Research suggests that having more knowledge can sometimes have negative consequences when individuals prioritize their own interests instead of considering what’s best for the group.
The researchers explain that even in a group of logical individuals, increased knowledge can lead to unintended results. They argue that having better information about a situation—like understanding the benefits of wearing face masks to prevent illness—can actually reduce cooperation among individuals focused solely on their own interests.
“We generally believe that a scientific advancement that enhances our understanding of the world is always beneficial,” Basu noted. “However, our research indicates that in reality, where many people are trying to succeed individually or in small groups, this assumption may not be accurate. Science might not be the universal solution we think it is.”
Basu and Weibull support their argument by using a theoretical two-player Base Game model, demonstrating how the “knowledge curse” can emerge when only a few individuals are initially aware of the increased knowledge.
In this Base Game, each player has two potential actions. The combinations of these actions produce four sets of expected outcomes that aim to maximize each player’s benefits.
However, if new options are introduced that allow for the possibility of one player receiving nothing while the other gains a small benefit, the appeal of a mutual small gain increases. This situation mirrors the Prisoner’s Dilemma, where two “prisoners” must decide whether to cooperate for mutual advantage or betray each other for individual gain. Essentially, more “knowledge” can result in less favorable outcomes overall.
The study goes on to reveal that a scientific advancement that enhances players’ understanding of outcomes without providing new options can actually lead to worse situations for the players involved.
The authors apply their theoretical insights to real-life scenarios, such as creating policies without fully understanding the complexities of an issue. For example, drafting a country’s constitution requires foresight into potential future problems under various unforeseen circumstances. The authors state, “Such preemptive laws have brought significant advantages to humanity.”
“This paradoxical outcome emphasizes the need for policymakers and individuals alike to consider proactive measures, agreements, and ethical commitments that we should adopt to prevent potential disasters caused by future scientific developments,” Basu explained.
“While science can offer tremendous advantages, we need protective measures,” he added. “What those measures might be is unclear, but our paper highlights the importance of being aware of this issue.”
This research received funding from the Jan Wallander and Tom Hedelius Foundation.
