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.
Quote:
Anyway, I don't know what you mean by the "individual and the group."
The aggregate utility? Aggregate preference satisfaction? Some
weighted mix of aggregate and individual utility? Some new entity
"group" that has emergent goods? Not sure where the advance is here.
Quote:
Wiki on Nash EQ:
Informally, a set of strategies is a Nash equilibrium if no player can
do better by unilaterally changing his or her strategy.
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.