This is one of my favorite things on the internet, but it focuses on the positive side of the story which is that groups of people cooperating can defeat a bunch of people who cheat each other. That's a pleasant message.
Unfortunately, I think the corollary is much more important. What this clearly shows is that on an extremely fundamental level, getting cheated or cooperating with people who act in bad faith is what creates the cheating. If you tolerate bad faith, you ask for more bad faith behavior.
If you believe in personal agency and personal responsibility and don't believe in magical thinking, then it shows on a very mathematical level that your own weakness, the ability for someone to take advantage of you without consequences, is what creates defection rather than cooperation.
The lesson is clear, that if you want a world you want to be a part of, then you must become powerful and choose to use that power for good.
I feel like your comment sums up many life lessons. It's also the reason I stopped believing in extreme leftism as I matured. I think as young idealists we think "Surely if we just gave the government a lot more tax money, they'd solve the problems we all say we care about" and "Surely if you just give freely to whomever says they're in need, they won't cheat the system!"
Later I started to see the patterns where government spends most of the money lining the pockets of the well-connected, and then on the micro level how many people take advantage of any method of unjust enrichment, given the chance, and you start to desire much more accountability from all parties. And yes, things like, say, exhaustive income verification to qualify for benefits definitely hurts those who are playing by the rules the whole time. It's the cost of having trashy individuals in society who exploit everyone relentlessly.
It looks like Copykitten is the sweet spot to me, with a focus on keeping miscommunication to a minimum. I wonder where, between 0% and 1%, there is a noticeable deviation, because I find the idea of the Copykitten more nuanced than the copycat, but the copycat always wins somewhere between 0 and 1.
No conversation on game theory is complete until someone brings up Golden Balls, and in particular this amazing moment (warning: terrible audio quality). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qjK3TWZE8
Tit-for-Tat with occasional Forgiveness and occasional Defection (abuse of trust) often performs better than pure Tit-For-Tat, especially in the presence of random error.
Tit-For-Tat falls into "permanent mutual Defection" tar-pit when playing against a Tit-for-Tat-like opponent that Defects once (perhaps in error) and is non-Forgiving.
Humans are pretty good at repeated-game theory, intuitively.
The Evolution of Cooperation is one of the best non-fiction book I've ever read. Through basic algebra it lets you in on appreciating such a deep and profound idea.
So this little game actually amplifies the distinction between "game theory" and (let's call it) 'relationship theory'. In the former you rely on strategy. In the latter, you rely on established trust.
You run the game once and at the end you are given 'character' headsup on the participants. Next time around playing the same game, you know who is who.
p.s. In effect the distinction can be generalized as 'depth of priors' for the 'bayesian game'.
Repeated games. Think relationships. Once you have an accurate grasp of the 'character' of your playmate you can approach optimal results.
For example, the character with the flower hat is a 'detective'. We can assume the initial encounter is a coin-toss choice for her and the rest of her choices determined by 'character'. Of course even her first choice is 'in character' (she is 'testing') but if you know her, even if she starts off with a 'cheat' on her first choice, you start off with a 'cooperate'. After that, there is little mystery as to her choices. Or consider the 'grudger'. If for whatever reason you end up choosing 'cheat' once, you know they will never 'forgive' you. etc.
I don't know if this is the official term for it, but that just sounds like metagaming[1], i.e. incorporating knowledge of the opposing player (or of trends among a group of opposing players) into how you play the game.
If you want the take-aways, click the next-to-last navigation circle on the bottom of the screen. I won't paste the spoilers here, because I think it would detract the experience.
I remember that in older formal game theory tournaments, a punish-once single-retaliation strategy won out. It was unconditional on copying, simply that if the opponent cheated, you cheat back once and then forgive until another cheat. Another form of Golden Rule approach. But I think those tournaments were under simpler conditions than the one here.
I like the incorporation of miscommunication, and being able to change the parameters.
The simulation didn't cover the problem that the US is having right now -- intentional miscommunication. Unfortunately, there's a reason some countries employ warehouses full of trolls and propaganda spreaders. If you are losing the "game" spreading chaos will level the playing field. It will take the people of those countries to stop their leadership from acting in bad faith before things improve.
This is also the reason some social media outlets have become dystopian hellscapes.
https://ncase.me/crowds/ is kinda about this. Not intentional misinformation exactly, just about how ideas like anger are amplified when you have an overly connected social network. There's supposedly a sweet spot.
This makes me think about The Dark Forest and the chain of distrust that results from lightspeed communications at stellar scale. The universe is harsh...
The implicit in your q is a negation of the notion of 'social classes'. If you accept the notion of social class (in the political/economical sense) the possibility remains that it is 'theatre' to hoist "authoritarianism" globally over the under classes.
This is one of my favorite things on the internet, but it focuses on the positive side of the story which is that groups of people cooperating can defeat a bunch of people who cheat each other. That's a pleasant message.
Unfortunately, I think the corollary is much more important. What this clearly shows is that on an extremely fundamental level, getting cheated or cooperating with people who act in bad faith is what creates the cheating. If you tolerate bad faith, you ask for more bad faith behavior.
If you believe in personal agency and personal responsibility and don't believe in magical thinking, then it shows on a very mathematical level that your own weakness, the ability for someone to take advantage of you without consequences, is what creates defection rather than cooperation.
The lesson is clear, that if you want a world you want to be a part of, then you must become powerful and choose to use that power for good.
I feel like your comment sums up many life lessons. It's also the reason I stopped believing in extreme leftism as I matured. I think as young idealists we think "Surely if we just gave the government a lot more tax money, they'd solve the problems we all say we care about" and "Surely if you just give freely to whomever says they're in need, they won't cheat the system!"
Later I started to see the patterns where government spends most of the money lining the pockets of the well-connected, and then on the micro level how many people take advantage of any method of unjust enrichment, given the chance, and you start to desire much more accountability from all parties. And yes, things like, say, exhaustive income verification to qualify for benefits definitely hurts those who are playing by the rules the whole time. It's the cost of having trashy individuals in society who exploit everyone relentlessly.
It looks like Copykitten is the sweet spot to me, with a focus on keeping miscommunication to a minimum. I wonder where, between 0% and 1%, there is a noticeable deviation, because I find the idea of the Copykitten more nuanced than the copycat, but the copycat always wins somewhere between 0 and 1.
No conversation on game theory is complete until someone brings up Golden Balls, and in particular this amazing moment (warning: terrible audio quality). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qjK3TWZE8
Vertasium has a great video talking how Tit-for-Tat (Copycat) wins as a strategy (and how there was a math competition that proved it as well)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM
---
This seems like a nice rebuild of the math competition performed years ago (as talked about in the video link above).
Direct link to that part of the video: https://youtu.be/mScpHTIi-kM?si=yzZxyeYw4cJA-i37&t=583
Tit-for-Tat with occasional Forgiveness and occasional Defection (abuse of trust) often performs better than pure Tit-For-Tat, especially in the presence of random error. Tit-For-Tat falls into "permanent mutual Defection" tar-pit when playing against a Tit-for-Tat-like opponent that Defects once (perhaps in error) and is non-Forgiving.
Humans are pretty good at repeated-game theory, intuitively.
The ncase.me game goes into the forgiveness part
The Evolution of Cooperation is one of the best non-fiction book I've ever read. Through basic algebra it lets you in on appreciating such a deep and profound idea.
Another great book on the subject is The Joy of Game Theory by Presh Talwalkar.
So this little game actually amplifies the distinction between "game theory" and (let's call it) 'relationship theory'. In the former you rely on strategy. In the latter, you rely on established trust.
You run the game once and at the end you are given 'character' headsup on the participants. Next time around playing the same game, you know who is who.
p.s. In effect the distinction can be generalized as 'depth of priors' for the 'bayesian game'.
Are you talking about "one-off games" vs "repeated games", or something else?
Repeated games are part of "game theory"
Repeated games. Think relationships. Once you have an accurate grasp of the 'character' of your playmate you can approach optimal results.
For example, the character with the flower hat is a 'detective'. We can assume the initial encounter is a coin-toss choice for her and the rest of her choices determined by 'character'. Of course even her first choice is 'in character' (she is 'testing') but if you know her, even if she starts off with a 'cheat' on her first choice, you start off with a 'cooperate'. After that, there is little mystery as to her choices. Or consider the 'grudger'. If for whatever reason you end up choosing 'cheat' once, you know they will never 'forgive' you. etc.
I don't know if this is the official term for it, but that just sounds like metagaming[1], i.e. incorporating knowledge of the opposing player (or of trends among a group of opposing players) into how you play the game.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagame#Competitive_gaming
[dead]
Found this ~10 years ago. Still one of the best things i've ever come across on the internet.
Radiolab had a story about this idea that I enjoyed.
https://radiolab.org/podcast/104010-one-good-deed-deserves-a...
If you want the take-aways, click the next-to-last navigation circle on the bottom of the screen. I won't paste the spoilers here, because I think it would detract the experience.
I remember that in older formal game theory tournaments, a punish-once single-retaliation strategy won out. It was unconditional on copying, simply that if the opponent cheated, you cheat back once and then forgive until another cheat. Another form of Golden Rule approach. But I think those tournaments were under simpler conditions than the one here.
I like the incorporation of miscommunication, and being able to change the parameters.
I remember that as well, but only because it's mentioned in book 8 of The Expanse.
this is pretty cool, very nice explanation of concepts I hadn't touched since undergrad econ
The simulation didn't cover the problem that the US is having right now -- intentional miscommunication. Unfortunately, there's a reason some countries employ warehouses full of trolls and propaganda spreaders. If you are losing the "game" spreading chaos will level the playing field. It will take the people of those countries to stop their leadership from acting in bad faith before things improve.
This is also the reason some social media outlets have become dystopian hellscapes.
https://ncase.me/crowds/ is kinda about this. Not intentional misinformation exactly, just about how ideas like anger are amplified when you have an overly connected social network. There's supposedly a sweet spot.
Also, that's one of my favorite websites ever.
There's a ncase.me app for that!
https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb
"WE BECOME WHAT WE BEHOLD a game about news cycles, vicious cycles, infinite cycles"
Made me find out I don't dislike the media enough.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14850880
Now add communication between players to repeated trials.
This makes me think about The Dark Forest and the chain of distrust that results from lightspeed communications at stellar scale. The universe is harsh...
very cute!
playing time: 30 min • by nicky case, july 2017
spoiler alert: is copycat strategy the reason united states feels like it's becoming more like the rest of the world, more authoritarian?
The implicit in your q is a negation of the notion of 'social classes'. If you accept the notion of social class (in the political/economical sense) the possibility remains that it is 'theatre' to hoist "authoritarianism" globally over the under classes.