Analyze the free-riding problem in human society through the 20% rule of ant society, apply the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis and the communication hypothesis to solve the free-riding problem in group activities, and discuss the meaning and reasons for a good life.
In a scientific experiment with ants, the 20% rule was discovered. It states that in an ant society, 20% of the ants do 80% of the work, and the remaining 80% of the ants do 20% of the work. Even more interestingly, if you take the top 20% of hardworking ants, only 20% of them will work hard. Even in ant society, which is synonymous with hard work, there is free riding.
Just like ants, there are different types of people in human society. Extroverts and introverts, selfish and selfless people coexist. The science and technology writing course at Seoul National University also involves collaborating with various people to write papers and conduct research. One of the problems that often arises in group activities in universities is the problem of free riding. Ideally, everyone works hard and produces the best results, but free riders are those who try to take advantage of others’ hard work and do nothing themselves. In this article, we’ll discuss how to solve the free-rider problem in group activities and, by extension, why we should do the right thing in life in general. All of this discussion will be based on several hypotheses that explain human altruism.
The first way we can think about stopping free-riding is through the iteration-reciprocity hypothesis. The repetition-reciprocity hypothesis can be summarized by the phrase “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. This hypothesis states that the possibility of retaliation exists between people. Initially, everyone acts cooperatively, but if the other party acts selfishly, they retaliate with an equally uncooperative behavior. There are two limitations to this hypothesis. First, when both parties recognize that the relationship is not sustainable, and second, when multiple people are involved in a task and it is not possible to know who is getting a free ride. If you know the relationship isn’t going to last, you’ll look out for your own interests over time. Also, if you don’t know who is free-riding, you may sabotage a joint effort to get back at a free-rider you don’t know well. Retaliation reduces the public good, which in turn reduces their own good.
Let’s apply this hypothesis to a real-world situation. Initially, everyone is cooperative, but if someone tries to get a free ride early on, they will be retaliated against consistently. This retaliation could be in the form of a lower rating on the group evaluation at the end of the semester, or in the form of continued pressure from the group. In group activities, it’s impossible to know who got a free ride, so you can retaliate by pointing fingers. Even if you know that you won’t see them again once the semester is over, the end-of-semester group evaluations will keep you on your toes, so retaliating against the free-rider in a tangible way can be the first step in solving the problem. This would require a significant increase in the percentage of the end-of-semester assessment that counts for credit. However, there are some people for whom low grades are not a big deal, so this retribution may not be a big deal. To address the problem of free riding for these people, we propose the following method.
The second method comes from the communication hypothesis. To illustrate this hypothesis, we present an experiment. It’s a game version of the tragedy of the commons, where people take as much of a public resource as they want. If you take a large amount of the resource, the amount you get depends on how much other people choose to take. If you take a large amount while everyone else takes a small amount, you can maximize your gain. But if everyone takes a lot, you get less. If you take a small amount and everyone else takes a small amount, you get a satisfactory, if not maximized, gain. After playing this game about 10 times, people discuss their behavior. The results were surprising. People who discussed their behavior cut the amount of resources they took by more than half. No penalties or retribution were introduced, but the mere discussion pushed everyone in the right direction. The effect was even better with each round of discussion. This experiment shows how important discussion and communication between people is.
Let’s apply this to a real-life situation. Your group communicates frequently and discusses paper writing and research. It’s not just about retaliating against someone, it’s about discussing the ideal behavior to achieve a good outcome for everyone. Considering that people made the right choices even when the choices were kept secret, as in the experiment above, it’s likely that group activities where the free-riders are known would be more effective. In other words, another way to address the problem of free-riding is through frequent discussion and debate.
So far, we’ve been thinking about free-riding from a narrow perspective. Let’s expand this to answer the question, “Do we really have a reason to live right?” in the real world. The above methods are not reasons to live right, but rather a list of things we can do to live right. So, what are the reasons we should live right? First, let’s define what a righteous life is. Righteousness is not about being good to others to your own detriment, but about benefiting others without harming yourself. It’s a win-win situation where you benefit and they benefit. There is no wrong way to live. However, there may come a time when someone has to lose out. In this case, we can only appeal to our personal morality, and if retaliation doesn’t work and communication doesn’t resolve the disagreement, there is no reason to do the right thing. There is no reason to live right in unforced situations, except when forced by law or rule.
So far, we’ve discussed how to solve the free-rider problem in the group assignment, what the rationale is, and by extension, why we should live right. Based on the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis, we said that the free-rider problem can be solved by applying firm retaliation, and based on the communication hypothesis, we said that frequent discussion and consultation can help solve the problem. If we define right living as coexisting with each other and benefiting from each other without harming each other, I think there are enough reasons to live right. However, if we deviate from this definition and someone is necessarily harmed, there is no reason to live rightly. Of course, each person’s definition of right living is different, and there may be people who put others first, even if they suffer losses, but this is part of their choice, and there is no reason to sacrifice for others.
