Administrator
|
Now here's a new twist on the Prisoner's Dilemma:
http://slashdot.org/story/10/04/03/1539224/ -- Owen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
I suppose if we were good genetic determinists we would hang them both!
Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] > [Original Message] > From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 4/3/2010 2:09:24 PM > Subject: [FRIAM] Slashdot Science Story | Twins' DNA Foils Police > > Now here's a new twist on the Prisoner's Dilemma: > http://slashdot.org/story/10/04/03/1539224/ > > -- Owen > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
What makes this not a Prisoner's Dilemma is there is no incentive for James to rat on John and no incentive for John to rat on James. James and John have an optimal strategy of stonewalling.
Poor prosecutor! Hard to see how the prosecutor can set up a Prisoner's Dilemma here, at least without deception.
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote: Now here's a new twist on the Prisoner's Dilemma: -- George Duncan georgeduncanart.com represented by Artistas de Santa Fe www.artistasdesantafe.com (505) 983-6895 Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward. Soren Kierkegaard ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
George,
you are, of course, absolutely correct.
That is always a weakness to the PD story, which is, at base, a really stupid way to think about cooperation issues. It is one of those ideas which was sort of cute at the time, got into all the text books, and has been drilled into the heads of two generations of students, but really doesnt adequately represent the crucial variables in the situation and should have been dropped about two decades ago. It is a case of scientific mob thinking at its absolute worst.
The tragedy of the commons model is much clearer and avoids all the cutsy language that has been promoted by people who know bfa about prisoners and their dilemmas.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Nick,
I find that the Prisoner's Dilemma is a useful way of thinking about how people's behavior can be manipulated by those with some control over the reward structure (say the prosecutor). And a PhD student (now professor) and I (now artist) did a paper on what someone without such control (say the defense attorney) can do to get them out of the prosecutor's trap.
The Tragedy of the Commons is different, and a really useful way of thinking about the need in some cases for social controls to promote cooperation.
I do find that students still find the Prisoner's Dilemma cute, maybe even opens up there minds a bit to how social decision making differs from individual decision making.
George
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- George Duncan georgeduncanart.com represented by Artistas de Santa Fe www.artistasdesantafe.com (505) 983-6895 Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward. Soren Kierkegaard ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
George,
I agree that the Prisoner's Dilemma is a good gimmick to get people started on game theory, especially as it is in every cop drama so all the students recognize the situation. On the other hand it falls apart if you try to push the metaphor too far (and its been stretched a lot since its inception). Among other problems, cooperating with the accomplice is not cooperating with the police. Cooperating with the police is defecting against the accomplice. For that matter, they are criminals, and cooperating with society involves not committing crimes (as a near minimal criterion). Then you have the problem that an iterated Prisoner's dilemma game makes even less sense. Would you really team back up with the same guy to rob a second bank after he put you away for 5 years? Alright, maybe once, but 100 times? Again, if you don't think about it too much (and the students generally don't), it works fine..... Eric On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 05:47 PM, George Duncan <[hidden email]> wrote: Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
I agree with what Eric and Nick are saying in the sense that people put far too much weight on applying it directly to social theory. I wouldn't be quick to dismiss its pedagogical or practical use. First, obviously its silly to take it literally as a working tool, but isn't it almost as silly to take it literally in order to dismiss it? As most people are aware, these kinds of games are abstractions of real world dilemmas. And dilemmas with perverse incentives occur in the real world. Arguably that they might be seen as the foundation of social dynamics, though that's a kind of crazy claim that I just cooked up. Anyway, these dilemmas have very real potential effects and not uncommonly invovle very crisp binary decisions -- e.g. MAD. These dilemmas involve simultaneous play with little information. And real (or at least perceived) mathematical dilemma involved in which the optimal group solution conflicts with individual goals. OK, silly me, I don't need to tell you guys all this, but though typical situations aren't nearly so crisp, there are issues that drop up every day that I can think of no better way to introduce the basic issues to people than by using this very straightforward example. IPD has always struck me as kind of silly too, but not for the reason Eric mentions.. On Apr 3, 2010, at 6:40 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Eric writes: Again, if you don't think about it too much (and the students generally don't), it works fine.....
I disagree. 9 tenths of my students either didnt learn it or all or learned as a lesson in how powerful people get to not make sense when they talk.
nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
I ferociously disagree. I found that students were always confused by it. In the first place, the four payoff boxes are misnamed because, "to cooperate" in that situation means to cooperate with the police, hence to defect. "Defect" is also a misleading term.
I also don't see how the cooperation dilemma is different from the prisonners dilemma. Just change the headings to sheep grazed on the common and the payoffs to sheep weight gain and everything else remains the same.
N
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Maybe that's the problem ... the orientation of the cooperate/defect decision is always pair-wise between two prisoners. Perhaps it's not as confusing that way.
-T
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Yes, think of the two prisoners, say Bonnie and Clyde, as having some sort of relationship. I, along with many, teach that the label "cooperate" supports this relationship while "defect" undermines the relationship. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/ for more or less standard terminology. Note in the latter that in the payoff matrix we have S < P < R < T (hey, the SPiRiT of the Prisoner's Dilemma). I didn't find students to find this confusing, at least at Carnegie Mellon in public policy.
George
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Ted Carmichael <[hidden email]> wrote: Maybe that's the problem ... the orientation of the cooperate/defect decision is always pair-wise between two prisoners. Perhaps it's not as confusing that way. -- George Duncan georgeduncanart.com represented by Artistas de Santa Fe www.artistasdesantafe.com (505) 983-6895 Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward. Soren Kierkegaard ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
I've never liked the explanation of the game as a "prisoner's dilemma"--so I never explain it that way. But I think it's a great illustration of how iterative interactions can differ from one-shot interactions.
-- Russ Abbott ______________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles cell: 310-621-3805 blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ ______________________________________ On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 12:41 PM, George Duncan <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |