodox religious arguments, the debater makes a mistake of using emotion as the primary tool instead of logic or reasoning in an argument. It is also used as a popular weapon by people who specialize in playing the victim in every situation.
    10. Bandwagon Fallacy- It is believing something is true because many people believe it. The person argues that the event or the thing is real, ethical, or logical, as most people follow it. Here, the person making the fallacy joins the bandwagon of the contemporary practice and defends it without presenting any logical argument in favor of it. Most common among normal citizens in political arguments, where they just use the fallacy to defend their political ideology, as their friends and families follow it, without themselves doing their own logic and reasoning.
    11. Red Herring- It is the art of diverting attention from the topic of argument to an irrelevant topic. Red Herring is a smelly fish whose odor can distract even a bloodhound. So the fallacy is named after the fish, as it is used as a method of distraction when unable to present logic, season, fact, or evidence.
    12. No True Scotsman- In this fallacy, the person making a mistake redefines terms in order to protect a generalization. It is a kind of rescue act in which the person reinterprets the event or term in question to escape a refutation of the generalization.
    13. Tu Queue- This mistake occurs when one dismisses criticism by pointing out hypocrisy. It is the act of denying some act as faulty because the opposition has also performed it. It generally involves the phrase, “Preach what you practice,” as a defense mechanism against the argument. The opposition may be hypocritical, but that does not degrade the values of their arguments.
    14. False Equivalence- It is a common fallacy where two different and unlike things are treated as if they are the same. Here, the person evaluates two completely different events, things, or ideas as the ‘different sides of the same coin,’ thereby dismissing the opponent’s argument without using any proper logic or reasoning as a tool.
    15. Begging the Question- It is the act of assuming the opponents’ arguments and intentions even before they are presented. Related to Circular Reasoning, it is a form of dismissing or at least delaying the debate by creating an assumed reason and logic of the opponent. It often leads to a delay of the discussion, with it rarely coming to a definite, logical, and reasonable conclusion.

    Cognitive Biases (Mental Shortcuts That Distort Thinking)

    1. Confirmation Bias- It is the tendency to seek information that supports existing beliefs. Confirmation Bias often happens when we want certain ideas to be true. It results in dismissing facts, arguments, and ideas that go against the common belief. Here, people generally pick and choose information that goes along with their idea or agenda.
    2. Anchoring Bias- This bias happens when we rely on or anchor to the first piece of information to achieve a certain conclusion. As the process continues and new information is gathered, we try to interpret the newer information based on the information we anchored earlier. This results in a skewed or biased conclusion, which heavily depends on the initial information.
    3. Availability Heuristics- It is the bias of overestimating the importance of easily recalled examples. It results from overdependence on the most readily available data. It can also be seen when diagnosing health symptoms using artificial intelligence, where the horrible results are shown mostly because they can be easily recalled.
    4. Dunning-Kruger Effect- It is the typical symptom in which the less someone knows, the more confident they are. Though rarely classified as a cognitive bias, this leads to people overestimating their level of competence in an area where, in reality, they sometimes can have competence of next to none.
    5. Survivorship Bias- It is the bias of focusing on one’s successes while ignoring all the failures. It is a shortcut where the success of a subgroup within a larger group completely masks the failure of the entire group. The bias results in the negligence of failures, which could have been corrected in the beginning, but slowly and steadily, this eventually leads to the downfall of the project or the group.
    6. Negativity Bias- It is the bias of giving more weight to negative experiences. It generally happens when there is already a collection of positive experiences of the same magnitude, but we only focus on the negative experiences while making any decision. This is one of the most common biases that can be seen in everyday life.
    7. Self-Serving Bias- It is the bias in which we give the reason for success to ourselves while blaming the reason for failures on external factors. This is common in most of us, as our natural tendency is to praise our talents and skills and blame our losses to bad luck or influences by others.
    8. Sunk Cost Fallacy- It happens when someone continues a behavior or investment (time, money, or effort) because they have already spent resources on it, even if continuing is irrational or even harmful. It is considered a bias and not a fallacy because it is a mental shortcut that leads one to make decisions based on past investment rather than current or future benefits, similar to other biases.
    9. Halo Effect- It is the tendency to let one positive trait influence perception over other traits. For example, in movies, we generally have an attractive lead, which feeds our assumption that an attractive individual should be good at heart. Many of us assume a not-so-good-looking person to be unfit for playing the lead role in an event.
    10. Ingroup Bias- This is a bias in which we favor people who belong to our own group. It is a type of favoritism that leads us to silly decisions like giving responsibility to an unqualified person only because we fall in the same group, like having the same mother tongue or following the same sports team. We connect to even small similarities, and that clouds our decision-making capabilities because of the Ingroup Bias.
    11. Optimism Bias- It is the tendency to engage in wishful thinking and believe that nothing wrong will happen, even though there are possibilities of negative outcomes. This can lead to poor decision-making without a proper backup if certain unwanted outcomes arise.
    12. Overconfidence Bias- It is the act of overestimating one’s own knowledge or ability. This blurs ones judgement of themselves with respect to various capabilities in different fields.
    13. Status Quo Bias- This tendency leads to a preference for things to remain the same forever. This bias stops people from changing their present status, whether in their personal lives, publicly, or at professional levels. This is seen in many older people, who refuse to change according to the evolution of society, as they prefer to live according to the time of their youth, which has probably passed decades earlier.
    14. Framing Effect- It is the bias of reacting under the influence of how the information is presented to us. The same information can be interpreted in a different way depending on how it is presented. A classic example is whether a glass of water is presented as half-filled or half-empty.
    15. Recency Bias- It is the act of giving more importance to recent events. Sometimes, while making a decision, we only give importance to the recent past and totally neglect the age-old history. This results in some form of silly decisions, which may fail heavily in the far future.
    16. Hindsight Bias- It is the tendency of believing the past events were predictable after they actually happened. After knowing the outcomes, our thinking gets blurred by the idea that the past events were predictable, as we can now see the causes after the effects had already happened.
    17.  Fundamental Attribution Error- It is the tendency to overestimate personal traits and underestimate situations in judging others. In other words,s we believe that personal traits are more important than various situations in determining outcomes. Examples of this include if A and B are at the same distance from point O and if A reaches O earlier than B, we assume A is faster, totally neglecting the transportation cost, terrain, and traffic.
    18. Illusory Correlation- It is the tendency to see connections between two events, although none exist in reality. It is closely linked to memory and perception, as people can find patterns within various events in their memory that were totally unrelated.
    19. Authority Bias- It is the tendency to trust an authority, although they might be wrong. This further leads to Appeal to Authority, which was discussed earlier. Certain examples include trusting a doctor in medical diagnosis and a lawyer in legal matters blindly without a second opinion, although both of them might be wrong.
    20. Cognitive Dissonance- It is the discomfort from holding conflicting beliefs or behaviors. It is a psychological discomfort that we try to reduce by ignoring that both the beliefs contradict and oppose each other. In order to find resemblance in two conflicting views, we tend to distort their true meaning according to our liking.

    Conclusion

    Our minds are powerful, but they are not perfect. Fallacies and biases are invisible strings that tug at our logic, nudging us toward choices that feel right that aren’t always true. The more we learn to spot them in our thoughts, debates, and everyday decisions, the freer we become from those mental traps. True intelligence isn’t about never being wrong; it’s about knowing when our brain is fooling us and daring to question it. That’s all for today. Please like, comment, share, and subscribe if you find this blog helpful. Thank you.

    Suggested Readings

    Disclosure: This post contains affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. I only recommend books I truly value.

  • The Origins of Game Theory: Evolution, Adaptation, and Strategy Through the Ages

    The Origins of Game Theory: Evolution, Adaptation, and Strategy Through the Ages

    Introduction

    Human beings are social animals; through the process of evolution, mankind developed short-term tactics and long-term strategies in order to cooperate and exist together in a society and, in turn, a civilization.

    Game Theory is a branch of applied mathematics that uses models of strategic interactions where subjects or players make decisions that are interdependent. It is used to study decision making of animals, humans, and even computers. It was first developed by John Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern in 1944.

    In this blog, we are going to discuss the basic concepts of Game Theory with some popular examples, and also understand how decision-making and strategy evolved from the genetic or individual level to society to the civilizational level.

    Chapter 1 – The Game Theory Primer: Models of conflict & cooperation

    The Prisoner’s Dilemma-

    Let us suppose two people, A and B, have been caught as suspects for a crime, but the police have no hard evidence. So they took the two prisoners separately and gave them a choice- either to confess or not, with the condition that- 

    i. If both confess, they get deserved punishment, but on early parole, let it be 2 years.

    ii. If one confesses and the other denies, the one confessing is set free, let it be 0 years, and the other gets a harsher punishment, let it be 3 years.

    iii. If both deny, both are given even lighter punishment, as the police have no hard proof to give the actual punishment, let it be 1 year.

    So the condition that arises can be described in tabular form as this.

    B stays silentB confesses
    A stays silent1,13,0
    A confesses0,32,2

    Now, A does not know what B will choose. Suppose B stays silent, A will suffer less if he confesses, as 0 years are better than 1 year. Now, if B confesses, A will suffer less if he confesses because 2 years are better than 3 years.

    The same is also true from B’s point of view.

    Thus, both of them confess to making the best decision.

    This is the non-iterative form of the prisoner’s dilemma, that is, they don’t have to repeat the same thing again.

    Now, if the Prisoner’s Dilemma is repeated-

    To see this, Robert Axelrod, a political scientist, organized a computer game tournament in 1980. He invited many game theorists to participate in the tournament with their own unique programs, which were called strategies. In the tournament, each strategy was paired with another for a 200-round Prisoner’s Dilemma game. The whole tournament was repeated 5 times to make it precise. A total of 15 strategies participated, and the winner was a strategy called “ tit for tat”. It was designed such that it cooperated at first but defected once after its opponent defected, that is, it held a grudge only for the next round and then forgave. 

    All the top top strategies shared some qualities-

    1. They were nice and didn’t defect at first.
    2. They were forgiving and didn’t hold a grudge after 1 round.

    Then Alexrod organized a second tournament, with the only change being that no one knew the actual number of rounds. That time, a total of 63 strategies participated. The winner was again “tit for tat”.

    Apart from the first two qualities, Axelrod found two more qualities in top strategies-

    1. They retaliated immediately in the next round after being cheated.
    2. They were clear and simple.

    Although when tit for tat was later run against all nasty and defecting strategies, it came last, which shows there is no single best strategy; everything depends on the situation and surroundings. Although it was also seen that when there was some cooperation from other strategies, tit for tat and other good strategies, although being a minority, became dominant strategies soon. Later, it was found that tit for tat would do better if it retaliated 90% of the time instead of 100%. 

    Zero-Sum vs Non-Zero-Sum Games

    Zero-Sum games are those where one person’s win is another person’s loss. For example, tennis, chess, and most sports.

    Non-Zero-Sum games or strategies where one person’s outcome is independent of the other’s and vice versa. For Example- If there are two shops and only one customer, if he goes to one shop doesn’t mean a loss to the other shop, as he can go there too at a later time; in fact, he has neither gained nor lost anything.

    I would like to refer to Veritasium’s YouTube video titled “What Game Theory Reveals About Conflict and War” if anyone wants more details.

    Chapter 2- Evolution of Strategies at the Genetic and Individual Level

    The concept of Evolution in its true form was first described by Charles Darwin around 1859. Although before him many have inkings to the truth, it was Darwin who gave a structured theory to it. It is the evolution of strategies at the genetic level that helped us survive for millions of years. Each species has developed unique strategies to survive with its own set of morals. Black-headed gulls eat each other’s babies, and female Praying Mantises eat their male partners during mating for nutrition. Bees defend their nests/hives by stinging and, in turn, sacrificing their lives. Each organism has its own strategy, mostly to survive and pass on its genes.

    The more they replicate, the more the species survives. DNA acts as our replicator for survival. The British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, in his book “The Selfish Gene,” suggests that it is more natural to be selfish than to be altruistic in order to survive.

    Now, let us consider a Hawk and a Dove interaction and assign points to the results-

    50 points for a win, 0 for a loss, -100 for being seriously injured, and -10 for wasting time over a long contest. These points can be thought of as being directly convertible into the currency of gene survival.

    In a single Hawk vs Dove interaction, Hawk will always win. If there are only Doves, the winner will get 50 points for winning and -10 for wasting time, so in total, he scores 40. The loser gets -10 for wasting time, so the total average payoff from this interaction is  (40-10)/2 =15. But now, if a mutant Hawk arrives in the population, he beats every dove and scores 50 each time; he enjoys a huge advantage over the doves, who usually get 15 on average. Hawk’s gene will thus rapidly spread through the population. But slowly the Hawks’ chances to win every fight will decrease, and at last, if there are only Hawks left, the winner will get 50, but the loser will get -100 for being seriously injured, resulting in the average result of interaction (50-100)/2= -25. But now a single Dove moves in the population, he will lose, but he manages to never get hurt, his average payoff is 0, while Hawks are usually getting -25, so Dove’s gene will survive and spread through the population. The stable ratio of Hawks and Doves turns out to be (7/12) and (5/12). At this point, the average pay off of both the Hawks and the Doves is equal to about 6(¼).

    This model also applies to human beings. Apart from the Hawk and the Dove strategies, there are other strategies like the Retaliator, which plays like a Dove in the beginning but retaliates when attacked by a Hawk. There is also the Bully who behaves like a Hawk until someone hits back, then he runs away. Another strategy is the Prober-Retaliator, who behaves like a Retaliator but occasionally tries experimental escalation of the contest. He behaves like a Hawk if his opponent does not fight back, and if opponents fight back, he reverts to conventional threatening like a Dove.

    Among the five strategies in a computer simulation, the Retaliator emerges as the most stable, followed by Prober-Retaliator, which is nearly stable. Although this result, the implementation of strategies varies from one situation to another.

    Each individual has a much closer relationship with individuals with whom they share more genetic information or relatedness. An individual is closer to his parents because he shares 50% genes with both his father and mother, and their relatedness is thus (½). The relatedness between two brothers is also (½) as they share 50% of genes. The formula for relatedness can be written as m*(½)^n, where m is the number of common ancestors, and n is the generational distance. For example, the first cousins have two common ancestors and their generational distance is 4, so the relatedness will be 2*(½)^4=(⅛). Thus, a man is closer to his sibling than his first cousin.

    So in this chapter, we see that individuals form groups and associations or act solo based on the strategies of their survival. This chapter also reveals that game theory doesn’t just apply to economics or war- it’s deeply rooted in biology & life.

    Chapter 3- Homo sapiens & the Rise of Civilizations

    Homo sapiens, or the modern human, arrived on Earth about 300,000 years ago in Africa, and about 150,000 years ago, they began to spread to the rest of the world. Before that, there were many other species of humans living in Afro-Eurasia, such as Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus. But around 70,000 years ago, something occurred which made Homo sapiens superior to other human species and slowly drove them extinct- The Cognitive Revolution. Due to this, Homo sapiens developed the art of gossiping and telling stories, which enabled them to form larger groups compared to their counterparts. Imagination and gossip created ideas that continued to live even after the creators were dead. This enabled two individuals with no records of previous encounters to begin working together under a common idea. According to historian Yuval Noah Harari and his book “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind”, the Cognitive Revolution is accordingly the point when history declared its independence from biology.

    The Cognitive Revolution also enabled Homo sapiens to travel from one place to another in a group in an efficient way; they were the only species of humans to arrive in the New World. The stories they created soon got embedded in their culture, giving rise to myths and religions around which the earliest settlements were made.

    Then, around 12,000 years ago, came another important point of human history- the Agricultural Revolution. As a result, human beings weren’t required to live their life as hunter-gatherers and thus began to settle down around rivers or areas suitable for agriculture. This resulted in history’s first towns and cities being formed in areas like the Fertile Crescent, the Nile River Valley, the Indus River Valley, the Yellow River Valley, and around the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean Sea. That was also the time when the domestication of animals like sheep, goats, pigs, and chickens took place.

    Early society ran on barter systems of give and take. But it had a problem: to make a trade, each side was required to want what the other had to offer. Thus, money was created as a medium to systematically represent the value of other things for the purpose of exchanging goods & services. The earliest form of money was about 4000 years ago, when shells were used as money. Money soon developed in different regions of the world in different ways, which completely created a new direction for the evolution of mankind.

    Another important point in human evolution was the Scientific Revolution and the Age of Discovery around 1500 CE. Before that, the border between philosophy & science was not very clear, and scientific thoughts were mostly dominated by religions & theologies all over the world. Due to the contribution of geniuses like Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler & Sir Isaac Newton, a clear process of scientific thinking was invented, which was clearly distinct from philosophical & theological thoughts. This accelerated the progress of scientific studies, which in turn accelerated human evolution. Also, it was the 1500s when explorers & merchants like Christopher Columbus & Vasco da Gama began their journey of exploration and discovered new continents like America & new trade routes like throughthe Cape of Good Hope to India. Both the scientific revolution and the age of discoveries enabled a small continent like Europe to colonize most of the world, which further led to the world we see today.

    This chapter thus shows how human beings used storytelling, agriculture, and science to become the ultimate players in the game theory of life.

    Chapter 4- The Effect of Nature & Environment on Human Civilizational Strategies

    Globe

    The human societies that developed all around the world were directly affected by the following environmental variables: climate, geological type, availability of resources, area of landmass, terrain, and connectivity. We see that the early civilizations evolved faster around tropical or sub-tropical regions. For example, the Mesopotamian, Egyptian & Indus Valley Civilizations progressed at a faster rate compared to cultures in the Steppes. This was because the former regions get more direct sunlight compared to the latter regions. Since the early economy was agrarian, the places with more sunlight have more developed agriculture & economy. Also, rivers like the Euphrates, Tigris, Nile & Indus played an important role in providing water for irrigation, which the areas like the Arabian Peninsula didn’t receive much. The shape of the landmass also heavily affected the spread of culture and, in turn, growth. Historian Jared Diamond in “Guns, Germs & Steel” states that the cultures in Eurasia evolved faster than the cultures in the Mesoamerica and Sub-Saharan Africa because Asia and Europe are longer in the East-West direction thus the climate being same it was easier to communicate, where as America & Sub-Saharan Africa are longer in the North-South direction which hindered communication because of variation in latitudes and in charge climate.

    Also, some countries developed natural protections that protected them from foreign invasion to some extent. For Example, the Himalayas for India, the Tibetan Plateau & the Mongolian Plateau for China & the Sahara Desert for Egypt. This caused those countries to feel secure from early invasions and concentrate on their individual progress. The livestock also played an important role in the cultures, for example, the camel in the case of Egypt & the cow in the case of India.

    The ease of communication also got affected by the availability of nearby routes, which are tried & tested, thus the cities on the Silk Route slowly evolved into influential economic hubs.

    Later, after scientific & industrial evolutions in the 15th-16th & 18th-19th centuries, different criteria became more important. Colder countries began to develop more as there were easier to store rations, compared to hotter countries. Moreover, the disadvantages due to terrain & isolation disappeared because of the invention of railways, airways, telephones, mobile phones & internet.

    In the modern world, the civilizational game theory is less dependent on natural causes & more dependent on scientific, economic, military & political causes.

    Conclusion

    Thus, we conclude that game theory acts at different levels- genetic, individual, societal, geographic, civilizational, as well as economic & political. In understanding these games, it just won’t help us to understand history but also help us in discovering the hidden causes of genetic, human & civilizational progress.

    Let me know how you consider this blog, please like, comment & share if you find this interesting.

    Suggested Reading

    1. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
    2. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari
    3. Guns, Germs & Steel by Jared Diamond

    Disclosure: This post contains affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. I only recommend books I truly value.