[extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford

[Russell Wallace]

On 5/16/06, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
>
> When I first learned about Prisoners' Dilemma -- and it was from that
> same Scientific American article -- it illustrated clearly for me that
> there was something more to real-world rationality than what was being
> dealt with in standard game theory.  This sensitivity to more
> encompassing context which is always a factor in the real world needed
> accounting for, and Hofstadter's superrationality, along with
> Buckminster Fullers statements about synergy, and other thinking on
> positive sum interactions seemed (to me) to make sense of this
> important question.
>

I agree with your premise, but not with your conclusion. Yes, the rational
strategy in one-shot Prisoner's Dilemma does not capture real-world
rationality, but I think that is adequately captured by the following:

1) Truly one-shot interactions are rare in the real world. (Screw someone
over badly enough, and he may go out of his way to create a second
interaction.)

2) Even if you never interact with that particular partner again, word gets
around; other people are more likely to want to deal with you if you have a
reputation for being willing to cooperate.

3) We are not mathematically perfect beings with infinite computing power,
but finite mortals. When you defect on someone who has not defected on you,
your action does not only affect him; it also changes you by a small
increment in the direction of being the sort of person who is first to
defect; and, leaving aside ethical considerations and just considering
self-interest, that is by and large not a good way to live, for reasons
dealt with by standard game theory.

There's no need to invoke Hofstadter's "superrationality" at all.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060516/c5cf417c/attachment.html>