Since politics isn't going anywhere anytime soon...

[soonerhubs]

I have a question for everyone.

- A study has shown that when the "Prisoner's Dilemma" game is repeatedly played, that other strategies besides the defection strategy (including cooperation) eventually emerge as more profitable (Axelrod, 1984).
- This may support Marx's proposition that as people learn to communicate and understand each other better they become more evolved and hence more open to cooperation. (Caveat: I am in no way supporting this position by Marx. I'm merely presenting this paradigm as a point of reference.)

Does this simple result from the "Prisoner's Dilemma" support a competitive or cooperative model on a grander economic scale, or is the generalizability too limited for such a prediction of human behavior on a worldwide, or even national, scale?

Quite frankly I think that it may apply in family setting (be it blood or fictive kin), but acknowledging the complexities of each human as an autonomous agent, I can't see it applying to any group larger than a religious congregation of about 100 or so. That said, I'd say that even in these smaller nests of organizational systems such cooperation would only exist in limited roles.

Your thoughts and reasons for those thoughts are welcomed.

[soonerhubs]

http://www.soundboard.com/sb/crickets_sounds_audio.aspx

[GrapevineSooner]

Hang on, my brain is processing all this.

It's been stuck on 17% for the last 5 minutes though. :D

[soonerhubs]

I don't think this thread has enough affect to attract the usual partisans on either side.

[Scott D]

you forgot to use the correct keywords on this one Hubler.

[soonerhubs]

I have a question for everyone.

- The current president is a "dear leader, etc, etc..."
- The last president screwed it all up for us.
Your thoughts and reasons for those thoughts are welcomed.
Fixed.

;) :D ;) :D

[GrapevineSooner]

C'mon LAS, get your a** in here!!!

You too, Tuba!!! :D

[GrapevineSooner]

And to answer your question, I agree with you Hubler.

Anytime you get two or more groups in a room, they'll reach some kind of a consensus. I think that's the reason, by and large here in America, we haven't ever made a hard right turn or a hard left turn nationally.

But there will always be discernible differences that will be obvious to even the most casual of observers.

[LosAngelesSooner]

C'mon LAS, get your a** in here!!!

You too, Tuba!!! :DDon't lump me in with him...:rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

I have a question for everyone.

- A study has shown that when the "Prisoner's Dilemma" game is repeatedly played, that other strategies besides the defection strategy (including cooperation) eventually emerge as more profitable (Axelrod, 1984).
- This may support Marx's proposition that as people learn to communicate and understand each other better they become more evolved and hence more open to cooperation. (Caveat: I am in no way supporting this position by Marx. I'm merely presenting this paradigm as a point of reference.)

Does this simple result from the "Prisoner's Dilemma" support a competitive or cooperative model on a grander economic scale, or is the generalizability too limited for such a prediction of human behavior on a worldwide, or even national, scale?

Quite frankly I think that it may apply in family setting (be it blood or fictive kin), but acknowledging the complexities of each human as an autonomous agent, I can't see it applying to any group larger than a religious congregation of about 100 or so. That said, I'd say that even in these smaller nests of organizational systems such cooperation would only exist in limited roles.

Your thoughts and reasons for those thoughts are welcomed.Aside from your fantastic new word "generalizability"...there is one big problem with this concept. ;)

The most important being (and I may have misunderstood something in your question) that in order for you to correctly apply the Prisoner's Dilemma, you must operate under the premise that there is NO cooperation/communication allowed between both parties. In the example you're giving you're discussing both cooperation AND communication, which negates the Prisoner's Dilemma.

[soonerscuba]

I have a question for everyone.

- A study has shown that when the "Prisoner's Dilemma" game is repeatedly played, that other strategies besides the defection strategy (including cooperation) eventually emerge as more profitable (Axelrod, 1984).
- This may support Marx's proposition that as people learn to communicate and understand each other better they become more evolved and hence more open to cooperation. (Caveat: I am in no way supporting this position by Marx. I'm merely presenting this paradigm as a point of reference.)

Does this simple result from the "Prisoner's Dilemma" support a competitive or cooperative model on a grander economic scale, or is the generalizability too limited for such a prediction of human behavior on a worldwide, or even national, scale?

Quite frankly I think that it may apply in family setting (be it blood or fictive kin), but acknowledging the complexities of each human as an autonomous agent, I can't see it applying to any group larger than a religious congregation of about 100 or so. That said, I'd say that even in these smaller nests of organizational systems such cooperation would only exist in limited roles.

Your thoughts and reasons for those thoughts are welcomed.As weird as it sounds, I think that it's generalizability is not too limited as applied to a global scale, but not to a national scale. Despite what turmoil boils within a country, generally their policy aims (including economic) are much more homogenous when projected to other gloabal players. The flip side is that I do think that factions within a soceity tend to be reactionary to each other based on previous occurence, thus the "South will rise again" that is replayed some century after they were beat. I would only assume they aren't going to rise to invite their nothern adversaries to tea. As for real time examples, pick a year in labor movement in the 20th century.

As for smaller groups, I would defect (pun intended) to a more knowledable source because beyond my own, I know next to nothing of family or group dynamics.

[soonerhubs]

Aside from your fantastic new word "generalizability"...there is one big problem with this concept. ;)

The most important being (and I may have misunderstood something in your question) that in order for you to correctly apply the Prisoner's Dilemma, you must operate under the premise that there is NO cooperation/communication allowed between both parties. In the example you're giving you're discussing both cooperation AND communication, which negates the Prisoner's Dilemma.

1) It's a word. Scout's Honor. :D
2) I probably wasn't as explicit as I should have been. The repetition of the game is with the same subject, hence a learning curve becomes a dimension to address.

[soonerhubs]

As weird as it sounds, I think that it's generalizability is not too limited as applied to a global scale, but not to a national scale. Despite what turmoil boils within a country, generally their policy aims (including economic) are much more homogenous when projected to other gloabal players. The flip side is that I do think that factions within a soceity tend to be reactionary to each other based on previous occurence, thus the "South will rise again" that is replayed some century after they were beat. I would only assume they aren't going to rise to invite their nothern adversaries to tea. As for real time examples, pick a year in labor movement in the 20th century.

As for smaller groups, I would defect (pun intended) to a more knowledable source because beyond my own, I know next to nothing of family or group dynamics.

That's an interesting take. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I may be more of a cynic than most people. Then again, perhaps I've simply been a product of socialized distrust.

I think my eventual research goal with this thought is to create an Agent Based Model on a familial level. Whether it will include the Prisoner's Dilemma game is unknown, but I'm definitely enjoying delving into this idea of what Peirce calls "Abduction" versus the inductive and deductive trains of thought that occur in social sciences.

[LosAngelesSooner]

1) It's a word. Scout's Honor. :D
2) I probably wasn't as explicit as I should have been. The repetition of the game is with the same subject, hence a learning curve becomes a dimension to address.AH! I DID misunderstand. I thought you meant repetition of the game, but with different players each time. What YOU meant was repetition of the game with the same players learning from each exercise?

And in each cycle of the game, in this case, are the prisoners allowed to communicate, or are they merely acting on their own knowledge and previous experiences without knowing what the other prisoner may be thinking/planning?

[soonerscuba]

That's an interesting take. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I may be more of a cynic than most people. Then again, perhaps I've simply been a product of socialized distrust.

I think my eventual research goal with this thought is to create an Agent Based Model on a familial level. Whether it will include the Prisoner's Dilemma game is unknown, but I'm definitely enjoying delving into this idea of what Peirce calls "Abduction" versus the inductive and deductive trains of thought that occur in social sciences.To be fair I'm not sure I would agree with it either, on one had you have centuries of warfare in the English Channel, now we have the chunnel, and I'm not sure a particulary fast train makes up for all the death. Good luck with the research, better you than me.

[OklahomaTuba]

You too, Tuba!!! :DWell, if you insist....;)

[soonerhubs]

AH! I DID misunderstand. I thought you meant repetition of the game, but with different players each time. What YOU meant was repetition of the game with the same players learning from each exercise?

And in each cycle of the game, in this case, are the prisoners allowed to communicate, or are they merely acting on their own knowledge and previous experiences without knowing what the other prisoner may be thinking/planning?

Good question. I think the game can be played either way. However, let's assume that there's no communication allowed, since so many of our transactions on the global scale are reliant on trusting others with no real guarantee.

[soonerhubs]

Well, if you insist....;)

Welcome to the thread, and feel free to share some insights into this.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Then, in that case, I think the repetition would lead to both sides going for the lesser of evils result (both prisoners "ratting each other out") rather than the grand victory (trusting that the other would also clam up - to stick with the metaphor), since the risk/reward ratio, as seen over time, would eventually lead to a better result for a more cautious approach than going for the "home run" (trusting that the other would ALSO clam up and therefore acquit you both). This is based on the assumption that, holding to the original premise of the "Prisoner's Dilemma", neither party is allowed to communicate with the other. Though, there would still be the occasional chucklehead who would risk it all, I think.

[soonerhubs]

Then, in that case, I think the repetition would lead to both sides going for the lesser of evils result (both prisoners "ratting each other out") rather than the grand victory (trusting that the other would also clam up - to stick with the metaphor), since the risk/reward ratio, as seen over time, would eventually lead to a better result for a more cautious approach than going for the "home run" (trusting that the other would ALSO clam up and therefore acquit you both). This is based on the assumption that, holding to the original premise of the "Prisoner's Dilemma", neither party is allowed to communicate with the other. Though, there would still be the occasional chucklehead who would risk it all, I think.

Is this perhaps the reason why one side of the political spectrum may promote a more capitalistic model, based the idea that most people won't cooperate unless there is some sort of benefit? (See Social Exchange Theory.)

On the flip side, is this perhaps the reason why another side of the political spectrum may endorse a more socialized model assuming that if everyone played by the same rules we could trust each other, take care of each other, and enhance good for all?

I'm not taking sides here. I'm merely trying to understand on a grander scale the motivations of both sides.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I honestly think that you can't equate them to that model of thinking for the simple reasons that the majority of "politicians" enter into their careers seeking power rather than the common good. So each "approach" is really just a method of controlling the masses in order to retain power rather than an effort to affect "change" or overall social improvement.

Or maybe that's just my cynical side coming out. :D

[49r]

Trust is something that is in short supply here these days. Idealism has been shunned in favor of "lesser of two evils", and I agree with LAS.



I blame Rupert Murdoch. ;)

[soonerhubs]

Good stuff folks. Good stuff.

[soonerhubs]

Well, if you insist....;)

:pop:

[Scott D]

I love the Money Pit, that is my answer to that statement.


;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Heh.

I'm still waiting for Grapevine's "Whoops!" for lumping me in with Tuba. :D

[GrapevineSooner]

From the standpoint that both of your screen names tend to pop up in political threads quite a bit, the lump fits.

Otherwise, one's a partisan and the other's a rabble rouser. ;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

From the standpoint that both of your screen names tend to pop up in political threads quite a bit, the lump fits.

Otherwise, one's a partisan and the other's a rabble rouser. ;):D

Okay...THAT I can't argue with...

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

There's only one game I'm interested in this week and it aint Prisoners Dilemma.


:D

Boomer!! Is it Saturday yet??

[StoopTroup]

Sounds like someone's kid needed a term paper done to me. :D

[soonerinabilene]

If this is what a thread that has no bickering and is full of intelligent responses looks like, i dont want anymore, cuz this is way over my head. Im gonna go eat a frozen pizza and watch Family Guy.