[p2p-research] Snowdrift, Renewable Hierarchies and the Commons

marc fawzi marc.fawzi at gmail.com
Tue Apr 21 14:41:58 CEST 2009 

Hi Alex

The renewable hierarchies concept (which is not a new concept by any means
and in fact it was in use at the transitional housing place I was staying at
[while officially homeless] where the residents made up the entire
management hierarchy) had not been previously related to evolutionary game
theory in an explicit way, AFAIK.

I was just saying that given my preference for egalitarian cooperation (or
"common good" cooperation) vs contingent/selfish cooperation (which is a
preference shared with all people who believe in the commons and in
generalized exchange) a renewable and flat hierarchy would offer the most
number of randomized neighbor-to-neighbor interactions per node (similar to
a classical network) and would therefore fare better than a vertical and
rigid (or slow changing) hierarchy when it comes to egalitarian cooperation.

In addition, no one had explicitly connected the "limited no. of neighbor to
neighbor interactions" scenario (from the simulation work in Ref #2 below)
to "hierarchies" where such a scenario is true (because hierarchies pigeon
hole people into roles with limited set of neighbor roles [or interactions]


So I doubt that you will find any paper discussing renewable, flat
hierarchies

In the thread titled Snowdrift Game vs Prisoner's Dilemma, my response to
Ryan included these two URLs:

1. this is a good introductory article but is not very precise or thorough
in the way it presents the concept and its implications

http://www.ts-si.org/evolution/4507-meshing-cooperative-behaviors-with-evolutionary-theory.html

2. the stuff I'm looking at is here:

"We demonstrate that spatial structure, implemented by placing individuals
on regular lattices with limited interaction ranges, has different effects
on the evolution of cooperation in the two simple games. Based on extensions
of the Prisoner's
Dilemma<http://www.univie.ac.at/virtuallabs/Snowdrift/#pd>to spatially
structured populations it is generally believed that spatial
extension promotes cooperation. However, spatial structure fails to
similarly favor cooperation under the apparently less stringent conditions
of the Snowdrift <http://www.univie.ac.at/virtuallabs/Snowdrift/#sd> or
Hawk-Dove <http://www.univie.ac.at/virtuallabs/Snowdrift/#hd> game. In fact,
in these games spatial structure actually tends to reduce the readiness to
cooperate. Thus, our results caution against the established view that
spatial structure is necessarily beneficial for cooperation."

limited interaction ranges is the case in a hierarchy where the prisoner's
dilemma game works well but the snowdrift game does not ... the latter works
well in networks with random interactions which is more like the p2p model

http://www.univie.ac.at/virtuallabs/Snowdrift/

A very important thing to understand is that these are all numerical
results, just the _what happens_ (from a statistical mechanics point of
view) and they don't shed any light on the _philosophical why_ or the
_deductive how_

Marc


On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:07 AM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com> wrote:

> I applaud the direction of your quick edit on the wiki.
>
> Meritocratic renewable heirarchies can operate with many currencies and
> acces to means of production is more important than ownership.
>
> In my experience we are seeing an emergent neef for roleplay/games typr
> handling of roles and and role groups.
>
> Smari amd i ciuld not find the original qupte you shared about renewing
> hrirarcjies i. The snowdrift paper.
>
> Where anfd how did it come about.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2009, at 1:16, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I generally only discuss stuff on the list(s) for common benefit and
> maximum feedback.
>
> I agree that communication through Skype or some audio-only client (as most
> people would rather not have the intrusion of video) would be better but I
> have not seen an application for audio discussion that records multi-user
> sessions (to turn into a podcast.)
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Alex Rollin < <alex.rollin at gmail.com>
> alex.rollin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Can we talk by Skype some time?
>>
>> I'm working on prototyping some game setups (also know as corporate and
>> legal entities and organizations and stakeholder groups) to explore patterns
>> in mutual ownership of the means of production.
>>
>> In many instances it is not, for example, possible to reward remote
>> investors with anything but state currency, so, this imperfect variable must
>> be watched, yes?
>>
>> And a focus can be kept on, for example, minimizing profits for those who
>> are involved on a sweat equity level, especially locally, so that the common
>> good focus maintains primacy and spoils heirarchical context (or the power
>> it can have on motive.)
>>
>> This is all very delicate, of course, but, hey, you brought it up!
>>
>> a
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:53 AM, marc fawzi < <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>> marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [Converted from multipart/alternative]
>>>
>>> [1 text/plain]
>>> Hot or not, the analysis holds up
>>>
>>>  <http://www.univie.ac.at/virtuallabs/Snowdrift/>
>>> http://www.univie.ac.at/virtuallabs/Snowdrift/
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Alex Rollin < <alex.rollin at gmail.com>
>>> alex.rollin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > [Converted from multipart/alternative]
>>> >
>>> > [1 text/plain]
>>> > OMG that is SOO HOT
>>> >
>>> > "any hierarchy, including renewable hierarchies, is a structure that
>>> > rewards
>>> > "scarcity of unpaid
>>> > cooperation"
>>> >
>>> > OMG
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:26 PM, marc fawzi < <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>> marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > [Converted from multipart/alternative]
>>> > >
>>> > > [1 text/plain]
>>> > > Patrick,
>>> > >
>>> > > The corporation as an organizational hierarchy, and I would argue,
>>> based
>>> > on
>>> > > relatively new work in evolutionary game theory (see Snowdrift Game
>>> vs
>>> > > Prisoner's Dilemma thread on P2P Research), that any hierarchy,
>>> including
>>> > > renewable hierarchies, is a structure that rewards "scarcity of
>>> unpaid
>>> > > cooperation" .. This is pretty deep, IMO.
>>> > >
>>> > > Inspired leaders can say that they want to lead by uniting not
>>> dividing
>>> > but
>>> > > the very structure of governance that subjugates 99% of the planet's
>>> > > population, i.e. the hierarchical organization, is designed on the
>>> > > principle
>>> > > of divide and conquer.
>>> > >
>>> > > At the very root of the p2p movement is the idea that unpaid
>>> cooperation
>>> > is
>>> > > rewarded. If we ignore this idea, as I had done with the P2P Energy
>>> > > Economy,
>>> > > we lose our moral basis in this debate.
>>> > >
>>> > > The only viable incentive is the common good.
>>> > >
>>> > > Thanks for bringing it up.
>>> > >
>>> > > Marc
>>> > >
>>> > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Patrick Anderson <<agnucius at gmail.com>
>>> agnucius at gmail.com
>>> > > >wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Marc,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I sent this to p2p-research, but it bounced.  I guess I need to
>>> sign-up
>>> > > > again.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Could you give me your rough take on my questions at the end?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Thanks,
>>> > > > Patrick
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM, marc fawzi <<marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>> marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > > /. wrote:
>>> > > > >> "Symmetric, 100 Mbps service in Stockholm costs $11/month [in
>>> > > > Stockholm.]
>>> > > > >> Conditions in every city are different, but part of the
>>> explanation
>>> > > for
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > >> low cost is that the city owns a municipal fiber network
>>> reaching
>>> > > every
>>> > > > >> block. They lease network access to anyone who would like to
>>> offer
>>> > > > service.
>>> > > > >> The ISPs, including incumbent telephone and cable companies,
>>> compete
>>> > > on
>>> > > > an
>>> > > > >> equal footing."
>>> > > >
>>> > > > If the customers are paying $11/month the ISPs are taking a profit,
>>> > > > then it *could* be even cheaper.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Right?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I mean, if the WE (any group with any need) knew how to share, then
>>> > > > the WE could pool their resources to lease the line and then share
>>> the
>>> > > > benefits at cost.  Right?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > And if the WE were even more aggressive, the WE could even purchase
>>> > > > and *own* the Material Means of Production (the physical network in
>>> > > > this case).
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Now the ./ article seems to imply that the WE (in Sweden) own those
>>> > > lines.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > But that is not quite true because the supposed WE (the city in
>>> this
>>> > > > case) will not lease the line directly to customers, but instead
>>> > > > require for-profit corporations become the "middle-men" - taking
>>> > > > control and value (profit) away from the customers.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > There are more administrative costs if THEY (the city government)
>>> were
>>> > > > also the ISP layer.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > And the semi-valid argument against such a move is that it creates
>>> > > > centralized State Socialism.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The reason that argument has some validity is because almost all
>>> > > > governments are currently under the direction of Capitalist (profit
>>> > > > maximizing and therefore scarcity maximizing) corporations.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > ....
>>> > > >
>>> > > > So we won't be able Govern ourselves effectively until we have
>>> control
>>> > > > of Production.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > But we can't control Production (can't organize effectively) until
>>> we
>>> > > > discover how to share the Material Means of Production.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > And sharing Physical Sources for the purpose of maximizing freedom
>>> and
>>> > > > (secondarily) utilization means we must know how to self-Govern.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > So it seems we may be at an impasse.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > We can't change our current governments directly (voting is
>>> theater)
>>> > > > because they are controlled by Capitalist Corporations.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > And we can't change how we create *new* Corporations because we do
>>> not
>>> > > > yet know precisely what is wrong with the current entities.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I mean, sure they're 'evil'.  But what causes them to be such
>>> bullies?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Is there any chance it is a structure that rewards scarcity?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > If so, then where is the root of that reward?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Is profit related to scarcity?  If so, then what shall be done with
>>> it?
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Patrick
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > >
>>> > > Marc Fawzi
>>> > > Facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256>
>>> http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>>> > > LinkedIn: <http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi>
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > [2 text/html]
>>> > > _________________________________
>>> > > Web-Site: <http://www.oekonux.org/>http://www.oekonux.org/
>>> > > Organization: <http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/>
>>> http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
>>> > > Contact: <projekt at oekonux.de>projekt at oekonux.de
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Alex
>>> > I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.- Socrates
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > [2 text/html]
>>> > _________________________________
>>> > Web-Site: <http://www.oekonux.org/>http://www.oekonux.org/
>>> > Organization: <http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/>
>>> http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
>>> > Contact: <projekt at oekonux.de>projekt at oekonux.de
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Marc Fawzi
>>> Facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256>
>>> http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>>> LinkedIn: <http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi>
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>>>
>>>
>>> [2 text/html]
>>> _________________________________
>>> Web-Site: <http://www.oekonux.org/>http://www.oekonux.org/
>>> Organization: <http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/>
>>> http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
>>> Contact: <projekt at oekonux.de>projekt at oekonux.de
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alex
>> I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.- Socrates
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Marc Fawzi
> Facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256>
> http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> LinkedIn: <http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>
>


-- 

Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090421/01c08b45/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the p2presearch mailing list