
Game Theory Calls Cooperation into Question - etr71115
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/game-theory-calls-cooperation-into-question1/
======
nosuchthing
Pack animals like dogs naturally discourage fighting amongst themselves [1].
Strife weakens the pack.

Consider the effort it takes 1 person to build a house, or the amount of
effort it would take to build an mp3 player alone from scratch.

Game theory would have you believe the optimal way to win at poker is to booby
trap the card table and rob your competition.

Another theory suggests altruism ultimately trumps selfishness within species,
as aggressive warlike creatures would kill each other off ad-infinitum, where
as cooperation ultimately strengthens individuals beyond the sum of their
parts. [2]

All things considered in earthly biology, the cooperation amongst all the
various living cells and organs that make up life in a single creature shows
something to the efforts of collaboration vs the race to the bottom of virus &
parasitic behavior.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hstLdzCg6l8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hstLdzCg6l8)

[2] [http://www.radiolab.org/story/103951-the-good-
show/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/103951-the-good-show/)

~~~
electromagnetic
I think the flaws in the thinking with these studies that try to test
altruism, and other "odd" behaviours according to Game Theory is that we've
become so far removed from where these behaviours originally evolved.

The aberration is that we live in densely populated areas where selfishness is
a possible behaviour.

Our social-limit is estimated at around 500 people. Surnames developed around
the 13th century in Britain, before that it was patronyms meaning we could
recognise people via association. This is still common in rural areas, my
wife's grandfather likes to travel to car shows, he's told people down in the
US to just ask for him by name. He lives in a rural part of Canada and sure
enough, people will reach him because everyone knows him.

Altruism works, because for the majority of human history the people you chose
to help or not to help were also the people who would sooner or later face the
same decision. One instance of uncooperative behaviour would render you
persona non grata. Your neighbour needs help thatching his roof after a storm,
do you help? Game Theory keeps saying "no, because you could steal his land!"
reality says "yes, because if he doesn't die from exposure, which he most
likely won't, then he won't help you round up your goats when your fence
breaks and they'll eat all your crops and you'll likely starve to death in the
winter".

The simple fact is most people are willing to do "favours" with no questions
asked, and with no expectation of payment except "being owed one". The classic
is helping a friend move. There's absolutely no reason to help someone move,
until you need to so you earn the help in advance, and when someone breaks the
trust the response is normally "I'm never helping that asshole again."

~~~
jes
Thank you for your interesting comment.

May I ask for your definition of altruism?

Helping someone else, in part because you recognize that you may someday need
his/her help, seems like rational egoism to me.

And even if I thought I would never see someone again, I might help them if I
thought they were virtuous, simply because I think virtue should be recognized
and rewarded.

------
omm
How about "Cooperation Calls Game Theory into Question"?

~~~
firethief
"Data calls extremely simplistic model no one ever would have thought fully
explained the domain into question"

~~~
rosser
I'm reminded of the 'cstross quip, "Libertarianism is like Leninism: a
fascinating, internally consistent political theory with some good underlying
points that, regrettably, makes prescriptions about how to run human society
that can only work if we replace real messy human beings with frictionless
spherical humanoids of uniform density."

EDIT: corrected the quote.

------
MarcScott
Do these models take into account that it is sometimes beneficial for an
individual to lose a game, and actually die in the process?

A howler monkey that warns others of approaching danger, but gets eaten in the
process, may actually win genetically, if it saves the lives of its siblings,
parents and offspring.

------
ThomPete
So lets say we are playing a game of soccer.

One team is one top pro player the other team is 11 toddlers.

Who is going to win? Pretty sure its the pro player. Its better to be 1 top
player than 11 toddlers.

Now lets make the team 1 top player and 11 5 year olds.

Probably the top player will still win and its still better to be a top player
than 11 5 year olds.

Now lets take one top player and 11 teenagers at age 14...

Game theory is never really about the game that is played but always about the
players playing the game.

------
klochner
from last week -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9042195](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9042195)

------
taeric
I would be highly interested in how this model incorporates appearances into
it. In particular, if you can maintain the appearance of heavy sharing,
without heavily sharing, that can land you closer to the benefits of not
sharing, without the downsides.

~~~
yaur
That is essentially what the research is about. The "extortion" algorithm
seems like it is playing nice, but cheats as much as it can get away with.

~~~
taeric
Hmm.... that makes sense. Though the naming is terrible. Extortion is a
distinct thing from cheating. :(

edit: Well, I suppose saying it that way is terrible. It is cheating. It is
not the same as all forms of covert cheating, though.

------
otakucode
Game Theory lost all credibility when it advocated nuking Russia pre-
emptively. Besides, most game theory studies don't even consider the
possibility of self-destructive action, let alone evaluate whether they're
actually advocating such a thing.

~~~
unabridged
All game theory results depend entirely on your utility functions. If you set:

(value of Russian civilian lives) = 0

(value of the world after nuking Russia) > (value of the world where Russia
takes over) * (probability of Russia taking over)

Then game theory would suggest first strike would be best solution.

~~~
unabridged
But most people interpreted (value of the world after nuking Russia) to be
quite low because Russia would automatically launch a retaliation, and the
same vice versa from Russia's perspective. So with this utility game theory
predicted the Mutually Assured Destruction standoff that so far has turned out
correct.

------
yarrel
No it doesn't.

