Nash's Equillibrium says nothing about what's best for any group. It merely describes a situation in games that has become stable because both (or all) sides know that they have nothing to gain by changing the outcome.

To the extent our political situation looks like a Nash Equillibrium, it is an illusion. A few hundred powerful players have reached a near-equillibrium fighting each other, and they try to convince everyone else that it isn't worthwhile to fight the status quo. But the rest of us are screwed if we buy the lie.

To an astute, open-minded person, your definition of selfishness says it all. You go on to clarify every aspect of the incorrect use of the term, thus saving the time the intelligent reader needs to understand how use the word properly. An excellent expository essay.

Very good explanation of some of the problems with common language and perception. There is one flaw in this that I would like to be addressed though. That is the idea that your own self interest are always served by being good/fair to others. I am nearly 50 years old and one if the things I have grudgingly had to accept after many years of trying to deny it is that that most of the people that are very successful in this world are very selfish (in the traditionally destructive meaning)...but they are very good at making most people think they are great people. If you want proof the easiest thing is to look at the field of politics...but less obvious examples are everywhere. People that are recognized by the masses as destructive do destroy themselves, but the good ones can be incredibly destructive but convince the majority that they are wonderful loving people!

That being the case, I am a little lost with this whole selfishness is OK argument because while you can certainly be a good person while predominately looking out for your own self interest...it is not necessary. In fact, if you have the social tools you will be more successful by being destructive to others. So I seriously want to know how you can argue for selfishness unless you somehow condition it with the understanding that you will not be destructive to others regardless of whether or not it is in your long term interest. This is where the Libertarian philosophy seems clearer...there seems to be more of an understanding that you are free to do as you wish but only if it does not force others (I would consider deceptive destruction a type of force).

???

I appreciate your article! And I am very happy to be acquainted with this Objectivism For Intellectuals.

I found the opening analogy a little strange, but I understood what you were saying. One thing I've noticed about Ayn Rand is that she often writes in a very extreme way. Sometimes I think this is on purpose, to illustrate the extreme black/white nature of the issue. Sometimes I think it is just a writer's technique to get the reader's attention.

But from the beginning I noticed that she uses words differently than we, or at least I, commonly do (did). This includes value, virtue, morality, and of course, selfishness, I suspect even altruism. Probably others. I think this is probably what causes even many otherwise sympathetic readers to misunderstand and dismiss her. Unfortunately.

True enough...not everyone thinks clearly enough to realize what's in their own best interest. But that's also true of Objectivism and any other metric one brings to the table when human beings are involved.

Okay, but there are problems with using game theory to prove things about real human behavior outside of games.

1) Game theory tends to assume zero-sum and that the goal of people's behavior is "winning," rather than getting the most benefit for themselves, even if others get as much or more.

2) Experiments in game theory artificially restrict people's options, such that their behavior is not an accurate reflection of what it would be in the real world, with it's wide open options.

Thanks for posting my essay. I worked pretty hard on it and hopefully the analogy I use in the beginning will help many people, especially non-Objectivists, understand the issue more clearly.

The Nash Equilibrium states more or less the same thing. In non-cooperative endeavors, each of us acting in our own best interest (keeping in mind what is best for the others' self interest) IS what's best for the group.

I wonder why you've got to get to college before this is taught?