Curious how we view this, I feel like I am able to explain a little better, I'm not expecting this to amount to much but its prob a little derail from the OP in this thread PDTitforTAT

Op suggested since Tit for Tat is the best strategy for iterative PD it could be reasoned to be the basis for societies legal/moral issues.

I am suggesting that the correct approach is a Nash Equillibrium but that observing the problem incorrectly prevents this insight.

I'm suggesting we cannot extract morals (tit for tat) from a game (prisoner dilemma like op) to apply to the real world, because we make the assumption that everyone is on their own team.

That assumption is not free from bias and prejudice; nor is it objective in nature.

And if everyone saw in terms of serving the group, then to act for ones own selfish desires (deviating) would not be considered 'to do better'.

There is an equilibrium in that, which cannot be seen by the individualistic mind.

If we apply this to poker, we can use nash's work to build tools to bring an equilibrium to the game, where as convention is to use it to deviate.

Furthermore we can notice as the limit from todays game increases towards a total equilibrium of the entire field, the average of the overall optimal strategy trends towards the nash eq.

So there seems to be a tipping point which is marked by some kind of velocity I think.

Once we can see poker can be brought to such an equilibrium we can show that so can the world.

We have lead ourselves to believe, by the same false assumptions, that the best 'technological' and other advances come from cut throat capitalist type cultures and events, which a nash fueled deviation strategy would rule over and explain.

But the real advances come when the general (entire) population works together in harmony and sees itself as the obvious whole that it is.

Doing what's best for the self AND ignoring the whole, is NOT what is best for the self and unbiased math will never suggest that.

Please not this again.

You have several times demonstrated your lack of understanding of the concepts from game theory you refer to here. Try to make your point without using any jargon.

I guess it would take me a few tries, and I don't think it's because I don't understand the concept of what a nash eq. is.

It's because when changing the context some of the definitions change their meanings.

There are a few basic things that I am saying.

First that we view nash's work as the foundation to how we would win war whether nations vs nation, in economy, bargaining, poker etc. But really that foundation and the knowledge that comes from it can and should be used to bring peace. Is that jargon?

2nd And this is possibly jargon or incorrectly used words, if we are maybe to change the idea of the utility that should motivate the players. The new idea i suppose is that a higher utility (or payout) is achieved when equilibrium is achieved.

If this is true then the nash equilibrium becomes optimal.

It's also simple to say that poker should be a game in which all the players gather together to bring it to equilibrium. Not to exploit each other but to bring the game to an unbeatable point as possible.

That might be to 'solve' it but I think its better said 'to move towards solving it at an ever increasing pace'

If those things are put in their place, then you might have a chance at logically extracting morality or irl strategy from a game.

We've already pointed out and admitted one of your favorite things is to break into this subject to roll your eyes.

You are still using jargon. Try making your point without saying "equilibrium" or "nash" or "prisoner's dilemma."

No one can gain by deviating from the strategy that we all see ourselves on the same team.

Sure they can. If you see me as on your team and so share with me, but I cheat and don't share with you, I benefit.

I was thinking about these thought experiments or games, and it seems they always setup a situation of perfect information that can not relate to "irl".

I am not saying these thought experiments are not useful, they certainly seem to be a tool for some examination. However, as a method to provide some conclusive, I guess, normative moral statement, these games/thought experiments necessarily have to come up short.

If anyone is confused by newguys interpretation of Nash equilibrium I'll save you some time by pointing out he bases it entirely on the following Russell Crowe scene:



If you are wondering what that scene has to do with Nash equilibrium, join the club.

Nash's friends are too drunk to experience anything but emotional equilibrium/stupor?

I wonder if you make the same criticism of Galileo. It's true that game theory is an abstraction of real life decisions, but that doesn't mean it doesn't relate to real life decisions. Also, in what sense do we have perfect information in the Prisoner's Dilemma? There we are faced with a problem precisely because we don't know what the other prisoner will do.

That depends on what you think morality is. For instance, look at David Gauthier's Morals by Agreement for a counterexample.

No you don't benefit by cheating.

You wreck the world that you live in.

As if we are in a boat held together by nails. Neither of us have nails but if you take all the nails you didn't gain, you sunk the ship.

Yes thought is limited, and I think you point out the same thing I do in a different form.

No that's not true but I get painted with that before you understand what I am suggesting.

More importantly I'm pretty sure, at this point at least that Adam Smith does not need revision. However, from what I understand, he tried to have his books burned on his death bed.

This is not an argument, it is a poor analogy. If you don't punish me for cheating, then it does benefit me as it will give me a better chance of achieving my desires.

no it will sink the boat and you will drown.

When people work together to achieve results they accomplish more than what each individual would achieve alone. Seeing games in terms of individuals skews the resulting optimal strategy.

In this world we are able to work together to produce results, and deviating from that is suboptimal for everyone.

I think the critique stands with the natural sciences, and most would agree. I would argue that peer review serves this purpose - in the long run what is accepted as some objective statement is only provisionally accepted, the old can't prove a theory true, but can prove a theory false gag.

In the Prisoner's Dilemma, while we do not have perfect information about the actions of the other we do have a set of perfect information regarding the possible outcomes and our desire.

Perhaps "relate" to real life isn't the best, maeby we should say something like a direct 1:1 relationship or something - that is there is some space for error in transferring the results of a moral experiment in a perfect setting to the imperfect setting of "irl".

Thanks, I will certainly take a look.

You're wrong because not cheating is like eating rat poison--it kills you.

The problem with your view is exactly the same as before. Yes, you are correct that the aggregate sum of utility can sometimes be maximized if everyone cooperates (though not always). However, just because the aggregate sum of utility is maximized doesn't mean that individual utility is maximized. Thus, if we assume that individuals are motivated to maximize their own utility, individuals will still have an incentive to take actions which decrease aggregate utility.

Essentially, you are failing to distinguish between a prescriptive and descriptive usage of game theory. If you want to try to convince everyone that they shouldn't think of themselves as individuals and so try to increase their individual utility, fine. But that doesn't change the fact that if they do try to increase their individual utility, then unless they are punished they can benefit by cheating.

Here's a general comment on some more confusion. A game (in game theory) has, by definition, more than one player. Game theory is the study of interdependent rational choice--that is, rational choice with more than one rational chooser involved. Thus, if you really think that we shouldn't think of these situations as having more than one individual, then you are telling us to not think of them as games (making all discussion of Nash equilibria moot). In that case, what you are looking for isn't game theory but decision theory.

What I meant was that things like the physics of motion work by idealizing away extraneous aspects of the situation (e.g. frictionless surfaces) to focus on just the part we are interested in. Game theory does the same thing. Insofar as we might be wrong about e.g. the payout structure of a situation we are just bringing in a separate thing to be considered in making our decision.

Yeah, but nothing about the Prisoner's Dilemma is changed by saying that our information is imperfect or that we might be wrong about our desires except that the math is more complicated.

Fair enough. I agree that we should be careful in classifying the decisions we make as being exactly like some example in game theory.

explain this in context of stealing the nails that hold together the ship were are all in please.

I fixed it to be a statement. Not sure it encapsulates what I am saying fully yet. But I am saying it doesn't matter how rich you are, if the world is at war you not living anywhere near optimal.


Yes you are saying you can't use an 'act for the world' strategy because its not optimal since not everyone is playing in this same way. This I am fine with, but no where in that does the math suggest that acting for self is the best strategy for the world.

I will look at it all for sure, but if for example we are to take poker and bring it to a state in which no one can gain by deviating from the general strategy everyone uses, we will surely need the foundation laid out in game theory.

Unless you steal the nails you have to drink rat poison. Also your ship is right next to land so you won't drown. One arbitrary story deserves another.

Yes. A false statement.

As far as I'm concerned, these are all nonsense words when you say them. I don't know (and am doubtful you know either) what you mean by "optimal," "strategy," "act for the world" or "acting for self" or "strategy for the world."

Yes, according to you, when I play poker my best strategy is to try to maximize aggregate poker winnings rather than my own poker winnings.

Yes I am suggesting just like you if you change the motivations the strategy changes


depending on the motivations and teams.


You will feel this way unless you understand my context.

Living in a peaceful world is far greater than maximizing ones one poker winnings. I'm not telling you what to do, but im suggesting that its obvious fact.

This is highly dependent on your definition of peaceful and is far from obvious due to degrees of peacefulness.

Well, more than likely, I am already over extended in my knowledge and abilities, but I am going soldier on....

In physics, would it be necessary to at least have the "part we are interested" have some predictive ability with out idealizing away the extraneous?

I do see some utility in these "games", but it seems there has to be some aspect that can function effectively "irl".

I would say that more than just making the math more complicated, imperfect information really makes the math somewhat irrelevant.

That is, we would seem to need perfect information, some perfect theory to derive all the information needed for the perfect mathematics.

Without some way of deriving the information we need, it would seem that we are just making a calculated intuitive guess.

Perhaps I am reading too much into people's statements, but I get a feeling that some may have some absolutist stance that these boil down to some math problem that is solvable - not that I completely disavow the approach. I think its weighted too heavily at times.

The definition of peace is written into the statement. Peace is when each of us acts for the whole, with no defectors.

The argument you give about peace having multiple definitions comes from the corruption brought about by the foundation laid by assuming there are opponents irl.

Having opponents is what lays the ground for war.

What you have to show to disprove this is that there can be violence, torture, suppression, war etc. when all parties act for the group (therefore no defectors).