Game theory illustrated by an animated cartoon game(ncase.me)
ncase.me
Game theory illustrated by an animated cartoon game
https://ncase.me/trust/
76 comments
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.
This is also the reason some social media outlets have become dystopian hellscapes.
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"
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://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.
Also, that's one of my favorite websites ever.
Found this ~10 years ago. Still one of the best things i've ever come across on the internet.
Similar - this is where I found out about Komiku's music; I must've heard to thousands of hours of this while writing code
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.
> more like the rest of the world, more authoritarian
I don't think these are equivalent.
I don't think these are equivalent.
playing time: 30 min • by nicky case, july 2017
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 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.
Once weakness in those tournaments is that every interaction has the same stakes, so it doesn't model the possibility of "con artists" who behave generally at low stakes, but cheat at high stakes.
Varying the stakes would be interesting.
My understanding is this: in these computerized multi-player repeated games, each agent has no knowledge of previous games nor identities of other players. So every game a particular agent plays must follow the same algorithm. This means tournament results can easily be tabulated by tallying performance of each strategy type.
My understanding is this: in these computerized multi-player repeated games, each agent has no knowledge of previous games nor identities of other players. So every game a particular agent plays must follow the same algorithm. This means tournament results can easily be tabulated by tallying performance of each strategy type.
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
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.
Humans are pretty good at repeated-game theory, intuitively.
The ncase.me game goes into the forgiveness part
The success of tit-for-tat is a common misunderstanding; it is only the most successful within the makeup of Axelrod's tournament. The OP explains that the strategy is entirely dependent on the environment, and tit-for-tat may not always be the optimal strategy.
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.
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'.
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 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.
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
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagame#Competitive_gaming
This also called opponent modeling.
Used in e.g. poker, so you can maximise your earnings.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=oppo...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=oppo...
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...
And the stakes are instant annihilation! so there is no room for mistakes, eliminating almost all other viable positions
How the stakes are instant annihilation if the premise itself it's based on the delay of communication? Unless the attack is at the speed of light, you'll still have time to correct the message, right?
You're right, I misspoke. I meant assured annihilation
very cute!
[deleted]
Radiolab had a story about this idea that I enjoyed.
https://radiolab.org/podcast/104010-one-good-deed-deserves-a...
https://radiolab.org/podcast/104010-one-good-deed-deserves-a...
Radiolab's overdramatic style has the ability to ruin even my favorite topics.
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.
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.
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.
> 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!"
As an older leftist, what you describe looks more like the liberal (centrist) view. Actual leftists think the current system is broken. Cops are not acting in good faith using tax payer money, so we should defund the police departments to some degree and divert those funds to social programs to help the vulnerable. Politicians and Congress people (including Democrats) in office are not acting in good faith and should be barred from trading individual stocks to prevent insider trading.
As an older leftist, what you describe looks more like the liberal (centrist) view. Actual leftists think the current system is broken. Cops are not acting in good faith using tax payer money, so we should defund the police departments to some degree and divert those funds to social programs to help the vulnerable. Politicians and Congress people (including Democrats) in office are not acting in good faith and should be barred from trading individual stocks to prevent insider trading.
> Politicians and Congress people (including Democrats) in office are not acting in good faith and should be barred from trading individual stocks to prevent insider trading.
No objection from me there.
> defund the police departments to some degree and divert those funds to social programs
I will just say that I have zero faith that the "social programs" will do much besides serving as jobs programs for people with degrees that would otherwise not be useful to society. Meanwhile, less cops and less support for the idea of policing leads to more of the exact same opportunistic bad behavior that I was talking about. There's a statewide experiment on this topic that's been going on for years, called California.
No objection from me there.
> defund the police departments to some degree and divert those funds to social programs
I will just say that I have zero faith that the "social programs" will do much besides serving as jobs programs for people with degrees that would otherwise not be useful to society. Meanwhile, less cops and less support for the idea of policing leads to more of the exact same opportunistic bad behavior that I was talking about. There's a statewide experiment on this topic that's been going on for years, called California.
> I will just say that I have zero faith that the "social programs" will do much besides serving as jobs programs for people with degrees that would otherwise not be useful to society.
You're imagining it wrong.
Critics argue that police officers and departments are tasked with an overly broad range of responsibilities, leading to an over-reliance on law enforcement to address complex social issues such as homelessness, mental health crises, and substance abuse. To address this, some activists advocate for the "unbundling" of services, a model in which specialized response teams take over many responsibilities traditionally assigned to police. These teams could include social workers, emergency medical technicians, conflict resolution specialists, restorative justice teams, and other community-based professionals.
Police officers may be particularly badly suited for some community issues, such as mental health crises. One in four people who are killed by the police have severe mental illness. Some activists argue that mental health professionals may be more appropriate responders in non-emergency situations involving mental health crises. They also suggest that diverting funds to mental health treatment and support could lead to improved outcomes.
A 2020 paper by researchers at the RAND Corporation argues that the police are often given too many roles in society and asked to solve issues that they are not properly trained for and that would be better suited for professionals such as mental health, homelessness, drug abuse, and school related violence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police
You're imagining it wrong.
Critics argue that police officers and departments are tasked with an overly broad range of responsibilities, leading to an over-reliance on law enforcement to address complex social issues such as homelessness, mental health crises, and substance abuse. To address this, some activists advocate for the "unbundling" of services, a model in which specialized response teams take over many responsibilities traditionally assigned to police. These teams could include social workers, emergency medical technicians, conflict resolution specialists, restorative justice teams, and other community-based professionals.
Police officers may be particularly badly suited for some community issues, such as mental health crises. One in four people who are killed by the police have severe mental illness. Some activists argue that mental health professionals may be more appropriate responders in non-emergency situations involving mental health crises. They also suggest that diverting funds to mental health treatment and support could lead to improved outcomes.
A 2020 paper by researchers at the RAND Corporation argues that the police are often given too many roles in society and asked to solve issues that they are not properly trained for and that would be better suited for professionals such as mental health, homelessness, drug abuse, and school related violence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police
Seeing the meth addicts and schizophrenics (and probably some who are both) who get so out of hand that police get called, dealing with them is a dangerous job. I'd rather train police better, than get body armor for a psychiatrist so they don't get bitten by someone having a "mental health crisis." Also highly trained mental health professionals are going to cost a lot more than police, and they probably won't want to work nights and weekends.
Also, when cops are called due to a "mental health crisis" that is sometimes because that person has caused enough alarm that the people around them are in legitimate fear for their safety. Unless the "mental health crisis squad" has lights and sirens and 911 can dispatch them quickly at all times, they won't be sufficient to deal with the problems. When they can't talk them out of their delusions and get physically threatened as well, they'll probably just call the police.
DTP is operating from an attitude which assumes that police can't be better trained and that this other group of highly educated professionals should be turned to instead -- explicitly to replace police jobs, which is to be expected since it's a philosophy primarily promoted by the elites (college educated). Al lot of law-abiding regular people of many races and backgrounds, actually don't have toxic relationships with the police and don't want less policing.
Also, when cops are called due to a "mental health crisis" that is sometimes because that person has caused enough alarm that the people around them are in legitimate fear for their safety. Unless the "mental health crisis squad" has lights and sirens and 911 can dispatch them quickly at all times, they won't be sufficient to deal with the problems. When they can't talk them out of their delusions and get physically threatened as well, they'll probably just call the police.
DTP is operating from an attitude which assumes that police can't be better trained and that this other group of highly educated professionals should be turned to instead -- explicitly to replace police jobs, which is to be expected since it's a philosophy primarily promoted by the elites (college educated). Al lot of law-abiding regular people of many races and backgrounds, actually don't have toxic relationships with the police and don't want less policing.
> Later I started to see the patterns where government spends most of the money lining the pockets of the well-connected
It is definitely not most of the money in developed countries. Being cynical is fine, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Governments do enormously important and valuable things with most of the money. Just take a look at where money is spent in the budgets of developed countries.
It is definitely not most of the money in developed countries. Being cynical is fine, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Governments do enormously important and valuable things with most of the money. Just take a look at where money is spent in the budgets of developed countries.
> getting cheated or cooperating with people who act in bad faith is what creates the cheating
That reminds me of some game-theory stuff, a relatively simple "tit-for-tat with forgiveness" approach does pretty well. It matches a lot of our intuition too: Be nice, punish betrayal, but not too disproportionately.
Not the thing I was thinking of, but found this fun little interactive presentation that goes into some other factors/approaches: https://ncase.me/trust/
That reminds me of some game-theory stuff, a relatively simple "tit-for-tat with forgiveness" approach does pretty well. It matches a lot of our intuition too: Be nice, punish betrayal, but not too disproportionately.
Not the thing I was thinking of, but found this fun little interactive presentation that goes into some other factors/approaches: https://ncase.me/trust/
You linked the same thing as the actual post.
> 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.
This is also a reasonable definition of a functional democratic society.
> If you believe in personal agency and personal responsibility and don't believe in magical thinking ...
Or perhaps a different lesson is that if you want a better world to exist, choose to live it. Sometimes there will be those which do not share this vision and actively work against your choice.
The question then becomes:
0 - https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_donne_101197
This is also a reasonable definition of a functional democratic society.
> If you believe in personal agency and personal responsibility and don't believe in magical thinking ...
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece
of the continent.[0]
Or perhaps a different lesson is that if you want a better world to exist, choose to live it. Sometimes there will be those which do not share this vision and actively work against your choice.
The question then becomes:
Do you allow bad actors to determine who you are
or is who you are orthogonal to what bad actors do?
0 - https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_donne_101197
> Or perhaps a different lesson is that if you want a better world to exist, choose to live it. Sometimes there will be those which do not share this vision and actively work against your choice.
So you need the power to abide by your choices and not others'. I think the colloquial understanding of "power" is somewhat different than I want to convey. Power is potential, the ability to affect or effect, control[0]. Violence can be powerful, because a dead foe can't hurt you. Nonviolence can be powerful, because a dissuaded foe can't hurt you. Who you are determines what you do. What you do reflects who you are. The path you are walking on, whether to your design or not, requires power to prevent straying.
[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/power
So you need the power to abide by your choices and not others'. I think the colloquial understanding of "power" is somewhat different than I want to convey. Power is potential, the ability to affect or effect, control[0]. Violence can be powerful, because a dead foe can't hurt you. Nonviolence can be powerful, because a dissuaded foe can't hurt you. Who you are determines what you do. What you do reflects who you are. The path you are walking on, whether to your design or not, requires power to prevent straying.
[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/power
> Power is potential, the ability to affect or effect, control[0]. Violence can be powerful, because a dead foe can't hurt you. Nonviolence can be powerful, because a dissuaded foe can't hurt you.
I was going more for the "be the change you want" perspective than what perceived power can accomplish. Ultimately, power is an illusion and consumes rather than enables.
> Who you are determines what you do.
Technically this is correct. However, it ignores choice and the value of personal growth found in honest introspection.
> What you do reflects who you are.
Very true. And if one chooses to do something different than what would have been done as an earlier version of oneself, does that not reflect growth?
> The path you are walking on, whether to your design or not, requires power to prevent straying.
Choice is not power, even though it is powerful, unless the assumed one of the multitude of definitions cited is the first:
I was going more for the "be the change you want" perspective than what perceived power can accomplish. Ultimately, power is an illusion and consumes rather than enables.
> Who you are determines what you do.
Technically this is correct. However, it ignores choice and the value of personal growth found in honest introspection.
> What you do reflects who you are.
Very true. And if one chooses to do something different than what would have been done as an earlier version of oneself, does that not reflect growth?
> The path you are walking on, whether to your design or not, requires power to prevent straying.
Choice is not power, even though it is powerful, unless the assumed one of the multitude of definitions cited is the first:
The ability to do or undergo something.
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.
You're going from a conventional understanding of "power", along the lines of how it is discussed in politics. I'm suggesting an alternative understanding. Power can mean the enabler of an action. Power can mean the quality of being able. Power is neither good nor bad; but power can stand in relation to a context that is good or bad. Power is associated with mostly anything that has meaning: a weapon, a sentence, a conviction, an innate ability, a fortune, a name. Why can police beat down nonviolent protestors? Because the police are powerful. Why can an idea become a movement? Because the idea, and the people who participate, are powerful. Choice is powerful; to have choices and to make choices involves power. A drop of water has the power to fall, gravity has the power to make it fall, and I have the power to reach out and catch the drop. There's power in anything, if you want there to be. Isn't the fact that one is drawn to ascribe power to a concept indicative of the power of the concept? But I think "potential" is sufficient as a definition.
> 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.
This particular lesson we've seen play out time and time again at a state level. Europe, USA, Singapore and even China.
The best thing that happened was corruption was either kept out or effectively eliminated.
When leaders are bad actors, it's pretty obvious, but an explicit example is the Philippines in the 50's-60's and how its economic powerhouse was squandered away.
Today, Vietnam is in the process of cleaning house and showing dividends while Indonesia really could really do amazing stuff if it go its act together.
This particular lesson we've seen play out time and time again at a state level. Europe, USA, Singapore and even China.
The best thing that happened was corruption was either kept out or effectively eliminated.
When leaders are bad actors, it's pretty obvious, but an explicit example is the Philippines in the 50's-60's and how its economic powerhouse was squandered away.
Today, Vietnam is in the process of cleaning house and showing dividends while Indonesia really could really do amazing stuff if it go its act together.
I admire your bravery, but, do you understand that you risk losing everything in much of the western world for posting such heretical thoughts?
"Si vis pacem, para bellum".
OR, you can organize.
The most power-hungry among us often exhibit sociopathic behaviours, and those disproportionately occupy leadership positions. Most good things in our world (democracy, healthcare, welfare) came from building consensus, and weren't gifted by powerful individuals who rose to the top in an effort to bring fire to the masses. To the contrary, when they get their way, welfare and healthcare are cut to give tax breaks to the powerful, and democracies fall to concentrate power more effectively in the hands of the few.
I reject this simplistic Nietzschean analysis of the world. I reject the will to power and the Übermensch. Good societies are built on large groups of people cooperating, not individuals becoming powerful to do good.
The most power-hungry among us often exhibit sociopathic behaviours, and those disproportionately occupy leadership positions. Most good things in our world (democracy, healthcare, welfare) came from building consensus, and weren't gifted by powerful individuals who rose to the top in an effort to bring fire to the masses. To the contrary, when they get their way, welfare and healthcare are cut to give tax breaks to the powerful, and democracies fall to concentrate power more effectively in the hands of the few.
I reject this simplistic Nietzschean analysis of the world. I reject the will to power and the Übermensch. Good societies are built on large groups of people cooperating, not individuals becoming powerful to do good.
>If you tolerate bad faith, you ask for more bad faith behavior.
Yet some bad faith behavior comes from misunderstanding, so to be completely intolerant of perceived bad faith behavior would be the same as entering into the endless "tit-for-tat" cheating loop mentioned on the site
"I'm intolerant of your (perceived) bad faith (because you're intolerant of my (perceived) bad faith)"
Works when perceptions aren't muddied, but that is rarely the case
>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 agree broadly, but that logic is also the cause of a lot of cheating
"I cheat because they cheat"
"I need nuclear weapons because they have nuclear weapons"
Tit-for-tat is a great strategy, but it's not a _dominant_ strategy
I think that's the most important point the website makes
Yet some bad faith behavior comes from misunderstanding, so to be completely intolerant of perceived bad faith behavior would be the same as entering into the endless "tit-for-tat" cheating loop mentioned on the site
"I'm intolerant of your (perceived) bad faith (because you're intolerant of my (perceived) bad faith)"
Works when perceptions aren't muddied, but that is rarely the case
>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 agree broadly, but that logic is also the cause of a lot of cheating
"I cheat because they cheat"
"I need nuclear weapons because they have nuclear weapons"
Tit-for-tat is a great strategy, but it's not a _dominant_ strategy
I think that's the most important point the website makes
In sports it doesn't work with the individual, either tit-for-tat or just succumbing to bad behavior.
Instead there are central organizations created by the players and teams together, and they agree on rules and establish referees and processes so on.
Instead there are central organizations created by the players and teams together, and they agree on rules and establish referees and processes so on.
The board game "Diplomacy" teaches lessons like this, also how fairness works even between unequal powers.
You have perfectly described the downfall of western democracies, who are oh so tolerable.
Even Plato described this already in The Republic.
Even Plato described this already in The Republic.
Becoming powerful might be the easy part
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs (The Rules for Rulers / CGP Grey)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs (The Rules for Rulers / CGP Grey)
That's one of my other favorite things on the internet. The discussion of it is very high quality, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILvD7zVN2jo
Getting into a position of power requiring submission to the power hierarchy that grants power is a very keen insight. It means you are subject to all the corruptive forces everyone in those positions of power are also subject to. People will let you into positions of power if you wear their chains.
"Then you must become powerful and choose to use that power for good" is almost directly from CGP Grey's own analysis/those two videos.
Pournelle's iron law of bureaucracy is another way of looking at it: https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
The man in the Arena speech tickles these topics and is unfortunately now more relevant than ever: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_a_Republic
Getting into a position of power requiring submission to the power hierarchy that grants power is a very keen insight. It means you are subject to all the corruptive forces everyone in those positions of power are also subject to. People will let you into positions of power if you wear their chains.
"Then you must become powerful and choose to use that power for good" is almost directly from CGP Grey's own analysis/those two videos.
Pournelle's iron law of bureaucracy is another way of looking at it: https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
The man in the Arena speech tickles these topics and is unfortunately now more relevant than ever: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_a_Republic
Now add communication between players to repeated trials.
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
I must say this is amazing. The psychology and manipulation makes me realize how poor I am regarding trust even when the other side is pushing for some unconfirmed equilibrium.
In the game I acknowledge that I was aligned to the "Simpleton" strategy (before it was outlined). Looks like simpleton might actually be applicable in a more general sense too which is a little disheartening.
In the game I acknowledge that I was aligned to the "Simpleton" strategy (before it was outlined). Looks like simpleton might actually be applicable in a more general sense too which is a little disheartening.
Fantastic! Top notch explainer and engaging game.
To me it’s important to say that tit-for-tat and the Golden Rule are not the same. My understanding of the two are very different.
To me it’s important to say that tit-for-tat and the Golden Rule are not the same. My understanding of the two are very different.
This web site was so enlightening. I imagine it could often be difficult to put theory to practice as in real life there are so many variables to consider and many of them we can't quantify. Some of the demos illustrated complete opposite results due to a 1% change in the miscommunication variable. But I will say the 3 main takeaways they give you were more general and certainly applicable to real life.
https://ncase.me/trust/notes/ ( NOTES: "The Evolution of Trust" )
I think that detective isn't the correct way to exploit copycat. A character which cooperates, but cheats at random, and keeps defecting if you retaliate, could push the balance towards cooperators. Grudgers, not forgivers, also win in high error scenarios for some reason, as long as enough rounds are played.
If the creator is reading this, I was having problems with the viewport on my tablet. I can't scroll around the page and in portrait mode, stuff disappears off the side of the page, and in landscape mode stuff disappears off the top and bottom of the page.
I disagree with the phrasing right the first question it asks.
It says "Let's say the other player cheats, and doesn't put in a coin. What should you do?" and the two buttons are "cheat" and "cooperate". But if the other player doesn't put a coin in then not putting in a coin is not "cheating". It is simply not playing the game with that person.
Cheating would be where you say you will put in the coin (or have already put the coin in) but not doing so.
It says "Let's say the other player cheats, and doesn't put in a coin. What should you do?" and the two buttons are "cheat" and "cooperate". But if the other player doesn't put a coin in then not putting in a coin is not "cheating". It is simply not playing the game with that person.
Cheating would be where you say you will put in the coin (or have already put the coin in) but not doing so.
This is really the best ways to explain basic game theory to anyone. It wasn't until some excellent Profs in Grad school that I finally understand some of the most basic concepts, but would always find it hard to explain to friends and family.
I also think game theory is one of the most important philosophies/life-lessons to understand as you go through life and this is an excellent resource to get people started on the basics.
I also think game theory is one of the most important philosophies/life-lessons to understand as you go through life and this is an excellent resource to get people started on the basics.
One of the most "old but golds". I smile every time this makes it into the top here.
Game Theory is a vast concept and I believe this work would be better classified under Prisoner's Dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma), which is by definition:
..but if you cheat & they cooperate, you gain three coins at their cost of one. (score: +3 vs -1) Therefore: you "should" still CHEAT.
Yes, technically and mathematically, it's 100% correct but morally, ethically and/or emotionally, it hurts.. a lot. Personally, I would never, ever do that!
The prisoner's dilemma is a game theory thought experiment involving two rational agents, each of whom can either cooperate for mutual benefit or betray their partner ("defect") for individual gain. The dilemma arises from the fact that while defecting is rational for each agent, cooperation yields a higher payoff for each.
..but if you cheat & they cooperate, you gain three coins at their cost of one. (score: +3 vs -1) Therefore: you "should" still CHEAT.
Yes, technically and mathematically, it's 100% correct but morally, ethically and/or emotionally, it hurts.. a lot. Personally, I would never, ever do that!
One of the things I take is that if you keep the game the same but turn the punishment for both cheating really high cooperation blossoms even with high degree of miscommunication. Bring back hanging and quartering for petty crimes!
In all seriousness Game Theory fails in reality because it cannot account for the players changing the game.
In all seriousness Game Theory fails in reality because it cannot account for the players changing the game.