Tribute to John Nash (Bollywood Ishtyle)
Finally, I got the time to write a blog.
Disclaimer : All the comparisons and statements given in this article are light-hearted comments and has nothing to do with the original work of these two legends. And moreover these are being given by an immature person who knows little about economics or application of mathematics in economics.
Adam Smith, I first came across this name in 2003. I was watching Beautiful Mind and the ever charming hero John Nash (Russell Crowe) concludes in one of the scenes that Adam Smith was wrong. I perfectly understood that Adam Smith was a legend but I didn’t care to get any more information about him.
To give you a background about the scene that I am talking about :
A blonde comes into a bar with her friends. Nash’s friends, as usual, come to him and start bullying him. But finally all of them notice that the blonde is looking towards Nash and that’s when you can see sparkle in Nash’s eye. Of course, not because of the blonde but because of his brilliant idea. I am saying it brilliant because I am going to use this idea as my reference for comparison with Adam Smith’s idea. Anyways, the dialogs go as below :
Sol: Nobody move...She's looking over here…She's looking at Nash.
Hansen: Oh, God. He may have the upper hand now, but wait until he opens his mouth. (Laughing) Remember the last time?
Bender: Oh, yes, that was one for the history books.
Hansen : Recall the lessons of Adam Smith, the father of modern economics.
"In competition...individual ambition serves the common good."
- Exactly.
- Every man for himself, gentlemen.
Bender: And those who strike out are stuck with her friends.
Hansen. I'm not gonna strike out.
Sol. You can lead a blonde to water, but you can't make her drink.
Nash : Adam Smith needs revision.
Hansen : What are you talking about?
Nash : If we all go for the blonde...we block each other. Not a single one of us is gonna get her. So then we go for her friends, but they will all give us the cold shoulder because nobody likes to be second choice. Well, what if no one goes for the blonde?
We don't get in each other's way, and we don't insult the other girls.
That's the only way we win. That's the only way we all get laid.
(Laughs)
Adam Smith said the best result comes from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself, right? That's what he said, right?
Others : Right.
Nash : Incomplete.
Incomplete, okay?
Because the best result will come...from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself...and the group.
Hansen : Nash, if this is some way for you to get the blonde on your own, you can go to hell.
Nash: Governing dynamics gentlemen. Governing dynamics. Adam Smith...was wrong.
Nash leaves the bar.
I was able to hear about Adam Smith recently again and it just reminded me of the movie. I tried to search Nash’s papers and theories but I could not really get this idea but lets assume that this is for real and Nash has worked on this part.
Now, the background is set and I am about to compare these two legendary ideas with reference to Bollywood movies. Yes, Bollywood movies, because these movies have everything in them which may just help us to get more insight about this competition and common good.
And effectively we are going to compare the following two theories:
Adam Smith : Individual ambition and selfish motives serves the common good and brings out the best result.
John Nash : The best result will come from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself and the group.
1) Lagaan: Lets get into this great Oscar nominated movie. Organization can be considered as the village of Champaner and the common good would be to get tax free for next 3 years. According to Adam Smith, if every village person takes it as a competition and apply their own selfish motive, common good should be achieved.
Bhuvan and others worked for their selfish motives and it almost helped them to achieve the common good.
Lets take the case of Lakha. Yes, the person who was involved in the match fixing. Lakha’s selfish motive was to get Gauri as well as to be more famous in village than Bhuvan. And it could be seen in the movie that the common good could not be achieved in the first half. Adam Smith’s theory looks incomplete in this case
It was later in the movie when Lakha understood what is best for him as well as team when he helps the motive to be achieved. And Nash’s theory works out.
2) Rang De Basanti : No need of any introduction for this movie. This dialogue says it all “There are only two ways to live life: Tolerate things the way they are... Or, take responsibility to change them”. Here I may raise some controversial matters. Organization was definitely India. Common good was to free India from corruption.
All the characters worked with their own selfish motives to achieve common good. Yes, there were selfish motives behind their sacrifices which may not be the same as the common good. For eg: Sidhharth had the selfish motive of trying to get rid of his father’s sins, Soha had the selfish motive of getting tribute to her husband’s sacrifice, Sue had her own little motive of making the film throughout, Amir had his motive of helping Sue, Sharman had his motive of being with his friends come what may. However, at the end it was the common motive which was driving them.
Anyways, was the common good achieved? There wasn’t any flaw and all worked what was best for their own and team. At the end, it looks like generation has awakened. But in real life, when the same incident was happened due to the sacrifice of an IIM-A alumni to get rid of corruption, it helped little. It may be because every citizen has his/her selfish motive and they work whats best for themselves rather than team.
However I would not give a point to Adam smith or John Nash in this movie as I feel both the theories were not effective completely.
Lets end it at a happy note. The evergreen movie DDLJ. A perfect example:
3) Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayange : This movie makes life simple for us and I would like to ask you to apply adam smith’s and nash’s theories before moving further.
Organisation being Simran’s family (excluding Satish Shah’s family : this assumption ought to be here). Common good : Welfare of the family and happiness of each and every individual of the family.
Selfish motive of Raj (SRK) being marrying Simran and Selfish motive of Amrish puri being marrying his daughter to Kuljeet.
Applying Adam Smith’s theory here just means that both of these people have to act selfishly for their motives which clearly indicates that common good cannot be achieved in either case. Either Raj elopes with Simran leaving whole family shattered or Amrish Puri gets his selfish motive accomplished leaving behind Raj and Simran shattered.
Now lets apply John Nash’s revision to Adam Smith’s theory. Raj has to do what is best for himself and the team (family in this case). Raj does the same and decides not to elope with Simran. And finally everyone knows that it was a win-win situation for everyone.
So, conclusion is DDLJ was a straight adaptation from John Nash’s principle :)
Disclaimer : All the comparisons and statements given in this article are light-hearted comments and has nothing to do with the original work of these two legends. And moreover these are being given by an immature person who knows little about economics or application of mathematics in economics.
Adam Smith, I first came across this name in 2003. I was watching Beautiful Mind and the ever charming hero John Nash (Russell Crowe) concludes in one of the scenes that Adam Smith was wrong. I perfectly understood that Adam Smith was a legend but I didn’t care to get any more information about him.
To give you a background about the scene that I am talking about :
A blonde comes into a bar with her friends. Nash’s friends, as usual, come to him and start bullying him. But finally all of them notice that the blonde is looking towards Nash and that’s when you can see sparkle in Nash’s eye. Of course, not because of the blonde but because of his brilliant idea. I am saying it brilliant because I am going to use this idea as my reference for comparison with Adam Smith’s idea. Anyways, the dialogs go as below :
Sol: Nobody move...She's looking over here…She's looking at Nash.
Hansen: Oh, God. He may have the upper hand now, but wait until he opens his mouth. (Laughing) Remember the last time?
Bender: Oh, yes, that was one for the history books.
Hansen : Recall the lessons of Adam Smith, the father of modern economics.
"In competition...individual ambition serves the common good."
- Exactly.
- Every man for himself, gentlemen.
Bender: And those who strike out are stuck with her friends.
Hansen. I'm not gonna strike out.
Sol. You can lead a blonde to water, but you can't make her drink.
Nash : Adam Smith needs revision.
Hansen : What are you talking about?
Nash : If we all go for the blonde...we block each other. Not a single one of us is gonna get her. So then we go for her friends, but they will all give us the cold shoulder because nobody likes to be second choice. Well, what if no one goes for the blonde?
We don't get in each other's way, and we don't insult the other girls.
That's the only way we win. That's the only way we all get laid.
(Laughs)
Adam Smith said the best result comes from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself, right? That's what he said, right?
Others : Right.
Nash : Incomplete.
Incomplete, okay?
Because the best result will come...from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself...and the group.
Hansen : Nash, if this is some way for you to get the blonde on your own, you can go to hell.
Nash: Governing dynamics gentlemen. Governing dynamics. Adam Smith...was wrong.
Nash leaves the bar.
I was able to hear about Adam Smith recently again and it just reminded me of the movie. I tried to search Nash’s papers and theories but I could not really get this idea but lets assume that this is for real and Nash has worked on this part.
Now, the background is set and I am about to compare these two legendary ideas with reference to Bollywood movies. Yes, Bollywood movies, because these movies have everything in them which may just help us to get more insight about this competition and common good.
And effectively we are going to compare the following two theories:
Adam Smith : Individual ambition and selfish motives serves the common good and brings out the best result.
John Nash : The best result will come from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself and the group.
1) Lagaan: Lets get into this great Oscar nominated movie. Organization can be considered as the village of Champaner and the common good would be to get tax free for next 3 years. According to Adam Smith, if every village person takes it as a competition and apply their own selfish motive, common good should be achieved.
Bhuvan and others worked for their selfish motives and it almost helped them to achieve the common good.
Lets take the case of Lakha. Yes, the person who was involved in the match fixing. Lakha’s selfish motive was to get Gauri as well as to be more famous in village than Bhuvan. And it could be seen in the movie that the common good could not be achieved in the first half. Adam Smith’s theory looks incomplete in this case
It was later in the movie when Lakha understood what is best for him as well as team when he helps the motive to be achieved. And Nash’s theory works out.
2) Rang De Basanti : No need of any introduction for this movie. This dialogue says it all “There are only two ways to live life: Tolerate things the way they are... Or, take responsibility to change them”. Here I may raise some controversial matters. Organization was definitely India. Common good was to free India from corruption.
All the characters worked with their own selfish motives to achieve common good. Yes, there were selfish motives behind their sacrifices which may not be the same as the common good. For eg: Sidhharth had the selfish motive of trying to get rid of his father’s sins, Soha had the selfish motive of getting tribute to her husband’s sacrifice, Sue had her own little motive of making the film throughout, Amir had his motive of helping Sue, Sharman had his motive of being with his friends come what may. However, at the end it was the common motive which was driving them.
Anyways, was the common good achieved? There wasn’t any flaw and all worked what was best for their own and team. At the end, it looks like generation has awakened. But in real life, when the same incident was happened due to the sacrifice of an IIM-A alumni to get rid of corruption, it helped little. It may be because every citizen has his/her selfish motive and they work whats best for themselves rather than team.
However I would not give a point to Adam smith or John Nash in this movie as I feel both the theories were not effective completely.
Lets end it at a happy note. The evergreen movie DDLJ. A perfect example:
3) Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayange : This movie makes life simple for us and I would like to ask you to apply adam smith’s and nash’s theories before moving further.
Organisation being Simran’s family (excluding Satish Shah’s family : this assumption ought to be here). Common good : Welfare of the family and happiness of each and every individual of the family.
Selfish motive of Raj (SRK) being marrying Simran and Selfish motive of Amrish puri being marrying his daughter to Kuljeet.
Applying Adam Smith’s theory here just means that both of these people have to act selfishly for their motives which clearly indicates that common good cannot be achieved in either case. Either Raj elopes with Simran leaving whole family shattered or Amrish Puri gets his selfish motive accomplished leaving behind Raj and Simran shattered.
Now lets apply John Nash’s revision to Adam Smith’s theory. Raj has to do what is best for himself and the team (family in this case). Raj does the same and decides not to elope with Simran. And finally everyone knows that it was a win-win situation for everyone.
So, conclusion is DDLJ was a straight adaptation from John Nash’s principle :)
Finally, Nash scores 2/3 points in the 3 movies i have compared and Adam Smith Scores 0. It may be added here that Nash just revised Adam Smith's theory and hence Smith has to be given a lot of credit.
Comments regarding the flaws in the theory and some additons in the theory are welcome.
