[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?