3 ms·
In concept you're right, but I want to clear up some terminology. This isn't a "zero-sum game" issue: it's a "prisoner's dilemma" [1] In the prisoner's dilemma
by CWuestefeld 16y ago
In concept you're right, but I want to clear up some terminology. This isn't a "zero-sum game" issue: it's a "prisoner's dilemma" [1]
In the prisoner's dilemma, the parties can work together to yield a common, greater result. But they might not do so because the common solution requires trust; any individual might go for the easy answer that brings himself a return while screwing the others.
[1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Prisoner%27s_...
- syllogism 16y agoI considered this, but if you assume that the scientists don't benefit from science functioning properly, then they're playing a zero sum game with other scientists --- they're simply competing with each other for a fixed pool of resources. That was what I meant. You could argue that a prisoner's dilemma view of it is more realistic. In this view, the scientists all desperately do want to get it right, but they know they can't because they'll be punished for doing it by their peers, who'll seize the opportunity to get ahead at their expense. This model is plausible too, but it's different from the one I suggested. So it's not actually a terminological difference.