From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Thu Nov 28 2002 - 07:01:40 MST
Anders wrote:
> > Too retaliatory? I guess you mean "two tats for one tit".
> > But while you're at it, could you explain why EFAE (an eye
> > for an eye) is not tit-for-tat? (It was claimed not to be
> > tit-for-tat in some earlier post in the old thread.)
>
> I would say TFT includes "start out by cooperation" and "only do what
> the other party did last time". EFAE on playgrounds tends to be swayed
> by the anger of a defection so that it turns into "two tats for a
> tit".
Lee question on the difference b/n EFAE and TFT also
got me rethinking if there's a difference. I think the EFAE
strategy (from Exodus in the bible - I did a google on bible
online) encompasses more than eyes and is shorthand. The
same section of the bible also talks of tooth for tooth and
hand for hand and slightly earlier of life for life.
Now bearing in mind TFT as opposed to PD is iterative and
played (in Axelrod's study at least) against the same player
essentially without other prospective players looking on.
Ie. Each matching goes on for say 20 rounds in a vacuum
with only the two parties themselves and no carry over
reputation follows a player into exchanges with the next
player then EFAE would not be good for more than 2
eyes each. A one player has to put the others second eye
out whilst totally blind.
Considering the section of the bible also include life for life
then clearly you are not talking of only two parties anymore
as the first one defected against is hardly in a position to
personally execute payback.
This is where the excessive retaliating comes in I think. A
kills B and C (B's brother avenges A), then D (A's son) kills
D etc and pretty soon a whole lot of people are dead.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:28 MST