Fuel for Thought by James Surowiecki

...
What’s happening here? Back in the nineteen-seventies, an economist
named Thomas Schelling, who later won the Nobel Prize, noticed
something peculiar about the N.H.L. At the time, players were allowed,
but not required, to wear helmets, and most players chose to go
helmet-less, despite the risk of severe head trauma. But when they were
asked in secret ballots most players also said that the league should
require them to wear helmets. The reason for this conflict, Schelling
explained, was that not wearing a helmet conferred a slight advantage
on the ice; crucially, it gave the player better peripheral vision, and
it also made him look fearless. The players wanted to have their heads
protected, but as individuals they couldn’t afford to jeopardize their
effectiveness on the ice. Making helmets compulsory eliminated the
dilemma: the players could protect their heads without suffering a
competitive disadvantage. Without the rule, the players’ individually
rational decisions added up to a collectively irrational result. With
the rule, the outcome was closer to what players really wanted.
...
New Yorker

Powered by ScribeFire.