8 ms·

This is an old idea, nice to see it get more mainstream visibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

This is an old idea, nice to see it get more mainstream visibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evoluti... (1902) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation (1981)

userulluipeste 13y ago
Yes, it is an old idea, but here they also reiterates that old conclusion by taking into account a new opposing researched idea - the "zero-determinant" selfish-play strategy.
- infinity0 13y ago
  I am not an expert in this field; but I don't see why ZD was seen so significantly (by the field, apparently) given the fact that ZD vs ZD does not work out so well (again, just going by that article), which fails one of the basic "robustness" tests arising out of this type of research.
  - hsitz 13y ago
    The recent Adami/Hintze paper that is topic of this article is itself the paper that shows that the ZD strategy is not evolutionarily stable. The May 2012 Press/Dyson paper was what caused people to question what had been thought settled for 30 years, and Adami/Hintze paper pointed out mistakes/limitations of Press/Dyson's conclusion. Before Adami/Hintze paper is was not clear that ZD strategy "did not work out so well". You can download the Adami/Hintze paper here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2666 http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2666
volume 13y ago
Maybe it was notable enough by the way they came to their conclusions, and that it was an interdisciplinary team that worked on it? I'm not in the field but found the post interesting and from a new angle. But yes, it's not radically new idea. In cash game poker (in situations where you that much better than your opponent), you don't necessary want to win a regular's money consistently all the time. Better to keep your customer returning by showing some vulnerability.
- infinity0 13y ago
  How is "keep your customer returning by showing some vulnerability" at all related to mutual aid / co-operation? In spirit it's still an aggressive strategy and relies on your customers being dumb enough not to notice.

userulluipeste 13y ago

Yes, it is an old idea, but here they also reiterates that old conclusion by taking into account a new opposing researched idea - the "zero-determinant" selfish-play strategy.

infinity0 13y ago
I am not an expert in this field; but I don't see why ZD was seen so significantly (by the field, apparently) given the fact that ZD vs ZD does not work out so well (again, just going by that article), which fails one of the basic "robustness" tests arising out of this type of research.
- hsitz 13y ago
  The recent Adami/Hintze paper that is topic of this article is itself the paper that shows that the ZD strategy is not evolutionarily stable. The May 2012 Press/Dyson paper was what caused people to question what had been thought settled for 30 years, and Adami/Hintze paper pointed out mistakes/limitations of Press/Dyson's conclusion. Before Adami/Hintze paper is was not clear that ZD strategy "did not work out so well". You can download the Adami/Hintze paper here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2666 http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2666

volume 13y ago

Maybe it was notable enough by the way they came to their conclusions, and that it was an interdisciplinary team that worked on it? I'm not in the field but found the post interesting and from a new angle. But yes, it's not radically new idea. In cash game poker (in situations where you that much better than your opponent), you don't necessary want to win a regular's money consistently all the time. Better to keep your customer returning by showing some vulnerability.

infinity0 13y ago
How is "keep your customer returning by showing some vulnerability" at all related to mutual aid / co-operation? In spirit it's still an aggressive strategy and relies on your customers being dumb enough not to notice.