[ExI] Critter's Dilemma on the African Plain
lcorbin at rawbw.com
Thu Aug 14 05:10:28 UTC 2008
> [Lee wrote]
>> I have searched through several pages of Google links
>> without apparently finding any usage that does not involve both
>> a conscious decision and a definite adversarial stance. In fact,
>> almost all the links for "game theory defect" that I've seen go
>> straight to the classic PD.
> Yeah I know. But it is a brand new game and I had to call the moves something.
> If you prefer, you can call the moves Snap, Crackle, and Pop instead of
> Cooperate, Ignore, and Defect.
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
>> Therefore, you are using the term in a very non-standard way
>> so far as I can see.
> Yes. I think I gave fair warning of that in my initial post.
I evidently read too fast. How would you feel if I said at the
beginning of a post that "not all the terms I'm going to use
here have their standard meanings", and then proceeded
1. John Kennedy was the first president of the United States
2. Stuart L. is an asshole
3. The United States has one of the lowest per capita
incomes in the entire world
where, it turns out, that by "president" I mean "Catholic president",
and by "asshole" I mean "intelligent guy", and by "lowest" I mean
> By virtue of having to compete for apartments, seats in a theater,
> jobs, or ecological niches, we ARE mutually defecting (popping)
> on one another. That is what intraspecies competition is all about.
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).
More information about the extropy-chat