PD is a dilemma for the researcher
Several people in person, and Chauncey as a comment (way to fight the terrorists, Chauncey!), have asked about the Prisoner's Dilemma. Every time I teach this, and I have taught it now for nearly 25 years, I get exactly the same responses. And, to your credit, you do all seem to believe that you are the first to think of this objection. It's charming.
Let's try again.
*IF* we have this problem:
Then what will the person do? He will confess/defect. There is no dilemma.
What you people (and thousands before you) want to do is something like this, where an outside authority (Sicilian "omerta") or feelings ("filial bonds") change the payoffs:
Now, in this SECOND game, it's true, the prisoners will cooperate. But that is a different game.
In other words, you are changing the example, and saying that "solves" the prisoner's dilemma. Well...no. The fact is that there are many forms of strategic cooperation games, and most of them are not prisoner's dilemmas. It is certainly true that other games, ones that are not Prisoner's Dilemmas, have different results. But you can't take a Prisoner's Dilemma, change it to another game, and then say you have "solved" it.
Hobbes was arguing that the war of all against each would not SOLVE ITSELF, on a large scale. We can't all be brothers, or so Hobbes apparently thought.
(Major props to Robert Schenk for his cool web site, from which the graphics above are linked)
Let's try again.
*IF* we have this problem:
Then what will the person do? He will confess/defect. There is no dilemma.
What you people (and thousands before you) want to do is something like this, where an outside authority (Sicilian "omerta") or feelings ("filial bonds") change the payoffs:
Now, in this SECOND game, it's true, the prisoners will cooperate. But that is a different game.
In other words, you are changing the example, and saying that "solves" the prisoner's dilemma. Well...no. The fact is that there are many forms of strategic cooperation games, and most of them are not prisoner's dilemmas. It is certainly true that other games, ones that are not Prisoner's Dilemmas, have different results. But you can't take a Prisoner's Dilemma, change it to another game, and then say you have "solved" it.
Hobbes was arguing that the war of all against each would not SOLVE ITSELF, on a large scale. We can't all be brothers, or so Hobbes apparently thought.
(Major props to Robert Schenk for his cool web site, from which the graphics above are linked)
posted by Mungowitz at 5:58 PM
1 Comments:
Maybe so, but slashing the Gordian knot is the only proper way to "solve" the prisoner's dilemma. (To change it into a problem without such a bitch of a dilemma. ...A problem that circumvents the dilemma.)
After all, it's only the ignorance of the fellow prisoner that creates the dilemma. (Both shallow and deep ignorance. After all, if he allows himself to be busted for drugs, he is also sacrificing himself as a warrior that our side needs. He also sacrifices western civilization by being caught, unless he is "low information". In which case he decreases his value, and in so doing, hurts his chances of surviving a "dilemma". The more information, the less dilemma. Of course, this breaks down when torture is involved, and the rules of western civilization are suspended.)
I have another "preemption" for the prisoner's dilemma: Destroy all police. Therefore, you preempt the prisoner's dilemma. See: http://marcstevens.net
Or diminish their effectiveness at punishing, (such as by deep knowledge of the law, or expertise at "jury nullification arguments"). ...Or only work with accomplices who have training in avoiding the prisoner's dilemma --ie: who despise the system such that they do not cooperate, even "rationally", because the loss of 100% victory and personal pride is a further loss that represents an unacceptable net loss on the battlefield.
Also, prepare for prison, and make prison more attractive prior to the dilemma. (As in "Goodfellas" prison scenes) Create that network of resistance that knows it will be supported.
Or, prepare for breakout, such that it doesn't matter if you are caught. (Such as: develop strong nanotech, or other superior "leading force" weaponry.) Once caught, wait to see if the fellow prisoner betrays you, and if he does, torture and execute him. After a few times, it will be a factor that all betrayors will need to take into account, in order to "play rationally". Then, the prisoner's dilemma is not a dilemma, because the cost of participating increases.
Perhaps this is the reason why there hasn't been a libertarian rebellion yet: A rebellion has less benefit than if "we" could have amplified the benefit by waiting for "our side" to catch up to the government. (Our side risks bloody death by fighting with guns, whereas it risks almost nothing if it suddenly has access to strong nanotech. On the other hand, fighting with guns provides a chance, whereas if the gov developes strong nanotech first, all effective advocates of freedom will suddenly die from inexplicable causes.) The government has better tech now, but only because they are throwing so much money at it. They have fewer potential members of Galt's gulch though (superthinkers), and no MycroftXXX (yet). So what do we do? ...We wait.
This may or may not be stupid. ...If Robert Freitas's negative postulate is correct. (Depending on if we've "gone public" with our support for freedom) Of course, I assume you are familiar with Freitas, but if not, here:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0665.html
I think that the "pro-freedom" forces are unaware as to how important freedom actually is. Freedom is undervalued by all libertarians, because they view it abstractly. An uninformed liberal 20 year old in jail for 14 years values freedom vastly more than 99% of libertarians. ...But the libertarians have the jury rights knowledge and deeper knowledge about philosophy and taxation that that 20 year old needs. And that 20 year old is a needle in a haystack. (How do you prospect for him, when you have noone on the street willing to walk through the ghetto?)
The Libertarians aren't trying to find him though. They don't know how to talk to people.
In fact, assholes like Sean Haugh et al. have driven the LP off a cliff. Are they working for the Republicans? Who knows? Chances are pretty good that they don't even know.
...I'm a believer in self-fulfilling "karma", and things being more connected than they appear, especially to the uninformed. This is one more reason not to fear those Salt Lake City conservative fuckers. (Conservatives will outbreed us, and we will figure out ways to circumvent their government, and retaliate against their coercion.)
Hopefully I've said things that
1) you think are important
and
2) you weren't already thinking about
...Peace be with you, fellow freedom preacher.
Post a Comment
<< Home