Football as tennis and like most competitive games is a zero sum game. I think that if Spain would propose would be a champion of cooperative games, ie they are not competitive, the non-zero-sum, ie those negative sum games in which one gains loses the other, so that the result is zero. However, we could train in positive-sum games. Why do I say this? Because it’s in our character, we like to play the lottery, football, to the pools, and because we are more than fans, if we did this we would win professionals, but we have to continue to participate in the entire European Union.
This blog has a lot of strength that comes from the Canary Islands, because they are dreaming more than others, not Sevilla precisely, but still, it is weak, you fall back on arguments to derogatory (not sure what that means for the prostitutes, and the fucking, it may be the way to argue in despair and I can not say anything). Or as our economist who continues to make technical and technocratic rather than person suffering itself.
Now they have discovered, however, that chimpanzees than humans are rational maximizers and social. What does this mean? So to say that men are not only prepared to care, so we are to cooperate.
But these cooperative sum games where everyone wins, it seems that chimpanzees beat us. They all players can win, provided they cooperate properly, but also have a guaranteed profit because whatever the outcome of the game, those involved in it have generated mutual trust, harmony, friendship ties and mutual credit. What is called “social capital” and invites them to continue cooperating to later games. Naturally seems much more rational to embark on this kind of games than others, who live in the conflict and enmity.
Economists have interpreted economic activity as if the protagonists were men endowed with maximizing rationality, which tries to make maximum profit at all costs, which fits very well with zero sum games.
But it happens that it is not in real life, it happens that more Partre of games we humans are cooperative games, and players they do not aspire to get the most, whoever falls, but are willing to content with the second option or the third option more desirable for everyone.
I’m getting these thoughts of the last book of Adela Cortina: “What is really ethical?”
The homos economicus should be replaced by homo reciprocans, for a man capable of giving and receiving, able to reciprocate, able to cooperate, and also moves also by instincts and emotions, and not only for the calculation of maximum utility .
It is the ultimatum game where the proposer tends to reject offers of less than 30% of the total, all-or zero because zero prefer to receive an amount humiliating. So humans in general act, so the proponents tend to suggest the 40 or 50% of total to win a part and do not run out.
But we are wrong in the game of life, I would say is that Spanish players are born, which is in our character, if we are educated in these cooperative games would be the number one in all the countries where we were (because Now we move), but still as justice feelings are part of economic affairs, let alone the ethical task, and who ignore this feeling just making plays terrible.
To make matters worse the Germans and the English, who are very competitive, they have never learned these games, we might have to teach, in that we are more generous and detached them, as are the filandeses, the Irish, and the of the Czech Republic, and some more. Note that Finland the best profession there is paid is teaching.
Human rationality is to maximize profit and better results than those who show such traits are more chimpanzees than humans. They really are rational optimizers, shared everything. Search the reasonable profit is more reasonable to seek the maximum, who falls.
The biological altruism exists, which I refuse to observer says economist and is an enigma from the point of view of adaptation is one of the great workhorses that Darwin was able to delay the onset of “The Origin of Species “.