To really answer this question we have to get away from the narrow lens of the past half century-to-century and approach this from a historical lens. What was the last “big edge” that humans had that a new technology took away? And how did it play out? Who were the winners and losers? And how can this frame the impact of AI over the next century.

The first thing that I can think of is labor.

The steam engine replaces labor as an “edge”

Pre industrial revolution, human labor was what drove society forward. The human wonders of the world - from the pyramids of Egypt to the Taj Mahal - were built on physical labor. While the steam engine in the 18th century was a step change in productivity and what “human labor” meant, it wasn’t an elimination of labor entirely.

However, in the 20th century, with the invention of the internet, the mind became the new “workhorse.” Calculators, then excel, automated calculation. Smartphones and computers become productivity multipliers. Google took knowledge and placed it at everyone’s fingertips.

“The steam engine replaced muscle.”

Both these revolutions materially impacted society and what was considered the human “edge.” Whereas pure physical strength was relevant and valued pre-industrial revolution, post industrial revolution human labor was no longer the singular constraint. Humans could leverage skills and machines.

This further led to changes in how humans operated and organized. We created governments, corporations, and legal systems. This needed lawyers, accountants, engineers i.e. knowledge work. With the internet, physical skills became even less important and the “edge” pivoted even further to intellect.

AI replaces the current “form” of intelligence

Over the last decade, we have seen a new revolutionary technology - artificial intelligence. AI began as machine learning - spell checkers, search algorithms (i.e. Google), GPS. Now you have LLMs that can think, analyze, write, compose art and music. And slowly, we are seeing LLMs move deeper and replacing more.

Tech and venture leaders alike are warning that knowledge-work is in for a rude awakening. Anthropic co-founder Dario Amodei forewarned in an essay that LLMs could take over ~50% of starting-level white collar work over the next several years.1

There are, I believe, two ways to think about AI. The first is that it is the next stage of humans leveraging machines to improve productivity and scale. The second is that it is “replacing” the current form of intellect as the human edge. The honest answer is that it is probably a bit of both. I don’t believe the two views are mutually exclusive.

AI will not replace “humans”

There’s a debate on the “extent” of AI and the big concept of “AGI” i.e. a “super human” intelligence. However, this is a moving goalpost and many would argue we are already there. In many domains today, AI easily passes the “turing test.” Many people struggle to detect AI writing, art, music. There are rumors that AI code is a meaningful percentage of code today.

In fact, AI far surpasses “individual” human intelligence in many domains if we define intelligence as pure knowledge, thinking, or analytical ability. While a trained cardiologist may have a better understanding of the heart than an LLM, an LLM has a better understanding of the heart than the average person that is not a cardiologist.

AI further surpasses many humans in terms of writing capability, creative ability, and even emotional awareness and empathy — or at least the show of it. That said, to define an LLM as “human” is both under-rating its capabilities and over-rating them. Andrej Karpathy has called LLMs “ghosts” or a different species which I believe is the most accurate definition I’ve heard.

What LLMs can do (honestly)

We must ask ourselves - what is it that an LLM cannot do. And in that question, I believe we may find the “edge” we are searching for. First, though, we can take out the things it can do. And the roles that are “at risk.” This includes:

• Repetitive knowledge work: medical coding, service/call centers

• Knowledge-based advice: therapy, medical advice, legal advice, accounting

• Analysis: entry/mid-level white collar jobs in finance, law, engineering, academia, marketing

• Writing: journalism, blogging, coding, author

• Creating: artist, poet, writer, creator, marketing, actor, producer

Now, the next stage of this is understanding the “level” at which AI can “aid” vs. “replace.” This is, I believe, harder to really assess given the pace of change of the technology and the lack of consistency across roles and expectations. For example, one could argue that the mediocre writer will be replaced but a great writer will never be replaced.

However, one could also argue that there will be a new “kind” of writer, one who has great ideas but lack of ability / language barriers held them back from getting their ideas across effectively. One could even imagine society facing back-lash on AI writing and reverting to preferring people that write “normally” and imperfectly vs. what could be considered “ai slop.”

Human preference and culture is so hard to predict but I go back to my initial point - that some of writing - and writers - will likely be replaced and the writing that remains will likely have an ability to leverage LLMs to improve quality, productivity, scale. Will they be the same writers of today is harder to say.

What LLMs cannot do (honestly)

Now on to the important question, if these are all things that LLMs can do, at some level, what is it that an LLM cannot do?

• Experience things - human reinforcement learning is an attempt to “teach” LLMs from experience but it is not true “experience”

• Human contact - LLMs cannot touch, feel, taste

• Agency - LLMs, as of yet, do not have agency unless given it explicitly. You cannot “trust” an LLM

• Taste - I think of Anu Atluru’s essay on “taste.” In a world where knowledge becomes commoditized, “taste” and preference becomes the real edge

• Morality and ethics - for all you can “train” an LLM on morals and ethics, it is hard to convince ourselves that an LLM can be intrinsically moral or ethical.

• Existential - an LLM is not human and cannot die. Nor can it be alive.

I believe that we as a society have spent a lot of the last century over-indexing on pure verbal-analytical IQ. From standardized testing as prerequisites to institutions of higher learning to higher paying jobs given to people with the best GPA. From math Olympiad to chess championships, one type of intelligence has been our metric for reward.

However, there are a lot of types of intelligence. As one type of IQ becomes commodified, and creative work becomes less differentiated, these different types of intelligence - the ones that remain strictly human - may become more highly valued. Now, how do you value “existential” intelligence is a different thing.

Work is an economic concept not reliant on a single edge

Ultimately, we forget that when we fear AI is taking over the human edge, what we’re talking about is human “value.” The only reason knowledge-work has been valuable so far is because we have given it value.

It is a little odd to think of work and productivity as reliant on “knowledge” or “creativity.” We once had a society that relied almost exclusively on physical labor. The origin of work was never “knowledge” but rather a payment of goods from one party to another to get what needs to be done.

Work is simply a function of how we’ve organized society where economics are shared. As we cycle away from “knowledge” as an edge, the other IQ edges will become “work.” I don’t think AI will necessarily impact that “work” exists but rather what will be considered profitable or less profitable kinds of work.

I would think that the work that has become less profitable with the entrance of the industrial revolution or the internet, will revert to becoming more profitable - deep thinking, meaning-making, and somatic intelligence.

Perhaps philosophy will become highly valued again.

A lot has been written about humans vs. machines. Artificial intelligence has made the distinction less clear and at the same time, more important to understand. People often forget that AI, despite its eerily human capability, remains a technology. And technology is a type of human innovation. And all human innovations typically follow the same basic tenets: they will survive as long it is evolutionarily beneficial to enough humans.

Technology is a tool created by humans

We sometimes think of technology as “outside of the natural.” Machines, computers, and tech are otherworldly, mechanistic algorithms that do complicated tasks. However, at its most basic, technology is simply a tool created by humans. The definition of technology is “the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, often involving tools, machines, and systems.”

The history of technology in this sense goes beyond computers and machines. The first technology was the wheel. Airplanes, trains, and the steam engine all represented leaps forward for scientific application. Phones, telecom lines, and antibiotics were necessary precursors to the technological innovations of today.

Technology is a form of innovation

Over time, technology has also become synonymous with innovation. Innovation, while often enabled by new tools or technologies, goes beyond just technology and represents a new way of looking at or doing things. Innovation is not limited to things but also includes institutions i.e. governments or financial institutions.

The pyramids of Giza or the New York skyline were all forms of human innovation. EDM or impressionist art were innovations. Innovations additionally include concepts such as capitalism, communism, and democracy. They include the concepts of money, foreign exchange, and inflation. Innovations represent a key driver of productivity, growth, and improvement in life.

Over the last few years, however, technology or machines have been the guiding innovations driving society forward. From the internet to the mobile phone to self-driving cars, technology has enabled structural changes in how we work, eat, live, and pray. Artificial intelligence appears to be one of these generational innovations.

Innovation exists within the human context not outside of it

However, it is important to remind ourselves that innovations are typically created for a reason or purpose. They do not come out of thin air but often after years, decades, generations of work and resources. The rocket was created because humans wanted to conquer space. The moon landing was achieved to show national domination. Capitalism was formed to create prosperity.

That said, not every innovation is intentional and the results of innovation are not often known beforehand. Penicillin was invented accidentally and went on to become one of the core drugs to save millions of lives. The atomic bomb / nuclear weapon was created to end World War II and has become a symbol of peace and deterrence.

“Almost no prerequisite to any major invention was invented with that invention in mind.” ~ Kenneth O. Stanley, Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned: The Myth of the Objective

The human context of artificial intelligence

To understand AI we must understand why and how it was created. AI’s origin story is complex with early connections to the tech giant Google, leading academics in Stanford, and promising entrepreneurs at YCombinator. The initial goal of OpenAI was to keep AI - or AGI - out of the hands of corporate giants like Google.

That said, the success of OpenAI and chatGPT in November 2022 was a surprise, even to the company itself. No one could have predicted the virality and adoption of AI. No one could have predicted that LLMs would spark billions of dollars of investment to build out infrastructure, compute, and applications of AI.

Fast forward to today, OpenAI is far from the only company competing in the AI race. From the large tech companies to new start ups to existing businesses, there is a rush to implement AI. The term AI has gone from the world of academics to every day use. We’ve also started to hear a lot of heavy debate from policy to ethics on whether AI is good or bad for society, which often happens when a new technology seems powerful.

Innovation is not inherently good or evil

There are a couple extremist views on technology and innovation. On one hand, there is the techno-optimist view: the world’s hardest problems from biological breakthroughs to climate change will be solved with technology. On the other hand, there is the techno-pessimist view: technology is bad. Change will inevitably lead to negative impact over time. Humans are better off without new innovation.

The reality is, innovation is not inherently good or evil. Innovation happens usually for a couple reasons: 1) it will help those who create it or 2) the people that create it believe it will help other people / humanity. Even if created with good intentions, few innovations remain in the world of positive for long.

Sam Altman has said publicly that the ultimate goal of AGI is to solve the world’s hardest problems and cure disease. However, OpenAI’s initial creation was a consumer chatbot used by millions of people around the world. Alongside the positive benefits, we’ve already been to see some of the negative effects of chatGPT.

From chatGPT psychosis to copyright infringement, chatGPT has created a whole new world of ethics and consumer protections that likely need to be addressed. On the other side, doomers of AI continue to cite deep fears of artificial intelligence going rogue and destroying humanity. This is seen in sci fi movies like Origin or Robots.

In our excitement, we often forget that technology adoption is driven by emotion as much as it is by logic.

Fear and greed drive innovation as much as logic and thinking.

Every time a novel technological innovation happens, there is a tendency to follow the same cycle: 1) denial, 2) fear, 3) acceptance, 4) greed, and 5) over-reliance. Technology cycles are not dissimilar to market cycles in that human emotions play a larger role than people think.

Greed, and fear of missing out, often drive the greatest early investments into new technological innovation. While innovations often start off idealistic, a capitalist system does not support an innovation that does not make money or establish power. The success of the biggest tech giants today, Google and Meta, was directly tied to their ability to monetize a large distribution base with ads.

When it comes to AI, it’s not a battle of man vs. machines, but rather man vs. man. While many ask, will machines destroy us? The better question to ask is whether there is an incentive for certain humans to create a machine that will create more harm for humanity than good? If so, can it be monetized?

Morality doesn’t win, survival does

Humans create these things then worry whether the things they created were for good or for evil. Morality doesn’t necessarily win in the end but survival does.

Communism - and the soviet union - broke because it did not make economic sense for most humans. Dictatorships like Iran or South Korea survive because enough power in the strong and enough economic growth among the broader people ensure there is support for the ruling class.

Similarly, technologies like mobile, social media, and now artificial intelligence, will survive so long as there are enough profits to be made and people to benefit that offsets the harm. Thinking of technology as separate from humans is like thinking of democracy as separate from humans or banks as separate from humans.

We create things because they are useful to us. If they remain useful enough, they stay around. If they are no longer useful to enough people, they go extinct. Holding back technological progress is like holding back evolution. There is no path but to move forward. AI is unlikely to be an exception.

Identity is complicated. We often tie identity to a sense of individualism. Children and adults are encouraged to “find themselves” and “pursue their passions.” We often think of an individual as distinct from another. But as we think of ways to define ourselves, it’s impossible not to rely on social norms.

From race to gender to politics, religion, and faith. From educational attainment to career success. And yet, there is the perennial question — what part of our identity are we born with and what part is a function of our environment, how we were raised. Which is nature vs. nurture?

It’s much harder to change what you are born with. However, in theory, we should be able to change what we are raised with. In my view, most parts of our identity are created and as a result, can be deconstructed as well.

The childhood self

In psychology, there is a concept of a “childhood” self. This self is not yet impacted by the wounds of growing up. For example, a person may have loved music as a child but learned to hate music as an adult. Alternately, a person may have danced with abandon as a child. However, as an adult, he/she stands on the sidelines due to crippling learned social anxiety.

So, who is our true self? Is it the person we were as children or the ones we grow into? While there has to be a core personality that is unique to each of us, a self that exists before any impact from the outer world, I think that self is more moldable than most of us believe.

Identity is shaped by our ego and superego

There is a concept of a “true” self in psychology by Sigmund Freud. The id is your “instinctual” or primitive self. The ego is the governing or rational self and the superego is the part of the self that manages which to chose, not dissimilar to Aristotle’s tripartite soul.

One question we might ask is then are we our id, ego, or superego? Are we our impulses or are we our rational mind? To be governed solely by our id is not feasible in society today. To judge someone civilized only by his/her instinctual impulses feels wrong. To judge someone solely by their rational side is to ignore their humanness. We have to be a sum of it all.

Identity is shaped by context

Additionally, a lot of our core identity is a function of the ecosystems we grow up in and are raised in. Identity is often tied to race, gender, and politics. Are you white, black, asian? Are you liberal, conservative? Identity can connect with socioeconomic status. How much money do you make. What house do you live in? Identity can be the country you were born in and the town you were raised in.

Identity can be intertwined with family, religion, and faith. It can be tied to prestige. What school did you go to? Where do you work? We can also tie identity to goals, roles, and hobbies. Are you a good wife? mother? brother? Further, we tie it with character traits - values and beliefs. Are you honest? kind?

Importantly, few of us have control over where we are born and who we are born to. We do not get to choose our parents. We do not get to chose our race. We often do not even get to chose our set of values. Yet, we are often defined by them. That said, the ecosystem you are born in is not an unchanging trait.

Identities evolve over time, differing by stage of life and environment

I recently watched a movie Lion that was based on a true story by a small boy in India who grew up in a poor household. As a 5 year old, he became lost and was adopted by a family in New Zealand. As an adult, he somehow finds his way back to the small town in northern India where he grew up. Yet, which was home?

When our ecosystems change, particularly from a young age, it meaningfully impacts our identity. And yet, a part of it is also defined by what we chose. Was he a poor boy from India that was adopted by an Australian couple or a wealthy kid from Australia with a broken past? Ultimately, it was what he wanted to be.

While this was a drastic example, we all go through identity changes in different phases of life.

I’ve had a few distinct phases in my life. Childhood, college student, young professional in NYC, graduate student, and well, adult. In each phase, there has been a distinct shift in how I define myself. The things I found important and the people I cared to impress were different in each phase.

Even within a certain phase, different parts of life can have different social standards. How I identified myself at home was different from how I identified myself at my job on Wall Street vs. how I identified myself in graduate business school.

New experiences can unlock new aspects of identity

My experiences in graduate business school were more similar to my junior high phase than young professional in NYC phase. Responsibilities decreased and we optimized for social popularity and getting invited to the right parties. It’s interesting how similar environments product similar results, despite a difference in age.

I’ve heard elderly care homes often become post-70s summer camps with recreational activities, group outings, and structured meals, not to mention dating and finding love.

However, at what point does social dynamic overlay any perspective or pre-identity. The Stanford Prison Experiment is an example I often find myself coming back to as a an example of social identity. In this experiment, veritably normal college kids were given roles as prisoners or guards in a “fake” prison. The experiment had to be stopped in 6 days (instead of its originally planned 14 days) given the psychological trauma of the prisoners and cruel and sadistic behavior of the guards.

How much of our so-called identity is hidden, only to be unlocked when we face certain situations or environments? Whether it’s something as simple as a new social dynamic or something as painful as starvation, pain, cruelty? Or alternately, power. How much of our individuality is truly defined by who we are rather than the environment we live in? How much of our identity is defined by the roles we fall into rather than the roles we chose? It’s tough to say until we experience it.

Identities can get shaped by childhood experiences

In therapy, there is a theory of attachment styles that has received a lot of attention. This theory says that depending on how we were raised, we develop attachment wounds that impact how we show up in our adult relationships. There are 3 types of insecure attachment wounds: anxious, avoidant, and anxious-avoidant.

Avoidants typically have trouble with intimacy as an adult given childhood experiences where a parent punished them or withheld love if they showed emotion. Alternately, an anxious will have trouble maintaining distance in adult relationships given an emotionally negligent or inconsistent parent or caregiver. Lastly, the anxious-avoidants will crave attention but withdraw when its given.

Many people live with these “wounds” for years - maybe their entire adult life - with the results playing out in traumatic and sometimes damaging and abusive relationships.

Adult experiences can leave an imprint as well

It’s not just childhood experiences that can meaningfully impact our identity. It is adult experiences as well. Women become mothers and change their priorities between career and family. People live through cancer diagnoses and realize they want a change in career.

People that have been through calamities like wars and famine develop core traits that become difficult to undo, whether it’s a constant fear of violence or overeating. War veterans and physical abuse victims alike often develop PTSD, mistaking simple things like a train horn or a hug as a form of trigger. How has covid-19 impacted each of our lives, and in particularly the generation that grew up in the environment.

Most of us have likely heard of Pavlov’s famous experiment on triggers where he trained dogs to salivate at the ring of a bell. However, what’s not as well known is that Pavlov’s dogs, after the experiment, were trapped in Pavlov’s basement in a flood. They had to escape by being submerged in water. This was a traumatizing experience for the dogs and they forgot all of their “conditioning” after the experience.

A lot of our identity is chosen or created

As we build ourselves from these multitudes of emotional and cultural complexity, it makes sense that life is seen as a “journey to find ourselves.” However, we are creating ourselves too. While we cannot change the country or religion we are born with, we can choose the cultural and religious identity we affiliate with as adults. While we cannot change how our parents raised us, we can make conscious decisions to acknowledge and counteract the negative parts of them, the ones we do not like.

While we cannot change the gifts we are given, we can chose the talents we pursue and at what cost.

I recently watched a movie, Maria, that goes through the last few days of the life of a famous Greco-Roman opera singer. On a multitude of drugs and hallucinogens, she narrates an autobiography of her life.

Her childhood where her mother forced her to sing for money. Her rise to fame and career as a world-renowned opera singer. Her exploits as the women not chosen by the man she loved. The lavish parties, the painful memories. She chose a death that mirrored the tragedy of her life. Her pain is where the music gets in, she pronounced at one point.

It’s a beautiful take on the life of a complex, sometimes narcissistic but ultimately broken women who gave her soul to the music. Her opera was both her savior as well as the setup for her demise. However, as you think about her life, how much of her tragedy was her “past” rather than the past she refused to let go, the familiar patterns, the familiar tragedy.

Identity that is created… can be deconstructed as well

There’s an idea that we should return to the version of ourselves that we were as children. Pursuing passion, love, and unconcerned with the views of others. While I think that’s beautiful, our experiences shape us to. However, we are not defined by the experiences we live through, we are instead defined by the wisdom we chose to take and learn from them.

We often have a choice at various points in our life. To disassociate with events, our past, to narrate a version of ourselves that we want to embody. Sometimes, outside events force us on a certain path. Sometimes, internal things do. Yet, what is the right mix? How much of our past do we take with us? How much do we leave behind?

I think the key here is this concept of unfinished business, undeveloped emotions. The more of your life you spend not processing the past, not accepting the events that happened to you, the more your spend your existing life and future on things that don’t feed your soul, but rather your own ego.

The more you chose activities that reflect, that try to “finish” or “resolve” rather than create. Sometimes this shows up on the surface, such as the tragedy of Maria. Sometimes this shows up in the lonely moments or emotional outbursts. Oftentimes, this shows up as toxicity.

Paths to deconstruction

Identity that is created can be deconstructed too. People take a lot of paths to pursue this deconstruction. Eat, pray, love. Therapy. In the case of Maria, multiple doses of hallucogenic drugs that nearly killed her. Parties and relationships. To find the pieces of themselves lost and undiscovered.

The depth of your initial tragedy, the length of your avoidance, often reflects the depth of the “deconstruction” needed to make sense of it. And tragedies do not stop as we get older. Our life is continuously evolving.

I think the paths that ultimately “solve” or “fix” are ones built on acceptance rather than avoidance. But it’s not clear at the start which that path could be.

Many of us have dated people that are harmful to us in order to resolve a core childhood wound of being loved, of being enough. Many of us pursue careers where we need to prove ourselves to be valued. PTSD victims are often given small doses of what caused their trauma to build resilience towards it.

Perhaps there is a truth to it all.

However, whichever path you take, the most important choice is to try. At some point, to not pursue, to make a decision to not find it at all, becomes a conscious choice to stay still.

Some people spend their entire lives trying to find a version of themselves they lost. The real tragedy is the ones that never try at all.

Game theory is the use of mathematical models to describe strategic interactions. It’s typically associated with economics but also used in other academic areas i.e. math, politics, and computer science. Game theory can be used to explain interactions between people, businesses, governments, maybe even one day, AI machines.

However, what happens when we apply the logic, strategy, and incentives of game theory to relationships where the currency is effort and vulnerability and the payoff is connection. We often think of relationships as more emotional or human. However, humans interactions also often follow certain frameworks.

Eric Berne famously wrote a book called “Games People Play” where he talks about games as a “series of transactions that have a predictable pattern.” In his view, however, games often lead “unproductive outcomes.” For example, he talks about the “see what you made me do” or the “why does this always happen to me” games.1

Game theory, however, focuses more on strategic frameworks. It’s not meant to model specific interactions or make a judgement on conscious or subconscious motivations. Instead, it allows you to assign values to payoffs and indicate if outcomes are optimal or suboptimal. Motivations are still relevant since they impact incentives.

In this way, I think game theory provides a more broad and helpful frame of reference or “mental model” to think about relationships. In this essay, I want to go through some of the most common game theory frameworks and how they could apply and inform certain relationship dynamics. I’ll start with the prisoner’s dilemma.

Prisoner’s dilemma: when optimal strategy leads to suboptimal outcomes

The most well known “game” in game theory is the prisoner’s dilemma. Let’s walk through an example (feel free to skip this section if you’re well-versed in the game):

In this game, there are two prisoners (Prisoner 1 and Prisoner 2). Both prisoners have the option to separately lie or confess to a crime with an associated payoff for each.

• Prisoner 1 has the option to lie or confess.

  • If Prisoner 1 confesses, the outcome can be a 1 year sentence or a 10 year sentence.

  • If Prisoner 1 lies, the outcome can be going free or a 6 year sentence.

  • Prisoner 1 should always chose to lie because in both cases, the result is better. And vice versa, since Prisoner 2 has the same optionality in reverse.

• In the end, both Prisoner 1 and Prisoner 2 end up at the “nash equilibrium” which is a suboptimal outcome for the game but a result of each Prisoner playing their optimal hand.

If we we replace “prisoners” with “friends” and instead of lies and testify, we base it on “effort” put into a new friendship, then we see a similar outcome.

The optimal strategy for both sides is often to not put effort in to avoid not being hurt if the other side does not reciprocate. This is even more deeply acute when we think about romantic relationships where the effort is higher, the risk of loss is intense, and potential for gain is meaningful.

Unfortunately, this game does lead to a suboptimal outcome i.e. the “nash equilibrium.”

However, what if we begin to incorporate more complexity to the game. In economics, we also have “symmetric” and “asymmetric” games. The prisoner’s dilemma is a symmetric game because both players have the same outputs in each scenario. What if this wasn’t the case?

Asymmetric games: when one person has more power than the other

One example of an asymmetric game is the ultimatum game. In this game, one player has to give the second player an ultimatum. If the second player accepts the ultimatum, the money is split accordingly. Alternately, if the second player rejects the ultimatum, both players get nothing. The split can be either “fair” or “unfair.”

The studies of this game show that there are a lot of differences on both sides based on things like societal expectations of fairness and framing of the proposal (giving vs. splitting vs. taking). It’s interesting to think of how this applies in relationships where we use emotional currency.

One area is marriage proposals. In a marriage proposal, one individual (typically the man in a heterosexual relationship), offers for the woman’s hand in marriage. The woman can either accept or reject the offer. This begs the question, how do women determine what is fair vs. unfair?

Is there something inherent to being “offered” an ultimatum that makes the game different vs. the person “giving” the ultimatum? This is an asymmetric game after all.

Another type of ultimatum game in the professional setting is a job offer. The employer gives the job applicant an offer. The applicant will compare the job offer to their existing job, no job, or other offers. The applicant will determine if the offer is fair and then decide to take it or not take it, similar to the classic ultimatum game.

It’s worth noting, both sides have put in effort at this point. If the applicant accepts, both parties win. However, if the applicant turns the offer down, the employer will have to find a new applicant.

That said, in employer games vs. relationship games, there is often less emotional currency at stake on both sides. Real currency is the modicum of trade vs. love and commitment. However, in both games, there appears to be a type of asymmetry. This likely impacts incentives and power dynamics.

Sequential games: when the next step relies on the previous step

Another group of games are sequential games. This is where actions are played sequentially. Sequential games can be played with perfect or imperfection information on another player’s moves. An example of a sequential game with perfect information is chess. In chess, players know all the moves of every player before. An example of a sequential game with imperfect information in poker. Players don’t know the private hands of other players.

An interpersonal equivalent of sequential games is dating. We often hear that dating is like chess. Each individual makes a move. Then the next individual makes a move. There’s an opening, a close. Certain players have limitations in terms of the types of moves they can make. For example, the bishop can only move diagonally. Similarly, there are often limitations in terms of the types of moves certain people can make.

For example, in heterosexual relationships, men are often considered the pursuers while women are considered the pursued. Men are expected to make the first move, pay for dates, and initiate intimacy. On the other hand, women are expected to “play hard to get.” Encourage yet pull back, the modern version of a mating dance.

However dating is a lot closer to poker than chess. In poker, you don’t know the other persons’ hand i.e. imperfect information game. Similarly, in relationships, people often bluff or outright lie. We don’t know how prior relationships worked out - only the version told to you. The more you put on the table, the more you have to lose. Moreover, like poker, the stakes can be high.

It’s interesting to think of dating as chess and poker because it helps to understand that most “social rituals” are in fact types of games that people play. The steps, strategies, and processes are not mysterious but rather often rational steps made within the framework of sociocultural norms.

We see a lot of things that seem rational. People typically date within their socioeconomic class. They further date at similar attractiveness levels. They date based on personality and compatibility. That said, we live in a world of dating that appears irrational as well.

Why do some people ghost? Why do people in healthy relationships cheat? Why do individuals stay in toxic, abusive relationships? Why do arranged marriages last longer whereas marriages based on so-called love lead to higher divorces? Why do people fall in love? Why do people fall out of love?

I wonder what part of this can be explained by hidden incentives (i.e. subconscious motivations) and asymmetric information? Probably not all but likely more than we think. This is how psychologists and behavioral economists try to understand people and the world. Through a lens of rational irrationality.

Repeated games: when the battles make up the war

Repeated games are played multiple times. An example of a repeated game is a long-term relationship or marriage. In this game, an individual knows the game must be repeated over and over again. If you forget to do the dishes once, perhaps it’s fine. However, in the next *game,* your partner may get upset and bring it up.

This is a negative - suboptimal - outcome for both parties. On the other hand, if you do the dishes consistently, this may create a positive influence on future games. Your partner may reciprocate appreciation in other ways. Most relationships have this type of “give-and-take” where both parties know the game is played over a repeated period.

Another kind of interesting way to think of repeated games is in the relationship with yourself. We each play these repeated games of mastery, discipline, self love and compassion. How often do we beat up ourselves over mistakes, only to find this leads to negative outcomes in the next game. How often do we sleep late, scroll through social media only to find ourselves on the losing side of the tomorrow game.

This concept of “later me” is well studied. I had a professor in undergrad put out this intriguing study on how engaging with your older self as a real and relevant version helps people make better long-term decisions. Many successful books on self-improvement and health begin with the concept of the “end in mind.”2

Complexity of relationships and games: being human

I find it insightful to think of relationships as games. Games are “maps” or simplified models to help you chart the territory of various relationships. Games often have an optimal strategy, payoffs, and incentives. People are often more predictable than we think they are. However, games are often more complex than we expect them to be.

It’s important to remember the mental model that “maps are not the territory itself.” A game theory framework provides a simplified example of what goes on in a relationship. It will never fully give you insight into the complexity of a situation, relationship, or person.

People often have subconscious biases, insecurities, and secrets that drive their actions, often without them knowing. The most concerning bias I’ve noticed is the “I’m not biased” bias. The people that are so unaware of their deeper motivations or willing to question their actions. Incentives are as complex as humans themselves.

There is a view that your real thoughts are the ones you do not feel comfortable sharing. The snarky thoughts. The things you do not want your employer or potential dates to know. Or at least not without getting to know the real you.

People make “anon” accounts on X and ask uncomfortable questions on Reddit behind a no-name username. While it makes sense that most of us are afraid of being truly ourselves, it’s not clear that posting anonymously online creates the right incentives to be authentic.

It is difficult to determine when someone is authentic but perhaps let’s approach this by ruling out when someone is not authentic.

Malcolm Gladwell explores the topic of the real self in his book Talking to Strangers. In an extreme example, he talks about a teenage guy that committed a crime while blackout. The guy had a pristine record otherwise and had very little memory of the experience. Was he a criminal deep down? Did he do it intentionally on some level? His subconscious and conscious motivations were explored in a drawn out court case.

Gladwell concludes that alcohol impacted his mind and shut off his rational thinking brain. Actions done in this state should not be considered intentional or a reflection of his true self. This leads to an interesting point: without rational thinking, you cannot be authentically yourself. In extremes, intoxication leads to inauthenticity.

If you post anonymously, are you behaving as rationally as you would if you were not anonymous? Or is it akin to being intoxicated?

There is a story called the “Myth of Gyges” in Plato’s Republic. A man receives a ring that makes him invisible. He is a decent man but given the ring, he commits horrendous acts. The moral is that many people would commit acts of evil if they could get away with them. However, this is not necessarily less logical. It makes rational sense that we behave differently with certain consequences vs. others.

Being anonymous, then, may not make us less rational but it likely does change our behavior. Without consequences, humans tend to act differently. Posting anonymously online is arguably similar to wearing the “Ring of Gyges.” You are invisible to your social environment - family, friends, colleagues. You can be whoever you want to be.

Does anonymity always lead to negative actions though? There was a 1969 Stanford study showing a link between anonymity and abusive behavior. In Zimbardo’s study, female participants were dressed in lab coats and either hoods or no hoods. Each was told to give an electric shock to an individual. Those in hooded lab coats were 2x as more likely to comply.1

A body of scientific study on anonymity showcases a “tendency for many people to act rudely, aggressively, or illegally” under anonymity. In another 2016 study at Gettysburg College, college students that were anonymous were more likely to engage in cyberbullying behavior or approving of it in others.2

When people behave rudely online under an anon account, does it count? Going back to the criminal law example, if someone commits a crime under the influence, the law focuses on “recklessness” or whether the crime was impulsive enough to offset an intoxicated state. Perhaps, a similar test can be applied to internet anons. Are these individuals behaving in a “reckless” manner that it does not matter they are anon?

On the flip side, there has also been support showing how anonymity enables people to be more honest. From anonymous surveys to whistleblower regimes, anonymity reduces the consequences of societal pressures for honest disclosure. Anonymity on the internet offers opportunities to support others around sensitive topics i.e. abuse. Anonymity can make people unusually “forthcoming and helpful.”3

There is also another angle to anonymity which is group anonymity. One study shows that when primed with positive information, anonymity allowed individuals to be more helpful in a group situation. However, the studies around negative group behavior are the most disturbing. They range from aggressive driving when people have windows tinted to unethical behavior in anonymous chatrooms. 4

A stark and painful but well known study on this is the Stanford Prison Experiment. In this experiment, a group of the most amiable guys were chosen to do an experiment. They were separated into prisoners and guards. The crimes were so bad and unethical the experiment, expected to go on for 2 weeks, ended in 6 days.5

What does this all mean for anonymity online? It is not surprising the same group dynamics that happen in life happen online, but under the cover of even greater disassociation. It is possible that some authentically kind people behave even better under anonymity. There could be positive social spirals from good deeds online. However, the potential for aggressive and unethical behavior is scary.

The theory that anonymity leads to more authentic behavior is - on the whole - hard to defend. Research suggests anonymity creates a lot of perverse incentives for behavior and it is impossible to disassociate the positive from the negative. Anonymity online in groups is especially risky.

Is it fair to conclude that given the results of anonymity experiments, people on average, are authentically more unkind or aggressive? It’s hard to really say. A big part of who we are is a part of a society or community. Perhaps, the deeper conclusion is that, in life or online, authenticity is dependent on social norms and our individual identity.

Being authentic online is similar to being authentic in person - with its limitations and challenges. There is no easy way to being yourself.

A lot of people associate masculinity with being male and femininity with being female.

In reality, the two are separate.

At their core, these are concepts of energy and to an extent… psychology.

That is not to say biology and neuroscience hasn’t informed it. We can’t ignore that there are real, chemical differences between the development of the male and female brains.

However, the abstract “concepts” of masculinity and femininity actually go much deeper. They provide a sort of connection between the mind and the universe.

the definitions…

I’ve found three arguably clear “definitions” of masculinity and femininity across history, psychology, and philosophy:

• Western society: CG Jung, and his acolytes, have written extensively on masculine vs. feminine psychology in western society. In his work, the concepts of masculinity and femininity are closely associated with male and female genders.

• Vedic traditions: Hindu tradition and history has really strong associations between the various deities (Gods and Goddesses) and the masculine and feminine traits

• Daoist/Asian traditions. Yin and Yang, while not exactly associated with gender, is a well appreciated concept in ancient Asian tradition.

I’m sure there are others but these are the ones that I’ve found as the most obvious and well known.

One thing that most of these definitions align on is that masculine energy is not “only” associated with being male and feminine energy is not “only” associated with being female. My goal here is to explore what these theories are and where they come from. In my next post, I’ll start exploring the implications.

Now let’s begin…

western society

CG Jung’s theories on masculinity and femininity are the most developed.

The books “He” and “She” by Robert A. Johnson, a Jungian philosopher, go into depth on the journey of maturity for the male and female. 12 To be clear, these journeys are not actual physical journeys but rather representative of the psychological journey.

Jung believed that societal archetypes of the masculine and feminine were shaped from medieval times and early Roman myths. His concept of the masculine is represented by male characters i.e. the “Knight in Shining Armor” and the “Fisher King." On the other hand, his concept of the feminine is shaped by the early Roman myths of Pysche, Eros, and Aphrodite.

masculine journey

The masculine journey begins with a young boy estranged from his father who undergoes a quest. The quest includes saving damsels, slaying dragons, and conquering knights. Through this quest, the boy build masculine traits including rationality, assertiveness, and action. He further encounters many women on his journey, which helps him build his “anima,” or the inferior feminine within the masculine. These traits include empathy, intuition, and the capacity for connection.

At the end of it, he meets the “Fisher King,” which represents a core wound or challenge that all boys must conquer in order to become men.

“Most western men are Fisher Kings. Every boy has naively blundered into something that is too big for him. He proceeds halfway through his masculine development and then drops it as being too hot. Often a certain bitterness arises, because, like the Fisher King, he can neither live with the new consciousness he has touched nor can he entirely drop it.” – Robert Johnson

In order to heal the Fisher King, the boy must ask the right question: who does the Grail serve? Remember, this is a metaphor for the psychological journey into manhood. The “Grail” is ultimately a metaphor for “self-actualization.”

feminine journey

The feminine journey begins with the myth of Psyche. Psyche represents platonic beauty and receives a lot of attention. This angers Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty. Psyche is the Roman word for “soul” and represents the core feminine. Aphrodite represents the part of the mind that is outwardly feminine. At it’s highest, it is love and beauty. At its lowest, it is jealousy and insecurity. She does everything in her power to get rid of Psyche. However, her plans fail.

She sends her son - Eros - to defeat her but Eros falls in love with her. Through this, Psyche discovers the feminine trait of love. However, Eros leaves her and Psyche, like the “Fisher King” receives a core wound. Aphrodite then sets her four “impossible tasks.” Each of these tasks require developing her “animus” or the inferior masculine within the feminine. These include traits such as order, courage, and action. Her final task is understanding death after which she achieves self-actualization.

finding the whole

Both the masculine and feminine journeys represent a development of self and wholeness. There are many similarities to both journeys. However, there are also clear differences. The masculine traits are obviously different than the feminine traits. Moreover, the concept of anima and animus define two distinct entities implying that the feminine concept of masculinity is very different from masculinity itself. And vice versa, the masculine concept of femininity is very different from femininity itself. Lastly, the journeys itself vary in their core from their complexity to purpose.

eastern society

Early Eastern philosophies seem to have less developed views on gender psychology. However, these ancient views have much to say about masculinity and femininity as concepts as it relates to universe, existence, and all the facets of life in between.

Vedic traditions

The Vedas were written in the late bronze and early iron ages, several centuries before the medieval times. The Vedas are the foundations of Hinduism but also have shaped other religions in South Asia. In Vedic history, we see the male and female as “forces.” The female force or goddess is Shakti whereas the male force or god is Parusha.

Hindu goddesses represent strength and wisdom. Durga defeats evil forces and is considered a protector. Saraswati encourages learning and creation. On the other hand, male gods represent creation and preservation. Brahma is the male god of creation. He is the original source of being. Shiva is the god of calmness and meditation. In many ways, the Vedic traditions of the masculine are a little less “forceful” than western traditions of masculinity.3

Whereas in the Vedas, the masculine is calm and focused, in western society, the masculine is considered more active and “adventurous.” Moreover, the feminine has much more strength in Vedic beliefs than western beliefs. In fact, Hindu religion is one of the few religions where female goddesses are so fiercely worshiped. Overall, there seems to be more equality between the masculine and feminine energies.

yin and yang

Similarly, the concept of yin and yang is another framework that comes up repeatedly in Asian cultures. The concept of yin and yang originated in ancient Chinese philosophy in the 3rd and 4th centuries BCE. Over the years, it has become an important part across all aspects including culture, medicine, design, and relationships.

Core to yin and yang is the dualistic nature of the universe. Yin is considered feminine energy. It is passive, receptive, and represents the dark. Yang is considered masculine energy. It is active, pointed, and represents light. Yin is contractive while yang is expansive. Yin and yang are not static but moving energies. Often, yin will flow into yang and yang will flow into yin.

The duality is sometimes represented by sunlight moving over a valley. Yin is the darkness while yang is the light and as the sun crosses the sky, the two gradually switch places. It is also represented famously by the black and white symbol where there is a black dot on the white side and white dot on a the black side.4

the differences & similarities

There are a couple things all these philosophies (or psychologies) have in common. First, that there seem to be separate concepts of feminine and masculine. Second, these concepts are not static concepts. You *develop* masculinity in Jungian philosophy. In ancient Chinese philosophy, yin flows into yang. Lastly, there is some concept of balance. For CG Jung, every feminine needs the masculine animus and vice versa. Yin needs yang. The universe requires both creation and destruction in the Vedas.

Alternately, there are some differences as well. The level of balance between the masculine and feminine is not always the same. Moreover, the underlying characteristics of what it means to be masculine and feminine is also different. For example, in the Vedas, masculine forces are calm whereas in Western and Asian philosophies, masculinity is active.

what it means?

The obvious question is - how did these concepts actually translate to differences in gender in various societies? In many ways, it’s likely not clear or linear. However, I believe it has influenced societal expectations much more than we typically think. Importantly, how can reframing gender roles within the concepts of masculinity and femininity and across various frameworks change or shape how we think about them?At a time where the concepts of women’s independence and the consequent “crisis of masculinity” has been grabbing headlines, I think these are important topics to explore.

Keep an eye out for my next post doing just that! :) And let me know if there’s other concepts that you think I’ve missed or are worth exploring.

I have always been torn between the two.

There’s a host of literature around it from ancient philosophy to modern psychology. Plato called it the “tripartite soul.” Freud called it the id, ego, and super ego. Dan Kahneman calls it “system 1” and “system 2” thinking. Joel Corry calls it the head and the heart.

I like to think of it as logic vs. emotion.

One thing most will agree with is that some kind of internal debate between our rational and irrational side is par of the course of being human. However, the word *debate* is likely less appropriate than complex and intricate *dance.*

It shows up in our work, our relationships, in broader societal trends. It shows up in finance, technology, art, education… you name it. I’ll give you a tangible example of it in technology -

Unless you live under a rock, you have probably somewhat been following the trends in generative AI. What is generative AI but computer scientists trying to replicate the human mind? And it has caused so much confusion because no one even understands what it means to reason like a human - to be both rational and irrational, to be both analytical and creative.

This juxtaposition is a ubiquitous part of our internal dialogue and external world.

I’m not a scientist, sociologist, nor a psychologist. I am an investor by trade so I love numbers and data. However, a philosopher and poet at heart. An artist occasionally. Perhaps it is these various qualities that make me so curious about it at all.

Anyway… you get the point. And hopefully you understand (between the ramblings) the curiosities I plan to explore and share with you. So please subscribe and keep tuned — it’s just beginning.

Best,

Harneet

my favorite quote this week:

“Each day is a little life: every waking and rising a little birth, every fresh morning a little youth, every going to rest and sleep a little death.” ~ Arthur Schopenhauer