“You and your accomplice have been caught red-handed. Together your best hope is to cooperate by remaining silent: You will each get off with a 30 day sentence. But either of you can do better for yourself: double-cross your partner and you will go free while he serves 10 years. The problem is, if you each betray the other, you will both go to prison - and not just for 30 days but for eight years.
When you think about it, you realize that no matter what your partner chooses, you are better off choosing betrayal. Unfortunately, he is aware of it too - so the inexorable tide of self-interest is bound to carry you both up the river for eight years. If only you could have cooperated...
That in a bitter nutshell, is the “prisoner’s dilemma.”
The words with which I began are from an article by James Gleicke in a recent issue of the The New York Times. He goes on to say...
“Half a game-theory paradox, half a behavioral metaphor, the prisoner’s dilemma has become a central model for psychologists, political scientists, biologists and economists trying to understand the dynamics of competition and - more important - cooperation.
Much of game theory devotes itself to a logic pursued for its own sake. The prisoner’s dilemma has proved a robust exception, finding unexpected applications far from its abstract origin. One reason is the simplicity of its basic message: that cooperation arises from a combination of restraint and retaliation. It is a game-theory modernization of the eye-for-an-eye rule.”
When I first read the article, it immediately crystallized for me what I wanted to say to you this morning, about some seemingly disparate concerns relating to the financial affairs of this little Association which is so large in all our lives.
The Prisoner’s Game model tells us - if we play it out - that the most effective thing for us to do now is accept the decision made and the action taken - (I think it safe to say there is no sentiment in numbers among us to reverse it) - the most effective thing to do is to accept the decision and go forward from there in a spirit of cooperation about the continued fight against the repressive government of South Africa.
You may say, of course, but some in our community are carping at this action.
- Implying that all of the possible positive and negative problems in carrying out divestiture were not adequately considered by the Board ahead of time.
- Implying that we did not realize ahead of time that South Africa related company securities tend to have better track records that those of non-SAR companies in which we would be limited in investing.
- Implying that if the General Assembly had decided the issue, divestiture would not have been voted.
These statements are false and misleading to those not familiar with the decision making process as it actually unfolded, and do no honor to those who publish and circulate them. Neither do they serve the cause of respect for the diversity which encompasses those of conservative political and fiscal perspectives -- among whom I number myself.
I spoke at some length in my report last year about how your Board of Trustees arrived at its decision to divest completely of South Africa related stocks. Our ultimate conclusion was, as a religious institution, we needed to make a clear and unequivocal statement about apartheid - no percentage of the way, no adherence to business principles in the face of the greater reality of discrimination - a focus of the investment community in the world of charitable, religious and other nonprofit institutions, and in society in general on a world wide basis - yes, the holding of securities doing business in South Africa.
Cooperation, friends: the battle is fought; the battle is over.
Showing posts with label 1985-Rochester. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1985-Rochester. Show all posts
Rochester II
One form of cooperation - let me read from the Minister’s Column in a local church news letter:
“I believe our national association has done the right thing. Some response was necessary, and it’s hard to see what other meaningful response could have been made. If the response made wasn’t some sort of a sacrifice, it really wouldn’t have been impressive as moral witnesses go. I feel it is important every Unitarian Universalist know what we have done because of apartheid through the the Unitarian Universalist Association, and to remember it as one writes one’s pledge check. Moral witness does require some sacrifice.” The Rev. Dr. C. Scott Giles.
There is a great deal more to be said about divestment than can be covered from this platform today - although I thought other gentleman who spoke to the subject this morning said it well. To make possible more exchange of information and dialogues, Loretta Williams, UUA Director of Social Responsibility, and I are conducting a workshop this afternoon on the message and the mechanics of divestment.
Now I know it is easy to talk about cooperation when it appears to be a way of suggesting those who disagree with me should go along. So maybe this is the moment at which we should talk about field services. Those who heard these remarks two years ago in Columbus may recall I criticized the process by which the new field services program was conceived and designed and the way the delivery system was organized. In addition, I had a number of reservations about the funding mechanism, short term and long term. The Board, as it feels quite free to do, did not see it my way and the new program was approved as proposed by the Administration. I wasn’t the only one who was not entirely convinced, and some legitimate questions are still being raised as the program is being implemented in the various districts.
The districts have to believe it before it will work without disproportionate reliance on the UUA Budget. But - it can reasonably be believed and it can work.
Do I think my approach would have been better? It doesn’t really matter, does it? Respect for the worth and dignity of every person and commitment to use the democratic process means we all have to respect the beliefs of those with whom we disagree as much - maybe more - after they have won the vote than we did before.
However, we have made our decision. More important, we have set it in motion. It may never be perfect, but it is working in a significant number of our districts and in the near future, will be working in someway, virtually across the continent. The financial concerns have not gone away and probably never will - but are far enough along the way so that we can see a financial plan that can work.
Little good for the greater institution will come of continuing to pick at this program, of seeking special advantages or treatment for our districts, of focusing on parochial district concerns. The Prison’s Dilemma here is easily resolved by cooperation.
Build a sense of district, build an allegiance to the Association, make the financial commitment locally, and the program will succeed.
“I believe our national association has done the right thing. Some response was necessary, and it’s hard to see what other meaningful response could have been made. If the response made wasn’t some sort of a sacrifice, it really wouldn’t have been impressive as moral witnesses go. I feel it is important every Unitarian Universalist know what we have done because of apartheid through the the Unitarian Universalist Association, and to remember it as one writes one’s pledge check. Moral witness does require some sacrifice.” The Rev. Dr. C. Scott Giles.
There is a great deal more to be said about divestment than can be covered from this platform today - although I thought other gentleman who spoke to the subject this morning said it well. To make possible more exchange of information and dialogues, Loretta Williams, UUA Director of Social Responsibility, and I are conducting a workshop this afternoon on the message and the mechanics of divestment.
Now I know it is easy to talk about cooperation when it appears to be a way of suggesting those who disagree with me should go along. So maybe this is the moment at which we should talk about field services. Those who heard these remarks two years ago in Columbus may recall I criticized the process by which the new field services program was conceived and designed and the way the delivery system was organized. In addition, I had a number of reservations about the funding mechanism, short term and long term. The Board, as it feels quite free to do, did not see it my way and the new program was approved as proposed by the Administration. I wasn’t the only one who was not entirely convinced, and some legitimate questions are still being raised as the program is being implemented in the various districts.
The districts have to believe it before it will work without disproportionate reliance on the UUA Budget. But - it can reasonably be believed and it can work.
Do I think my approach would have been better? It doesn’t really matter, does it? Respect for the worth and dignity of every person and commitment to use the democratic process means we all have to respect the beliefs of those with whom we disagree as much - maybe more - after they have won the vote than we did before.
However, we have made our decision. More important, we have set it in motion. It may never be perfect, but it is working in a significant number of our districts and in the near future, will be working in someway, virtually across the continent. The financial concerns have not gone away and probably never will - but are far enough along the way so that we can see a financial plan that can work.
Little good for the greater institution will come of continuing to pick at this program, of seeking special advantages or treatment for our districts, of focusing on parochial district concerns. The Prison’s Dilemma here is easily resolved by cooperation.
Build a sense of district, build an allegiance to the Association, make the financial commitment locally, and the program will succeed.
Rochester III
And now, in a new key, we have made an enormous financial commitment to a new hymnal. We knew, without asking, that our constituency was ready for new words and music, new forms of worship, and a full selection of gender respectful material. Surveys we did pre-Visions for Growth indicated potential financial support.
Consider the fiscal facts: unless we are all going up the river together for a long time, we really need to cooperate on this one. I am sure the Committee will give everyone a chance to be heard. And then, being human, they will bring back to us a book that will look to some like a compromise -- and some will want more of the paperback supplements, and some won’t like the new book because it is (or isn’t) loose-leaf, etc. etc.
We have to work at this ahead of time, to share, to own by our own participation what is created, to avoid what Clifton Fadiman once referred to as “Man’s painful desire to communicate without coalescing.” We must do this or we will have not a liturgical, but a financial disaster on our hands.
Now where is the most significant area touching our finances in which we, as committed co-religionists can cooperate?
The Annual Program Fund furnishes about 40% of our budgeted income. But every year we have to do it again. The only limitation we place on the future growth and potential of this association is the limitation we place on our giving to the Annual Program Fund.
I say it every year -- it is no less true for the repetition -- this Association has the resources to do whatever it wants to do. If the aggregate time and energy put into, say, this General Assembly, were replicated in a great cooperative effort by all of us to support the Annual Program Fund when we returned to our congregations, the UUA could truly do wondrous things. Think about it!
Remember, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is an illustration having meaning not only for the bad buys sorting out their potential sentences, but for all of us --
- Struggling for recognition
- Making known our concerns for our cherished causes
- Competing to prevail over others for the things we believe most of the time, in fact, trying to do the good, the right.
Oliver Goldsmith said, “It is difficult to induce a number of free beings to cooperate for their mutual benefit.”
Consider the fiscal facts: unless we are all going up the river together for a long time, we really need to cooperate on this one. I am sure the Committee will give everyone a chance to be heard. And then, being human, they will bring back to us a book that will look to some like a compromise -- and some will want more of the paperback supplements, and some won’t like the new book because it is (or isn’t) loose-leaf, etc. etc.
We have to work at this ahead of time, to share, to own by our own participation what is created, to avoid what Clifton Fadiman once referred to as “Man’s painful desire to communicate without coalescing.” We must do this or we will have not a liturgical, but a financial disaster on our hands.
Now where is the most significant area touching our finances in which we, as committed co-religionists can cooperate?
The Annual Program Fund furnishes about 40% of our budgeted income. But every year we have to do it again. The only limitation we place on the future growth and potential of this association is the limitation we place on our giving to the Annual Program Fund.
I say it every year -- it is no less true for the repetition -- this Association has the resources to do whatever it wants to do. If the aggregate time and energy put into, say, this General Assembly, were replicated in a great cooperative effort by all of us to support the Annual Program Fund when we returned to our congregations, the UUA could truly do wondrous things. Think about it!
Remember, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is an illustration having meaning not only for the bad buys sorting out their potential sentences, but for all of us --
- Struggling for recognition
- Making known our concerns for our cherished causes
- Competing to prevail over others for the things we believe most of the time, in fact, trying to do the good, the right.
Oliver Goldsmith said, “It is difficult to induce a number of free beings to cooperate for their mutual benefit.”
Rochester IV
Now for the next application of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. We have made our decision. There was certainly room for honest and principled difference of opinion about the probable ultimate cost, about the effectiveness against apartheid, about the impact on black South Africans - and no one of us has to change his or her mind about these matters.
Let me quote again from the Gleick article - he is referring to a game theory model employed at a recent Harvard symposium at which psychologists and economists discussed ways to quantify decision making.
“The real power of the Prisoner’s Dilemma model comes when the subjects play not once but many times, what is known as the iterated prisoners dilemma. In a standard version, subjects play for points, paired under the supervision of a psychologist.
“Over the long run, both subjects will do best to cooperate every time. Yet in any one round, not knowing what the opponent will do, each subject has an overpowering temptation to betray the other, or defect.”
No principled prose without consequences. And so, after weighing carefully over two meetings, the arguments for and against, the Board voted to divest.
What will the cost of this be? The aggregate cost will never be known because its major component is based on a comparison of how the securities we sold will perform over time, versus how the securities we bought to replace them will perform. For portfolios in which changes are being made constantly, this is a comparison which can never be made with any certainty. There are too many variables as to issues and timing. I have seen no end of studies on this subject. They all lack one thing - the ability to see into the future - only the future will tell us which portfolios will achieve relative success and which will not.
I said in the letter I wrote last fall to each congregation (explaining the action taken and the reasoning -- as well as some of my own agonies in arriving at and voting for that decision) that I believed, in addition to transaction costs, we might expect to realize some $150,000 to $300,000 less each year. This was only an estimate, an informed guess, we may do better. We shall have to see.
The actual cost of the divestiture process itself, in my opinion, approximated $600,000 about 1.5% of invested assets. This is higher than we expected because we were out of the market for brief periods in October of 1985 while divesting and shifting to new managers, all while the market was moving sharply upward.
Let me close by asking you to join in a few moments of consideration and aspiration. We have the leadership of the Association together in this room.
We hold close our shared commitment to this institution. We value each person who when added together by congregations makes up our small numbers
But let us not allow that spirit to rise which seeks advantage at the possible expense of another.
We do need to engender a spirit of cooperation in matters touching not only our finances, but all of our institutional life - not because game theory says in the long run, we all win that way.
We need that spirit because it honors us as religious persons and honors our stated and felt principles.
So let our process be:
Diversity:Consideration
Discussion:Commitment
Debate:Contention
Decision:Cooperation
Let me quote again from the Gleick article - he is referring to a game theory model employed at a recent Harvard symposium at which psychologists and economists discussed ways to quantify decision making.
“The real power of the Prisoner’s Dilemma model comes when the subjects play not once but many times, what is known as the iterated prisoners dilemma. In a standard version, subjects play for points, paired under the supervision of a psychologist.
“Over the long run, both subjects will do best to cooperate every time. Yet in any one round, not knowing what the opponent will do, each subject has an overpowering temptation to betray the other, or defect.”
No principled prose without consequences. And so, after weighing carefully over two meetings, the arguments for and against, the Board voted to divest.
What will the cost of this be? The aggregate cost will never be known because its major component is based on a comparison of how the securities we sold will perform over time, versus how the securities we bought to replace them will perform. For portfolios in which changes are being made constantly, this is a comparison which can never be made with any certainty. There are too many variables as to issues and timing. I have seen no end of studies on this subject. They all lack one thing - the ability to see into the future - only the future will tell us which portfolios will achieve relative success and which will not.
I said in the letter I wrote last fall to each congregation (explaining the action taken and the reasoning -- as well as some of my own agonies in arriving at and voting for that decision) that I believed, in addition to transaction costs, we might expect to realize some $150,000 to $300,000 less each year. This was only an estimate, an informed guess, we may do better. We shall have to see.
The actual cost of the divestiture process itself, in my opinion, approximated $600,000 about 1.5% of invested assets. This is higher than we expected because we were out of the market for brief periods in October of 1985 while divesting and shifting to new managers, all while the market was moving sharply upward.
Let me close by asking you to join in a few moments of consideration and aspiration. We have the leadership of the Association together in this room.
We hold close our shared commitment to this institution. We value each person who when added together by congregations makes up our small numbers
But let us not allow that spirit to rise which seeks advantage at the possible expense of another.
We do need to engender a spirit of cooperation in matters touching not only our finances, but all of our institutional life - not because game theory says in the long run, we all win that way.
We need that spirit because it honors us as religious persons and honors our stated and felt principles.
So let our process be:
Diversity:Consideration
Discussion:Commitment
Debate:Contention
Decision:Cooperation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)