The Parasite Dilemma

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would change the symmetry of the game. The logic from your altered game to the real one may not apply the way you think it does. It reminds me of Bostrom's Hybrid Model for the Sleeping Beauty Paradox where he points out that telling Beauty that it's Monday produces new Agent-Parts for Beauty. Ones not bound by conditional probabilities for her originally defined Agent-Parts.

Why are you putting all your efforts into staying inside a box of thinking that fails to make money here, when there is such a clear opportunity to make money.

PairTheBoard

[CallMeIshmael]

Can you answer the question?

What do you do in this altered game? (I never said it wasnt a different game to the OP, hence why I used the term 'altered')



And, if there is a difference between your strategy in the altered game, and the situation wherein you are playing the normal game, but 100% that the other 99 players will all contribute, what makes those answers different?


"Why are you putting all your efforts into staying inside a box of thinking that fails to make money here, when there is such a clear opportunity to make money. "

Im making $194 whereas you are making $100.

[Nicholasp27]

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

even if u could get people to be 'super-rational', it would then be in any given person's best interest to go parasite as there would be <31 parasites...

[m_the0ry]

The problem with this dilemma as with all game theory dilemmas is that we must define the other players' behavior.

Some mixture of rational/irrational/random behavior is to be expected. The exact mixture of these three possible behaviors is very important with respect to how this game should be played by the individual. In other words with the problem phrased as it is now there is no correct answer.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you answer the question?

What do you do in this altered game? (I never said it wasnt a different game to the OP, hence why I used the term 'altered')



And, if there is a difference between your strategy in the altered game, and the situation wherein you are playing the normal game, but 100% that the other 99 players will all contribute, what makes those answers different?


"Why are you putting all your efforts into staying inside a box of thinking that fails to make money here, when there is such a clear opportunity to make money. "

Im making $194 whereas you are making $100.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not making $194 in the original game. In the original game your decision to be a parasite cannot be correct. If it were correct and everybody made the same "correct" decision you would all end up losing $200. But the decision to be a contributor does have a chance to be correct in the original game because if it is "correct" and everybody makes that "correct" decision everybody makes more money than they would making any other correct decision including the Nash decision to randomize at (1/3,2/3). Contributing is a Super-Rational Decision that is "correct" for everybody, including you.

PairTheBoard

[CallMeIshmael]

PTB,

this is not that hard. Im asking a question, please answer it:


IF YOU WERE 100% CERTAIN ALL OTHER PLAYERS WOULD CONTRIBUTE, WOULD YOU CHOOSE TO CONTRIBUTE OR BE A PARASITE??

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
even if u could get people to be 'super-rational', it would then be in any given person's best interest to go parasite as there would be <31 parasites...


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't "get" people to do anything. People will decide on their own. The decision to be Super-Rational and Contribute is one that will make everybody the most money. My contention is that everybody, including you and me, has the capacity to realize and act on this insight by Contributing.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this dilemma as with all game theory dilemmas is that we must define the other players' behavior.

Some mixture of rational/irrational/random behavior is to be expected. The exact mixture of these three possible behaviors is very important with respect to how this game should be played by the individual. In other words with the problem phrased as it is now there is no correct answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

My contention is that there is a "correct" answer which all participants can come to. That is the decision to Contribute, which then makes everybody money.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
PTB,

this is not that hard. Im asking a question, please answer it:


IF YOU WERE 100% CERTAIN ALL OTHER PLAYERS WOULD CONTRIBUTE, WOULD YOU CHOOSE TO CONTRIBUTE OR BE A PARASITE??

[/ QUOTE ]

I already answered this question. Knowing what the other players will do changes the game. I'm not interested in that scenario. I'm interested in the one I described where we don't know what everybody else will do. In that case I must try to reason out the best decision. First I recognize the Nash (1/3,2/3) randomization decision as the best supplied by game theory. Then I realize it is possible to do better if there exists a Super-Rational process that goes beyond game theory. I decide to postulate such a Super-Rational decision and cast my vote to Contribute. If I can come to this realization, so can everybody else. If they do we all make money.

That's my answer. I realize you don't like it. But don't bother objecting because it doesn't conform to Nash logic. The whole point of it to begin with is to find a way beyond Nash logic.

PairTheBoard

[Nicholasp27]

and i hope i'm in a room with 99 people like u who are 'capable of coming to this realization' so i can make some good money going parasite