[ExI] Etymology of Critter's Dilemma

[Lee Corbin]

Stuart writes

> --- Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> 
>> Why don't you come up with terms that (a) are not already 
>> well-defined in exactly the same context, (b) are not silly
>> and hard to remember? Thinking up a good name for these
>> moves of yours is even more important than thinking up
>> appropriate names for programming variables (which is
>> *plenty* important).
> 
> I have considered your thoughts on the matter and decided to leave the moves as
> they are for the following reasons:
> ...
>
>> Okay, if you're going to stick with "snap", "crackle", and "pop",
>> (I sincerely suggest you stay away from "defect" and "cooperate", 
>> but "ignore" I guess fits), then please provide very careful definitions
>> with examples (and counter-examples).
> 
> 1. Cooperate: To have a net positive effect on another player by bestowing a
> non-neglible benefit (i.e. an increase in utility) upon the other player for
> whatever reason. Since rational players seek to maximize their own benefit,
> cooperation is to conform to the intentions of the other player irregardless of
> whether it is due to ones own intent, circumstance, coercion, or deception.
> Examples of cooperation include submitting to authority, paying for something
> (whether the price is fair or not), getting eaten by a predator,...

If you think that people are going to study your novel definitions
and remember them, you're unbelievably optimistic. Your audience
will be reduced to a small set of your students or followers.

> 3. Defect: To incur a non-neglible cost upon the other player for whatever
> reason. Since all rational agents (i.e. critters) seek to minimize cost,
> defection is a betrayal or thwarting of the intentions of the other player.
> Examples include all manner of violence, stealing, cheating, extortion,
> vandalism, defending oneself from attack,...

Likewise.

I'm telling you that *no* one is going to remember that by "cooperate"
you include things like allowing yourself to be eaten, and that by "defect"
you include behaviors such as defending oneself.

Alas, I have seen certain friends try out neologisms for almost forty
years, and I've never yet seen a single success.

But what you're doing is *far* more groundlessly optimistic (in my
opinion), for  you are attempting to change the very meanings of
established words. It's possible that I am the last person who has
or will pay any attention to what you have written or will write
further employing this terminology. Good luck.

Lee