From what I have seen of Game Theory various methods are used to assign point values to certain strategies based on the Prisoners Dilema base method, mutual cooperation being good, mutual defection being bad and 50/50 being good for the defector while horrible for the cooperator. It is all well and good but it does not hold up even in long term strategy games, one of which I played for ten years. Long term strategy games showed me that defecting is a quick path to doom, as many players gang up on you and wipe you out. In a EEA scenario (Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation) defecting is a dead end geneticaly. If an individual defects and is detected they are likely to at the very least fall to the bottom of the status ladder, as present day criminals do generaly. There is also a very real chance of being slain in some painful way or being banished which pretty much always lead to death as well. Defecting without being detected can be advantageous, but the tribe that is not adept at finding defectors will find that it is weaker than its conspecifics who do find defectors well, resulting in the whole tribe being wiped out or at least the men killed with the women taken by the victorious altruists.
In short my problem with Game Theory is that I fail to see it accounting for the fact that life is very different from a computer game where losing is easily remedied. Even a few defections can easily kill in life and there is no replay button. Defecting is a very high risk strategy and not one that will be selected for generaly. A group of defectors has no chance against a group of altruists. Defectors cant be entirely eliminated, but they are sharply curtailed by any thriving group. |
incomplete modeling new - Carmi - 2003-04-30
incomplete modeling new - Carmi Turchick - 2003-05-07