Ode to Mike Bailey
Mike Bailey!
You came by and reminded me of the beauty of my naivety.
David: true selfishness would be to get others to cooperate.
Mike: I'm uncomfy with having to rely on selfishness as motivation. Say, an SUV benefits me now. But if everyone else gets one, then we're all fucked.
David: So, a true selfish person would discourage others to not get SUVs.
Mike: And what If I get one anyway?
David: If you do, then I retaliate.
Mike: What if all of India is driving SUVs, but you have no way of knowing it?
So, the two things that the Iterative Prisoner's Dillema didn't touch on were:
1. There are more than two choices in life.
2. There is direct and tangible way of interaction. What about indirect?
For (1), retaliation doesn't mean fuck them over. Retaliation is a direct attempt to change behaviour that displeases you. However, there are better ways to do so than others! For example, conversation versus punishment. Unfortunately, the only form of retaliation in the Iterative PD is punishment, and I would argue that it's better than doing nothing. (It is not the action of the bad - it is the inaction of the good! - Boondock Saints... poorly quoted.)
For (2), there's a problem when, say, we have three people in the mix.
A --> B --> C
/|\ |
|___________|A gives B, B gives C, C gives A. As A, you have to make both B and C aware of the benefits of cooperation. The suggestion?
Give B exactly what C gives you. What this does is artificially creates a direct connection between B and C with tangible results. It might be delayed by one, and it would take much longer for B & C to realize the consequences of their actions. However, I would imagine that they would eventually reach the same conclusion as in the two-person IPD.
What if it's four-people?
A --> B --> C --> D
/|\ |
|_________________|A,B,C,D? Well, the best thing for A is for D to be kind, so A needs C to convince D to be kind, so A needs B to convince C to be kind. Wow. See the complexity? Imagine 100 people? It would take a very VERY LONG time before anyone ever realized how long #1 was just doling out whatever #100 was giving him.
(Luckily, breakthroughs like this happen subconsciously! Collective consciousness? Crossword puzzles? So, #1 might realize this technique as well as #38 and #73 too.)
Even so! it's not so hopeless! In real life, you have some direct contact with others, and some indirect contact with others. My argument then follows.
Influence others to be nice to you, and don't worry about those which you can't influence.
No! That still sounds off, let me try again:
Influence others to be nice(!!) It will eventually come back to you.
Yes, that is STILL the motivation: "It will eventually come back to you" However, the delay is so long that you have to be very patient! Patience is a virtue, my friend! And you'll only last to reap the benefits if you truly believe in it.
The end. Thank you Mike Bailey.
You came by and reminded me of the beauty of my naivety.
David: true selfishness would be to get others to cooperate.
Mike: I'm uncomfy with having to rely on selfishness as motivation. Say, an SUV benefits me now. But if everyone else gets one, then we're all fucked.
David: So, a true selfish person would discourage others to not get SUVs.
Mike: And what If I get one anyway?
David: If you do, then I retaliate.
Mike: What if all of India is driving SUVs, but you have no way of knowing it?
So, the two things that the Iterative Prisoner's Dillema didn't touch on were:
1. There are more than two choices in life.
2. There is direct and tangible way of interaction. What about indirect?
For (1), retaliation doesn't mean fuck them over. Retaliation is a direct attempt to change behaviour that displeases you. However, there are better ways to do so than others! For example, conversation versus punishment. Unfortunately, the only form of retaliation in the Iterative PD is punishment, and I would argue that it's better than doing nothing. (It is not the action of the bad - it is the inaction of the good! - Boondock Saints... poorly quoted.)
For (2), there's a problem when, say, we have three people in the mix.
A --> B --> C
/|\ |
|___________|A gives B, B gives C, C gives A. As A, you have to make both B and C aware of the benefits of cooperation. The suggestion?
Give B exactly what C gives you. What this does is artificially creates a direct connection between B and C with tangible results. It might be delayed by one, and it would take much longer for B & C to realize the consequences of their actions. However, I would imagine that they would eventually reach the same conclusion as in the two-person IPD.
What if it's four-people?
A --> B --> C --> D
/|\ |
|_________________|A,B,C,D? Well, the best thing for A is for D to be kind, so A needs C to convince D to be kind, so A needs B to convince C to be kind. Wow. See the complexity? Imagine 100 people? It would take a very VERY LONG time before anyone ever realized how long #1 was just doling out whatever #100 was giving him.
(Luckily, breakthroughs like this happen subconsciously! Collective consciousness? Crossword puzzles? So, #1 might realize this technique as well as #38 and #73 too.)
Even so! it's not so hopeless! In real life, you have some direct contact with others, and some indirect contact with others. My argument then follows.
Influence others to be nice to you, and don't worry about those which you can't influence.
No! That still sounds off, let me try again:
Influence others to be nice(!!) It will eventually come back to you.
Yes, that is STILL the motivation: "It will eventually come back to you" However, the delay is so long that you have to be very patient! Patience is a virtue, my friend! And you'll only last to reap the benefits if you truly believe in it.
The end. Thank you Mike Bailey.