How are the Hong Kong protesters able to overcome their collective action problems? The marginal value of one extra protester in terms of changing what’s going to happen via China has to be close to zero, yet each protester faces serious risk of death or suffering long term negative consequences because they have to expect that China is carefully keeping track of who is participating. Is this a case of irrationality giving the protesters an advantage, or are there private gains for the protesters?
Robin Hanson claims aside, some people want to make the world a better place. If someone is always cynical they will often be wrong about things like this (though to be fair they’d probably do well on average)
Something like “safety in numbers” effect, as, I would guess, (after some threshold that provokes government’s action (maybe not before)) the greater the number of protesters, the lesser average danger an individual faces (as the perimeter (i.e. the most dangerous place) of the geometric shape of the crowd probably grows slower than the area (the number of them)). Furthermore, the bigger the crowd, the harder it is to track their identities, and they might also expect that the government might be unwilling to punish all of them (rather than just the leaders and a small number of others). In addition to that, the greater proportion of population joins these protests, the greater peer pressure for others to join as well. I would guess that once the most risking taking individuals start everything, it becomes easier for others, who support them, but wouldn’t start the protest themselves.
Protesting can be an end in itself; political action can be self-actualizing.
There’s a whole mythologized tradition of protest. It’s also an intense social activity.
Also you are likely to treat differently negative consequences that you expect, but consider to be unjustly imposed by others. Again, defying these consequences and those who impose them is a powerful end.
Perhaps they don’t overcome them very well; maybe the optimal number of protesters is much higher than the actual number, but a lot of would-be protesters stay home.
Is this a case of irrationality giving the protesters an advantage, or are there private gains for the protesters?
I think it’s mostly the former (“fuck it” is an awesome superpower), but some protesters probably have gains in terms of status and reputation. Plus the leaders might be making a bet that if mainland China decides to throw some carrots at them, they’ll be in a good position to grab them.
Throwing the steering wheel out of the car while playing a game of chicken = clever. Throwing out the steering wheel AND cutting the break fluid tube—less clever.
Single causes are elusive, obviously, but every friend/relative of mine who joined did share at least one quality: they felt that they were unskilled in formulating goals and then pursuing them. They hoped that the military would provide a (socially vindicated) goal, and further that it would help them gain experience in the generally useful skills of planning and execution.
Basically, they thought that time in the military was a way to beat akrasia in a permanent way. Note that recruiting efforts often advertise this as a primary benefit.
Poorly, in my anecdotal examples. The military does seem to have developed some effective ways to build Awesomeness while in the military (evidence available to me includes productive occupation, sustained physical fitness, and proactive social behaviors), but they depend on participation in the military hierarchy to sustain those behaviors. After leaving that hierarchy, one of my friends spent the next year unemployed and working his way through every horror movie on Netflix; another spent four years getting a PhD in underwater archaeology that she decided not to use. Statistically, veterans are unemployed at higher than national averages in the United States- although I suppose there are multiple reasons we might expect that to be true.
How are the Hong Kong protesters able to overcome their collective action problems? The marginal value of one extra protester in terms of changing what’s going to happen via China has to be close to zero, yet each protester faces serious risk of death or suffering long term negative consequences because they have to expect that China is carefully keeping track of who is participating. Is this a case of irrationality giving the protesters an advantage, or are there private gains for the protesters?
Robin Hanson claims aside, some people want to make the world a better place. If someone is always cynical they will often be wrong about things like this (though to be fair they’d probably do well on average)
Anger is an evolved adaptation for pre-commitment. Protesters may not be performing a cost-benefit.
I think you’re overestimating the risks they face.
Something like “safety in numbers” effect, as, I would guess, (after some threshold that provokes government’s action (maybe not before)) the greater the number of protesters, the lesser average danger an individual faces (as the perimeter (i.e. the most dangerous place) of the geometric shape of the crowd probably grows slower than the area (the number of them)). Furthermore, the bigger the crowd, the harder it is to track their identities, and they might also expect that the government might be unwilling to punish all of them (rather than just the leaders and a small number of others). In addition to that, the greater proportion of population joins these protests, the greater peer pressure for others to join as well. I would guess that once the most risking taking individuals start everything, it becomes easier for others, who support them, but wouldn’t start the protest themselves.
Protesting can be an end in itself; political action can be self-actualizing.
There’s a whole mythologized tradition of protest. It’s also an intense social activity.
Also you are likely to treat differently negative consequences that you expect, but consider to be unjustly imposed by others. Again, defying these consequences and those who impose them is a powerful end.
Perhaps they don’t overcome them very well; maybe the optimal number of protesters is much higher than the actual number, but a lot of would-be protesters stay home.
I think it’s mostly the former (“fuck it” is an awesome superpower), but some protesters probably have gains in terms of status and reputation. Plus the leaders might be making a bet that if mainland China decides to throw some carrots at them, they’ll be in a good position to grab them.
Not if it causes you to drive while drunk, texting, and not wearing a seat-belt. Then it’s a cognitive disability.
Alternative metaphor:
Throwing the steering wheel out of the car while playing a game of chicken = clever. Throwing out the steering wheel AND cutting the break fluid tube—less clever.
Superpowers, of course, can be used for both good and evil :-P
I am sure you are well acquainted with the power of irrationality in negotiations and other gaming scenarios.
And some people are looking for adventure or serious danger.
Street protests as an extreme sport? :-) Yes, I agree, some people are probably looking for excitement.
So to enhance your sex appeal.
The negative response might be due to this.
Why do people join the military?
Single causes are elusive, obviously, but every friend/relative of mine who joined did share at least one quality: they felt that they were unskilled in formulating goals and then pursuing them. They hoped that the military would provide a (socially vindicated) goal, and further that it would help them gain experience in the generally useful skills of planning and execution.
Basically, they thought that time in the military was a way to beat akrasia in a permanent way. Note that recruiting efforts often advertise this as a primary benefit.
How did this work out for them?
Poorly, in my anecdotal examples. The military does seem to have developed some effective ways to build Awesomeness while in the military (evidence available to me includes productive occupation, sustained physical fitness, and proactive social behaviors), but they depend on participation in the military hierarchy to sustain those behaviors. After leaving that hierarchy, one of my friends spent the next year unemployed and working his way through every horror movie on Netflix; another spent four years getting a PhD in underwater archaeology that she decided not to use. Statistically, veterans are unemployed at higher than national averages in the United States- although I suppose there are multiple reasons we might expect that to be true.
Ok, deciding not to use it is suboptimal, but getting a PhD in four years is pretty impressive in itself.
Depends where. 3-4 years is standard in the UK, for example.
This was the united states, so four years was fairly quick.
For some patriotism, but even without this the pay and benefits can make joining your military a rational, self-interested decision.