Interesting Point Molten.
If it truly was a group that I hate (like the Girl scouts and their evil delicious cookies j/k
)... I would always choose not to share. If i am truly against their ideals, then I would either want them to get 0 and me get everything, or I would be second happiest with both of us essentially geting 0 ($1)....
***********************************************
This gets a bit long winded, but not being exposed to an economics class, I found this stuff really fascinating and wanted to share. I am assuming others may get some value from this too.
Jared's post (thank you) not only explains the classic strategy for Prisoner's Dilema (the real name), but it also highlights a couple of other important things.
#1 Greater good can come from cooperation. If I was selfish and rational I wouldn't share, and neither would the other team, and thus we would end up only getting $1. If I want the best for my team, I would try to get the compromise. Superrational players would act in their own interest until they encounter another Superrational player, then they both would cooperate. Which brings us to...
#2 Communication and faith are an essential parts of cooperation. Without communication, it is blind faith (that the other FIRST team will do the "right" thing). With communication, you are still relying on faith as the other team could double cross you. Thus the importance of a moral code (via religon, faith, honor, karma, or GP philosophy).
This game is often criticized for having a lack of applicability to the real world. I would like to use a tangential example.
As long as funding is plentiful, teams are not really in competition for funding. Now that it is less plentiful, you here statements like, "I don't want FIRST spreading because that would mean less funding or mentors for my team". This is the "do what's best for yourself (rational player) and it is best for the community" strategy. This was a common economic belief for a long time (and still is in many areas). Others have proven mathematically though that cooperation can create a greater good. Think Costco memberships, MLMs, Gym memberships.... by signing up and pledging to do something as a group, the group can do and purchase things that the individuals cannot accomplish. Imagine buying an entire gyms worth of equipment to get a good workout...
Back to a FIRST example...
Say you have a state where you know funding is going to decrease by say 50% or more. Currently this state has a lot of good teams, some mediocre teams, and some teams just starting out. If the resources dried up by 50% and it was a competitive environment, then it would turn into dog eat dog and the 50% strongest and/or most cunning would survive. Now if that state had 3 regionals going, it would be reduced to 1 (can't really have 1/2 a regional, and Regionals are funded by donations). This is an ugly option. Most FIRST persons (Superrationals) would agree that a better solution would be to figure out how to share the resources as long as that means everyone is not starving. The problem is that in order for this to work, everyone has to do it. Otherwise the system would break down. In this system, the events would be smaller in production scale and thus cost, but still retain as many of the important characteristics as possible (the stuff that feeds teams).
I don't think the discussion was "Hey Superrationals are cool so what would a Superrational do in this scenario?", but I know the folks that planned things were thinking of a better group solution.
Here is the Wiki link to Prisoner's Dilema....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
Read through to the
economics section. The part about Cigarette companies being more profitable now that advertising is banned is counterintuitive, but makes a ton of sense once you understand the circumstances.
One important problem with the "Superrational" strategy is it looks a like like the "Nice" strategy which is also called the suckers bet. If you always share and you are surrounded by a group of Rational (selfish) players, they will eat you alive. That is why the Superrational strategy changes faces. Thus the formula for winning strategies are:
(from the Wiki-citing Axelrod):
You must be:
Nice
The most important condition is that the strategy must be "nice", that is, it will not defect before its opponent does (this is sometimes referred to as an "optimistic" algorithm). Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice; therefore a purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent, for purely utilitarian reasons first.
Retaliating
However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must sometimes retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad choice, as "nasty" strategies will ruthlessly exploit such players.
Forgiving
Successful strategies must also be forgiving. Though players will retaliate, they will once again fall back to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to defect. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points.
Non-envious
The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent (impossible for a ‘nice’ strategy, i.e., a 'nice' strategy can never score more than the opponent).
Nice, Retaliating, Forgiving, Non-envious.... Sounds like a lot of moral codes I know.....
