From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Tue Dec 01 1998 - 11:23:37 MST
Anders Sandberg wrote:
> Might is right (MIR) doesn't work well. In fact, I even made a simple
> model where I tested it against a simple cooperative strategy
> (cooperate with other cooperators) and it did worse under a wide
> variety of situations (It became a nice little paper I'm going to
> publish). MIR has the problem that it only works for the strong, but
> anyone can earn well in a cooperative endeavor regardless of coercive
> strength, which makes cooperators in the long run better off. This is
> of course why dictatorships and other MIR societies doesn't do as well
> as democracies and non-MIR societies; a lot of work is wasted on
> internal conflict.
I would love to reveiw your model. Have you tested a model where you test MIR only
individuals, Co-op only individuals, and MIR/Coop capable individuals? I bet that
Individuals who can do both MIR and Co-op, depending on the situation and the
behavior of the others will fare best.
>
>
> The problem is that humans in general aren't as rational as they could
> be, and MIR is easy to explain (just use a gun) while coperative
> strategies require more thinking, communication and education. Which
> is why I think we should introduce young people more to game theory,
> the prisoners' dilemma and the theory of cooperation.
>
Yes, I beleive that youngsters should be exposed to much more of this. However I
wouldn't leave out the MIR principle in its entirety. As 20th century history
shows, MIR individuals are usually only best dealt with in an MIR manner.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:53 MST