The Parasite Dilemma

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
and if i go parasite against all the 'super rational' players, everyone will still make money, but i'll make more

what u are advocating is that everyone decides to go for top group gain rather than top personal gain

[/ QUOTE ]

What I am saying is that everyone, including you, can recognize the possibility of being Super-Rational and that by acting on the basis of being Super-Rational everybody, including you, will make 20 times more money than if they and you act on the basis of Thylacine's Nash reasoning - randomizing your choice about 1/3 parasite 2/3 contributor.

PairTheBoard

[ctj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I feel everyone is going to contribute, why wouldnt I play parasite?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because of a reason you haven't thought of. A reason that depends on creative thinking. A reason that takes you outside your box of logic. A reason that the professional theoreticians are still working on formulating. A reason you will never discover unless you look for it.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that you are complaining that game-theoretical analysis of a 1-time Prisoner's Dilemma doesn't apply to iterated Prisoners' Dilemmas. Pure parasite strategies tend to do very badly in iterated scenarios.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is not an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. This is a one time multiplayer Parasite Dilemma. I designed it so that it has the flavor of an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma without the interations. So does your observation that pure parasite strategies do poorly in Iterated Prisoner's Dilemmas have any applicability to this one time Parasite Dilemma?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying that:
1. Your Parasite Dilemma seems like a standard Prisoner's Dilemma; it just has more 'prisoners'.

2. You note that co-operation would be 'better' than basing one's (one-time) play on Game Theory.

3. But co-operation can only evolve when the 'game' is iterated, and only when the 'cheaters' can be identified and punished.

4. Human society is much more like multiple simultaneous iterated Prisoners' Dilemmas (actually Multilemmas). It seems to me that we're well-adapted co-operating (and to detecting and punishing cheats and 'free-riders') in small to medium-sized communities (up to a small village). We're not so well adapated to dealing with human parasites in modern society's mega-communities.

[PairTheBoard]

If members of a species reproduced according to money made at the Nash Equilibrium of the Parasite Dilemma, the species would quickly become extinct.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the only way this can work, is if a player has some sort of utility outside of this one-time game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or if people just realize that the Smart thing to do is to be Super Rational so that everybody can make money.

PairTheBoard

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
If members of a species reproduced according to money made at the Nash Equilibrium of the Parasite Dilemma, the species would quickly become extinct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect.

Honestly man, read something by John Maynard Smith. You have some pretty common misconceptions, and his treatment of game theory in the context of evolutionary biology will really drive home the concept of how "being good for the group" doesnt cut it when the game really counts.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
3. But co-operation can only evolve when the 'game' is iterated, and only when the 'cheaters' can be identified and punished.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's what the theoretical status quo says. But in this case, as in the Traveler's Dilemma, there is a great deal of incentive for people to find a way to inject their thinking with a kind of virtual evolutionary process that mimics what would actually occur with iterations.

[ QUOTE ]
4. Human society is much more like multiple simultaneous iterated Prisoners' Dilemmas (actually Multilemmas). It seems to me that we're well-adapted co-operating (and to detecting and punishing cheats and 'free-riders') in small to medium-sized communities (up to a small village). We're not so well adapated to dealing with human parasites in modern society's mega-communities.

[/ QUOTE ]

My idea is that we are adapted to the capacity for Super-Rational thinking. What is required to make the Super-Rational work in the Parasite Dilemma is the capacity of people to recognize its superiority and apply it.

PairTheBoard

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the only way this can work, is if a player has some sort of utility outside of this one-time game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or if people just realize that the Smart thing to do is to be Super Rational so that everybody can make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is Uber-Super-Rational to lead everyone else to believe that it is in everyone's best interest to be Super-Rational, and then be a Parasite.

[Nicholasp27]

yup; like the gameshow friend or foe

the best thing to do is to convince the other that u both need to go friend so u can each win some money; but then go foe

in this case, u wanna play the game with 99 super-rationals and then u go parasite

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the only way this can work, is if a player has some sort of utility outside of this one-time game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or if people just realize that the Smart thing to do is to be Super Rational so that everybody can make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is Uber-Super-Rational to lead everyone else to believe that it is in everyone's best interest to be Super-Rational, and then be a Parasite.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no "leading everyone else to believe" going on here. Nobody gets to communicate with anyone else. If everyone is Uber everyone ends up owing $200 so Uber-Super is not Rational. It is worse than Nash. Super-Rational is vastly superior to Nash. And people do have the capacity for it.

PairTheBoard

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the only way this can work, is if a player has some sort of utility outside of this one-time game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or if people just realize that the Smart thing to do is to be Super Rational so that everybody can make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is Uber-Super-Rational to lead everyone else to believe that it is in everyone's best interest to be Super-Rational, and then be a Parasite.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no "leading everyone else to believe" going on here. Nobody gets to communicate with anyone else. If everyone is Uber everyone ends up owing $200 so Uber-Super is not Rational. It is worse than Nash. Super-Rational is vastly superior to Nash. And people do have the capacity for it.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]


The worth of a strategy in a game is not solely based on how it does when everyone plays that strategy.

Much like in the game in the other thread, your choice of strategy doesnt affect what they will do. Just because one player opted to which to parasite, doesnt mean all of them do.


OK, lets strecth that concept a bit: if you somehow change this game to where it is played in order, and the first 99 players all contribute and you can see that they did, is it still super rational to be a contributor? Is that what you would do?