Re: [asa] prisoner's dilemma

*It seems to me that the labels assigned for "morality" bore little
resemblance to genuine altruism in the Christian sense of the word.*

I think that's right. I'd suggest that the "morality" resulting from games
like the Prisoner's Dilemma is actually the sort of "whitewashed tomb" ethic
that Jesus condemned -- having some appearance of moral action, but
motivated only by self.

On 8/15/06, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I had a look at the chapter in the 1989 edition of Dawkins' "The Selfish
> Gene" in which he discusses the Prisoner's Dilemma at some length, and I'm
> definitely less than convinced that it has much to do with morality.
>
> In a chapter headed "Nice guys finish first", he discusses the game of
> "Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma", where you just do the prisoner's dilemma
> repeatedly and accumulate the scores at each turn. There was a competition
> run by a guy called Axelrod in which computer programs were submitted to
> play the game in an all-play-all tournament. It turned out that the program
> that won the tournament was one of the simplest, called "tit for tat". The
> strategy it adopted was to cooperate on the first move, and then for all
> successive moves, merely copied the last move made by the other player. So
> if the other player defected on one turn, it would "retaliate" by defecting
> on the next turn etc. This was deemed a "nice" strategy on the basis that
> it was never the first one to defect. Two "Tit for Tats" playing each other
> will always both cooperate. A strategy that could be the first one to
> defect was deemed a "nasty" strategy. The tournament result showed that all
> the "nice" strategies finished in the top half (except one), and
> correspondingly all the "nasty" strategies ended in the bottom half.
> Various other "moral" features were seemingly demonstrated. A slight
> improvement on Tit for Tat was "Tit for Tat with forgiveness", where with a
> certain probability (about 1 in 4) a Tit for Tat would refrain from
> retaliating, but would cooperate, which could sometimes break the cycle of
> mutual defections.
>
> It seems to me that the labels assigned for "morality" bore little
> resemblance to genuine altruism in the Christian sense of the word. In
> order to succeed well against all-comers, a program HAD to have retaliation
> built in to it. The concept of turning the other cheek (a strategy of
> always cooperating) is a dead loss and would always fall prey to a "nasty"
> strategy because it always gets suckered when the other player defects.
>
> So I think the terms "nice" and "forgiveness" are just convenient labels
> to put on these abstract strategies, but bear little resemblance to genuine
> morality. "niceness" and "forgiveness" help you to win, but only if you
> don't take them to excess - always turning the other cheek in such games
> doesn't work.
>
> Iain
>
>
>
> On 8/15/06, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > *So is our morality really altruistic? Or just selfish at a higher
> > community
> > level? A wise pastor of mine once referred to it as "enlightened
> > self-interest".*
> >
> > This is one problem with using game theory to assess "morality."
> > Perhaps none of the students are acting "morally." There needs to be a way
> > to separate "moral" actions from the "natural" or "typical" exercise of
> > human nature, which our Christian faith tells us is depraved. Game theory
> > can't supply that.
> >
> > On 8/13/06, mrb22667@kansas.net < mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is the original version as I remember it.
> > >
> > > Two suspects are apprehended for a crime. The state has a weak case
> > > and the
> > > prosecuting attorney is therefore hoping to get the suspects to
> > > testify against
> > > each other. They are taken to separate cells, and each are given
> > > this
> > > identical message: If you testify against your partner, but he
> > > refuses to
> > > testify against you, then you will go free and he will get the maximum
> > > prison
> > > sentence. However if you and he both testify, you will both serve
> > > long (but
> > > shorter than the maximum) sentences in prison for your crime. If
> > > both of you
> > > refuse to testify then you will both serv short prison sentences and
> > > then go
> > > free. Your partner is being given this same offer.
> > >
> > > Summary: both are tempted to go for the best outcome for
> > > themselves (to go
> > > free if they testify and the other doesn't). But since they will
> > > probably both
> > > do that, they will implicate each other and get the second WORST
> > > option (the
> > > long prison sentence). However if they could both just trust each
> > > other to
> > > hold out, they could both get the SECOND BEST option of serving the
> > > short
> > > sentence. But, unable to communicate, they just have to trust each
> > > other to try
> > > this option. What would you do?
> > >
> > > I like to modify this to a "rewards" scenario that I can have students
> > > pair off
> > > and do in the classroom. Each student in a pair can choose between
> > > two
> > > options, say "TRUST" or "GO FOR MORE". If one trusts & the other
> > > chooses to
> > > trample them, then the Go for more person gets 3 m&ms and the trusting
> > > person
> > > gets zilch. But if they both go for more, they both only get one.
> > > However if
> > > they both choose to trust, then they both get two. Do this scenario
> > > several
> > > times, and it is interesting to see the class dynamics. The totally
> > > trusting
> > > pairs will net more m&ms between them than any other option. But if
> > > your
> > > partner is trusting you, why not go for 3 m&ms instead of 2? And on
> > > it goes.
> > > So is our morality really altruistic? Or just selfish at a higher
> > > community
> > > level? A wise pastor of mine once referred to it as "enlightened
> > > self-interest".
> > >
> > > --merv
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> -----------
> After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
>
> - Italian Proverb
> -----------
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 16 13:17:03 2006