[brudgers]

The premise of the replacement is that poorest adopt the strategy of the richest and is premised on this being the right thing to do even if the change is from always cooperating to always cheating.

In some ways the description of replacement rather death is a more explicit example of the premise underlying the simulation that cheating is morally/ethically/rationally justifiable. The underlying moral/ethical theory behind the simulation is not even Utilitarian (never mind Deontological) it is purely Randian where the justification of behavior is only what is in it for me.

In that sense it completely misses the point of the Christmas Peace which from a deontological perspective reflected moral/ethical principles such as the golden rule and peace on earth and goodwill toward men. Even from a utilitarian perspective there was the idea that the greatest happiness for the greatest number included the enemy in that number.

The individual benefits were a side effect that was only possible because of the higher level principle. And the individual benefits were always going to trend toward a short life. The shell with someone's name on it was still going to be lobbed on 26/12/14.

[carapace]

The "reward" is an unspecified scalar value. You are casting the terms of the model into "poor" and "rich". It's a mathematical model, not an ethical one.

[brudgers]

'Cooperation' and 'cheating' and 'mistake' are not mathematical terms. They are part of moral/ethical/rational frameworks. The realm in which the simulation is supposed to provide insight is moral/ethical/rational. Moral/ethical/rational conclusions are the point of the website.

If the point is just mathematical, then limiting interactions to one and cheating is the best strategy. The simulations assume autonomous decision making on the part of the agents, that's what provides insight into human behavior why considering the moral/ethical/rational premises of the simulation are relevant when evaluating what the simulation shows.

[carapace]

If you are complaining that the mathematical toys of Game Theory are inadequate for modeling human moral/ethical/rational behavior then I agree with you whole-heartedly.

I'm just insisting that we keep the math toy and the interpretation of the math toy on different "logical levels".

[brudgers]

If the presentation of the models was an academic paper filled with equations, I would not find the insistence unreasonable. In this case the context for The Evolution of Trust is alongside the Parable of the Polygons and parables are not mathematical or game theory.

At the mathematical level, if there is nothing moral/ethical/rational to draw from the simulation, then what's the point? If it's just math, then why is it only the least successful agents that switch to the most successful strategy and why are they able to switch to the most successful strategy before it is clear that that strategy is the most successful? Going further why don't moderately unsuccessful agents switch strategies? And since mistakes are part of the simulation, why don't agents mistakenly switch strategies? Why does the simulation maintain a constant number of agents rather than varying based on outcome?

The reason is that the goal of the presentation is to encourage people to be more open to the possibility of mistakes before retaliation. The presentation is trying to appeal to people using mathematics. My criticism is that the price of the mathematical model is too high: justifying cheating because it is best for the individual.

[carapace]

I think I see what you're saying. The author is trying to use the Game Theory mathematical model to encourage a moral or ethical response, but the model itself is flawed for that purpose because it just as readily portrays a moral "poison", if you will: the idea that selfishness can justify cheating. Is that it?

[abakker]

Yes, and we are talking about strategies to win a "game" The game is not necessarily "the economy"