Reply to Emotional Labor - a good read for men AND women

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

Reply to "Emotional Labor - a good read for men AND women"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I'm not the PP to whom you respond, but in game theory, [b]the model is more generally applicable in terms of "cooperating" or "defecting"[/b].  In this way the prisoner's dilemma is more generally applicable to a wide range of situations beyond the plea deal dilemma described in the original prisoner's dilemma.  If you think about it, parenting is a bit like a prisoner's dilemma in terms of decisions to cooperate or defect.........[/quote]

I understand, but I think if you view the choice of possible responses to either cooperating or defecting (versus sitting on your hands or just doing the level that suits you) then you are giving into a [i]false[/i] dilemma.  In this case it implies you either "cooperate" (do what your spouse wants) or "sabotage" (undermine what they want)...and even that is, at best, a tortured fit of the model to the circumstances.  Nevermind that the reward structures are completely wrong as well.  There are plenty of alternative options here: clean, but maybe not as much as your spouse wants.  Be willing to accompany spouse (and children) to church, but don't take the responsibility for getting the kids ready; you could agree that, despite being an atheist yourself, you're willing to compromise and allow the children to attend Church..see, very quickly the artificial constraints fall away.

There are certainly situations where there are mutually exclusive choices to be made about parenting, but how much to act as go-between for the ILs and DH isn't one of them; neither is how much tidying/cleaning you do.  None of these "emotional labor" examples are mutually exclusive choices.  [/quote]

No gaming model is perfect.  But, consider a new game invented after Prisoner's Dilemma.  The new game is called, "Feed the Baby".  Parent A and Parent B have a baby that must be fed regularly.  Feeding the baby takes 1 parental unit of labor.  Parent A and Parent B can cooperate to feed the baby and it would cost each  parent 1/2 a unit of parental labor.  Parent A or B can refuse to feed the baby, in which case the other parent might decide to feed the baby anyway or the other parent might not decide to feed the baby.  If one parent decides to defects/refuses to feed the baby, and the other parent cooperates/feeds the baby, it costs the feeding parent 1 unit of parental labor and it costs the defecting parent nothing in terms of labor.  If both parents decide to refuse/defect, then the baby doesn't get fed and the both parents suffer the worst outcome -- baby dies of hunger.

Now, in a rational world, each parent looks to minimize their input -- so each parent is more motivated to choose to refuse/defect because it costs them the least amount of labor and the baby dies, even though both parents could have chosen to cooperate for a slightly higher cost per parent in terms of labor and a much better outcome (no dead baby).

Now, put a more realistic layer of social conditioning on this game.  No one wants their baby to die or become malnourished, so neither parent is likely to let the game go to the point where it's clear that both parents refuse to feed the baby.  Also add the fact that Parent A has a whole set of societal consequences/pressures to not feeding the baby that Parent B does not experience.  This makes the cost of Parent A's refusal to feed the baby quite high, regardless of what Parent B does.  By contrast, there is little to no societal pressure on Parent B to feed the baby.  This means Parent B can basically calculate the choice as, "I can expend some energy and feed the baby, or I can expend zero energy and it's highly likely that Parent A feeds the baby anyway at no cost to me."  The outcome is that Parent B doesn't choose to feed the baby and Parent A does anyway.

Over time, the game is played repeatedly, and Parent B increasingly chooses the refuse/defect option.  Parent A is now trapped into feeding the baby all the time.  Parent A now tries to come up with a strategy to increase the consequences for refusal to cooperate by Parent B.  Maybe Parent A starts to nag Parent B.  Or Parent A becomes bitchy.  Or Parent A decides on nights when Parent A has to get up to feed the baby, there will be no sex that week for Parent B, which Parent B really likes.  Parent A is simply trying different strategies to shift the cost/benefit relationship in a way that motivates Parent B to increasingly decide to share the labor.

Is this sounding familiar to anyone?

BTW, there's also another game called "Change the Diaper".

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics