5 ms·

The outcome of the various games depend on the way rewards are distributed. If the reward for bad behaviour is high, obviously the bad guys are going to win. Th

by _448 5y ago

The outcome of the various games depend on the way rewards are distributed. If the reward for bad behaviour is high, obviously the bad guys are going to win. This is evident in the 5 step "The Evolution of Distrust". Try reducing the rewards for bad behaviour and increasing for good behaviour :) So, moral of the story is: Reward good behaviour.

GranularRecipe 5y ago
And punish bad behaviour, reduce miscommunication / improve coordination.
sva_ 5y ago
But you don't know ahead of time who will cooperate, and who will cheat. The rule was "if you spend 1 coin, the other player gets 3 coins". If you change it to "if you spend 1 coin, the other player gets only 2 coins if they cheated", the game isn't fair anymore. Or am I misunderstanding something?
lvxferre 5y ago
Other morals: Being "nice" (copycat) is not the same as being a "sucker" (cooperator). Suckers don't make things worse just for themselves, but for everyone around them, by encouraging bad behaviour. Even then, people make mistakes, so don't hold grudges for too long. They won't lead you very far.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  Just based on the game, suckers are not really the problem. If you turn down interactions for example even the copycat (or weak copycat) looses against the all cheat. So it's not that the always coorporate creates the bad situation.
  - lvxferre 5y ago
    That's because the copycat, in the first interaction, works exactly the same as the cooperator. And the outcome of that first interaction becomes more important if there are less of them. The problem I see only pops up when there are more interactions - when the player knows the other will cheat, but still decides to cooperate.
- Gauge_Irrahphe 5y ago
  I think the problems of miscommunication could be fully avoided if you: 1. retaliate when cheated (since you cannot know if it was intentional or not) 2. expect but ignore the retaliation after you cheat by mistake. As a bonus, you can punish the opponent for not retaliating by cheating until they do retaliate. Anyway this is all academic and theoretical, since IRL there is rarely the option to retaliate without being treated as the original wrongdoer at best and as mentally unstable at worst.
yann2 5y ago
Depends on the game. Lot of games in the real world are traps. Maybe both sides dont/cant see all the info, dont have enough knowledge/skill, have weaknesses/biases, not enough endurance etc etc etc In those games, best move is to exit the room. Cause no reward/punishment system work.
HPsquared 5y ago
The link really highlights the importance of having win-win situations if both people cooperate (i.e. positive-sum game).
goodpoint 5y ago
> So, moral of the story is: Reward good behaviour. I wish. This is an oversimplification. In many real-world scenarios bad behavior wins unless the rules of the game are changed to encourage cooperation. E.g. by social norms or legislation or contract
- partomniscient 5y ago
  I think the real situation is that every time the system changes, something will try to 'game' it via another strategy. The morality depends on where/who you were when the system/rules changed.

by _448 5y ago

GranularRecipe 5y ago

And punish bad behaviour, reduce miscommunication / improve coordination.

sva_ 5y ago

But you don't know ahead of time who will cooperate, and who will cheat. The rule was "if you spend 1 coin, the other player gets 3 coins". If you change it to "if you spend 1 coin, the other player gets only 2 coins if they cheated", the game isn't fair anymore. Or am I misunderstanding something?

lvxferre 5y ago

Other morals: Being "nice" (copycat) is not the same as being a "sucker" (cooperator). Suckers don't make things worse just for themselves, but for everyone around them, by encouraging bad behaviour. Even then, people make mistakes, so don't hold grudges for too long. They won't lead you very far.

cycomanic 5y ago
Just based on the game, suckers are not really the problem. If you turn down interactions for example even the copycat (or weak copycat) looses against the all cheat. So it's not that the always coorporate creates the bad situation.
- lvxferre 5y ago
  That's because the copycat, in the first interaction, works exactly the same as the cooperator. And the outcome of that first interaction becomes more important if there are less of them. The problem I see only pops up when there are more interactions - when the player knows the other will cheat, but still decides to cooperate.
Gauge_Irrahphe 5y ago
I think the problems of miscommunication could be fully avoided if you: 1. retaliate when cheated (since you cannot know if it was intentional or not) 2. expect but ignore the retaliation after you cheat by mistake. As a bonus, you can punish the opponent for not retaliating by cheating until they do retaliate. Anyway this is all academic and theoretical, since IRL there is rarely the option to retaliate without being treated as the original wrongdoer at best and as mentally unstable at worst.

yann2 5y ago

Depends on the game. Lot of games in the real world are traps. Maybe both sides dont/cant see all the info, dont have enough knowledge/skill, have weaknesses/biases, not enough endurance etc etc etc In those games, best move is to exit the room. Cause no reward/punishment system work.

HPsquared 5y ago

The link really highlights the importance of having win-win situations if both people cooperate (i.e. positive-sum game).

goodpoint 5y ago

> So, moral of the story is: Reward good behaviour. I wish. This is an oversimplification. In many real-world scenarios bad behavior wins unless the rules of the game are changed to encourage cooperation. E.g. by social norms or legislation or contract

partomniscient 5y ago
I think the real situation is that every time the system changes, something will try to 'game' it via another strategy. The morality depends on where/who you were when the system/rules changed.