From: Daniel Fabulich (daniel.fabulich@yale.edu)
Date: Wed Jul 15 1998 - 21:23:20 MDT
On Wed, 15 Jul 1998, Hugh Hixon wrote:
> I believe that your argument is considerably behind work on
> cooperative strategies. I recall reading that while tit-for-tat is
> the best strategy when surrounded by defectors, in a group consisting
> of all tit-for-tat, the best strategy is tit-for-three-tats
> (forgiveness).
I think you have the conditions wrong. While I, too, recall reading that
Tit-for-X-Tats strategies would often compare favorably w/ TfT, sometimes
even beating it, the point is moot when TfT is surrounded by TfXTs: they
will all just cooperate all the time.
> The best strategy varies with the makeup of the
> group. There was a flurry of these papers about five (?) years ago,
> at least one of which appeared in *Science* or *Nature*.
I'll take a look. Any idea what the article was called? Some keyword I
can search for?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:21 MST