From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Nov 21 2002 - 21:26:55 MST
Anders writes
> > > I strongly suspect that the truth lies
> > > somewhere in the analysis and
> > > application of game theory.
> >
> > Me too.
>
> Me too.
Me three.
> > An interesting thing about tit for tat is that it seems that
> > once one understands it one can benefit by teaching it or
> > showing it to others.
>
> I have always thought there should be a children's book about it.
Well, I think that *children* already understand it quite well:
just observe three year olds on a playground. But a very
easy-to-understand book does need to be written for college
Sophomores, and for the usual sort of leftists that go around
preaching unilateral disarmament and appeasement.
> > I think this sort of thinking was behind Mutually Assured
> > Destruction (MAD) in the cold war. Seems to me we got
> > through 50 years without a global war so maybe it worked.
> > Or maybe we just got lucky and in 999 other universes we
> > all died :-)
Yes, it may have been best for more people in more
universes if the U.S. had adopted Bertrand Russell's
suggestion and invaded the Soviet Union in 1947 to
preserve an atomic monopoly forever.
> Actually, MAD is a slightly different game than the PD:
>
> Cooperate Defect
> Cooperate 1,1 -100, -100
> Defect -100, -100 -100, -100
(fixed font, no tabs)
> The whole point in MAD is that the only rational move is to
> cooperate - if I launch my nukes, you launch yours. Note
> that if there was no retaliation capacity the game would
> be "winnable" by striking first, so both players would
> have an incentive to strike.
Yes, I agree if that is the definition of MAD. The real
cold war scenario gave no little advantage to he who struck
first, and the Soviet Union and the United States are to
be congratulated on their restraint. One imagine that if
certain other 20th century powers had been the first to
get nukes, they would have been used, and often.
The most interesting scenarios are those that start from
MAD and then slowly evolve towards
Cooperate Defect
Cooperate 1,1 -1000, 100
Defect 100, -1000 -100, -100
Yikes! It's like slowing raising the temperature in
a kettle holding a frog. Is one to be "hyper-rational"
and start the war immediately as soon as one realizes
that the evolution towards the latter table has started?
Or is one to grimly hang-on, hoping against hope that
either the evolution stops or the other party grimly
also hangs on?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:18 MST