4 ms·

The analysis doesn't seem to hold up very well in terms of US post-9/11. Jokers (terrorists) caused a ruckus, which the defectors (military-industrial complex)

The analysis doesn't seem to hold up very well in terms of US post-9/11. Jokers (terrorists) caused a ruckus, which the defectors (military-industrial complex) overplayed as a call to arms for cooperators (US populace). The cooperators then produce excess benefit for the defectors (control of oil-wealthy regions, superfluous security contracts). I can't pin my finger on what makes post-9/11 US different. Were the jokers not destructive enough? Does the model not account for power structure, or psychological needs (i.e. security) and exploitation thereof? Is the effect of a single joker short-lived (which would correspond to the outpouring of national unity post-9/11)? Did the 9/11 attacks actually increase the cooperator/defector ratio in the long term in a way that is not apparent to me?

katovatzschyn 15y ago
Could it perhaps be that a very simple thought experiment is not a strong model for the chaotic actions of hundreds of millions of people over several years?
- colanderman 15y ago
  Oh indeed! I'm just trying to figure out the most likely reason why :)
  - saraid216 15y ago
    There is probably something to be said for network resiliency, as well, but I haven't the faintest idea what.
Produce 15y ago
The terrorists were not the jokers. Jokers are supposed to destroy everything without restraint, these guys were trying to defend (the best defense is a good offense) themselves from an empire. The irony is that the defectors (terrorists) are an offshoot of the original defectors (military-industrial complex). So who are the jokers in this picture? The socially excluded psychopaths and sociopaths who sit in prison. I think that the proportion of real jokers (completely destructive agents) is extremely small and their effect is vastly overstated. I think that in real life, significant jokers tend to be forces of nature like hurricanes and tsunamis, not people.
jordan0day 15y ago
This may not be helpful, but does an issue arise when a large number of defectors believe they're cooperators? And actually, as katovatzschyn kind of points out, this setup (citizens / military-industrial complex / terrorists) may not actually map very well at all to the cooperator / defector / joker model.
- ktizo 15y ago
  Or, what happens if cooperators find out about this theory and so decide to act as jokers when they think that defectors are winning, but turn back into cooperators at other times. Also, defectors want the maximum gain for least effort, so can reasonably decide to act as cooperators for the minimum time required to keep their preferred level of sloth going. Jokers could also decide, if they trusted this model, that to increase overall destruction they act always as defectors, as otherwise they are just ushering in a new round of cooperation.
  - angersock 15y ago
    Minor quibble on your final point... Jokers achieve greatest absolute destruction when the lifetime of the system is indefinite--you have to have sand castles before you can kick them over. So, it would seem to me that they'd be more likely to become cooperators for the sole purpose of building things back up to burn them down again.
    - ktizo 15y ago
      Good point, though this suggests to me that there might be more than one type of joker; Loki: likes eternal chaos, so fits your model. Ice Giants: likes Ragnarök, so only sleeps or destroys. However, both Loki and the Ice Giants could conceivably decide to act as cooperators if they suspect that there are a large number of defectors who are currently acting as cooperators, with the aim of overwhelming the cooperators by switching back to being jokers when the other fake cooperators switch back to being defectors. [edit] Also, 'Loki and the Ice Giants' would make a really good band name, or possibly a tumblr site (nod to the xkcd enthusiasts).
angersock 15y ago
I think your problem here is that the terrorists weren't out as Jokers--they weren't attempting indiscriminate destruction of resources and benefits (regardless of what the government/news might lead you to believe). Somewhat thankfully, true destroy-all-the-things thinking writ large and competently executed seems to be a very rare thing in the species.

katovatzschyn 15y ago

Could it perhaps be that a very simple thought experiment is not a strong model for the chaotic actions of hundreds of millions of people over several years?

colanderman 15y ago
Oh indeed! I'm just trying to figure out the most likely reason why :)
- saraid216 15y ago
  There is probably something to be said for network resiliency, as well, but I haven't the faintest idea what.

Produce 15y ago

The terrorists were not the jokers. Jokers are supposed to destroy everything without restraint, these guys were trying to defend (the best defense is a good offense) themselves from an empire. The irony is that the defectors (terrorists) are an offshoot of the original defectors (military-industrial complex). So who are the jokers in this picture? The socially excluded psychopaths and sociopaths who sit in prison. I think that the proportion of real jokers (completely destructive agents) is extremely small and their effect is vastly overstated. I think that in real life, significant jokers tend to be forces of nature like hurricanes and tsunamis, not people.

jordan0day 15y ago

This may not be helpful, but does an issue arise when a large number of defectors believe they're cooperators? And actually, as katovatzschyn kind of points out, this setup (citizens / military-industrial complex / terrorists) may not actually map very well at all to the cooperator / defector / joker model.

ktizo 15y ago
Or, what happens if cooperators find out about this theory and so decide to act as jokers when they think that defectors are winning, but turn back into cooperators at other times. Also, defectors want the maximum gain for least effort, so can reasonably decide to act as cooperators for the minimum time required to keep their preferred level of sloth going. Jokers could also decide, if they trusted this model, that to increase overall destruction they act always as defectors, as otherwise they are just ushering in a new round of cooperation.
- angersock 15y ago
  Minor quibble on your final point... Jokers achieve greatest absolute destruction when the lifetime of the system is indefinite--you have to have sand castles before you can kick them over. So, it would seem to me that they'd be more likely to become cooperators for the sole purpose of building things back up to burn them down again.
  - ktizo 15y ago
    Good point, though this suggests to me that there might be more than one type of joker; Loki: likes eternal chaos, so fits your model. Ice Giants: likes Ragnarök, so only sleeps or destroys. However, both Loki and the Ice Giants could conceivably decide to act as cooperators if they suspect that there are a large number of defectors who are currently acting as cooperators, with the aim of overwhelming the cooperators by switching back to being jokers when the other fake cooperators switch back to being defectors. [edit] Also, 'Loki and the Ice Giants' would make a really good band name, or possibly a tumblr site (nod to the xkcd enthusiasts).

angersock 15y ago

I think your problem here is that the terrorists weren't out as Jokers--they weren't attempting indiscriminate destruction of resources and benefits (regardless of what the government/news might lead you to believe). Somewhat thankfully, true destroy-all-the-things thinking writ large and competently executed seems to be a very rare thing in the species.