As long as we're clear on the difference between a moral value and moral problem solving that Aaron pointed out, we are in agreement here (and always have been).

No, you aren't. The fact you can't hold your hands up and admit small errors makes me think very poorly of you. Be an adult.

As we have pointed out many times, you constantly reference "best for the individual AND the group" as Nash. The real John Nash never said anything like this. The Russell Crowe portrayal of Nash did. Again, if you want us to take you seriously you need to be able to put your hands up, admit your error and move on.

You are conceited. You constantly claim special knowledge. You're doing it right now. And you clearly believe that your jollies to the cinema have given you better understanding of economic theory than people who have formally studied it.

On the contrary. I believe the world would be a better place if people collaborated instead of screwing each other over. What I don't do is falsely claim that this belief is Nash equilibrium. That would make me sound like a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about...

Nope.

Real Nash or Russell Crowe Nash?

I have certainly made small errors, and I have certainly admitted that many times here.
I am not wrong you still don't understand what I am saying.


This is not conceited unless I am wrong.

No I don't understand economic theory. I do understand that Nash's work can and should be used to bring peace to the world. I also unerstand its largely used to do the opposite.


So you think if we all collaborated instead of screwing people over that someone could deviate and gain? I assure you they could not.



Yes it starts with the belief you are better than the person you are ridiculing.



The one who said he had a better solution to Einsteins relativity work.

I don't think you know what conceited means. Its certainly possible to both be correct, and still be conceited.

Yes but I am being called conceited because the size of my claim, not because I have shown some form of boasting etc.

To the root and core of my beliefs and knowledge I do not believe it possible to be above others.

Part of what I know is that we are all equal, and all on the same team.

I am not conceited, just because I know something that Zumby does not.

I know what conceited means.

You don't understand me, Zumby doesn't understand what I know, that is the issue.




My question still stands and puts it all into place:

If we all collaborated instead of screwing people over that someone could deviate and gain? If not its a nash equilibrium.

are there any unguarded jars of coins in your world of collaboration? I assume there would be since nobody ever screws anyone over. If i am the last one in the office and I take a nickel out of my coworkers spare change jar on my way home - i have deviated from full teamwork and cooperation, and i have achieved personal gain.

i would have achieved that which youve assured is impossible.

why do you think in a world of full cooperation that nobody ever leaves their things unattended?

you do not personally gain by ruining a perfect world you live in.

You are defining gain wrong, that is not personal gain.

Further more money is worthless in such a world and further invalidates the suggestion that deviating gains.


What I mean is, 10 extra bux, although it's +$ev, does not help this individual gain, if it deviates the entire world he/she lives in towards war.

I am sorry if I don't explain that simply and clear.

ok so your claim isn't really a claim at all, its more of a tautology.

something like "with points being counted in amount of cooperation, if there already exists full cooperation, nobody can increase their own level of cooperation by cooperating less."

yea, obviously if money and happiness are worthless and teamwork is its own reward, then you can't increase your reward by doing less teamwork. that's just not a very useful scoring system since most people view happiness as a reward, and teamwork maybe as a means, but not a reward in and of itself.

No you have not understood.

A world where everyone works together as a team is a very different world, it is very abundant, very peaceful, very non violent. That is an extremely good life for any individual living in it.

Trading 10 bux in change for that world is not gain. Because when you steal that world goes away.

There is no amount of money an individual can steal that will amount to a greater gain for that individual than living in that peaceful helpful world.

oooooooooooooooooooh, i see the problem. You aren't counting deviations in isolation the way you are supposed to.

When someone says "player A can deviate and improve his score" that carries with it an implicit assumption of already knowing that the other players do, ie that they don't deviate. So in the quoted example, Player A gets 10 extra bucks. There is no rest of world deviating towards war. Player A changes, rest of the world stays the same.

Now i get that you are just trying to say that "well, if player A deviates, then player B would also deviate in retaliation, and now they are both worse off". Right? Is this your point? So when you say "Player A can't deviate and be better off" you really mean "Player A can't deviate and be better off because player B will also deviate in retaliation and things continue to spiral downward".

These are not at all the same thing.

Assuming that this actually is what you mean, they were right when they said you don't understand what a Nash Equilibrium is, because if you are using it in this way, you are completely wrong. You need to only look at changing 1 action, not changing all actions.

Nope, not what I am saying, the problem you are having is relating the issue to the world we live in rather than some finite piece.

But I urge you to think about what I am saying because although its tricky for the conditioned mind its obvious and true.

Player X lives in a perfect world where everyone helps each other and doesn't deviate.

If someone deviates the world becomes corrupt.

Stealing 10 Bux to corrupt the world is not a net gain.

Stealing 10 bux = +(10bux-a pefect world.)

This is before we discuss the ramification of a helpful world on money.



In other words a gain in $ is not a gain unless you define gain as monetary. You cannot bring that assumption in just to suggest deviating from a helpful world is gain.

and peaceful helpful world is defined as one where everyone cooperates and nobody deviates. obviously one can't live in a more cooperative and less deviant world if they cooperate less and deviate more. you are merely pushing a tautology.

The greatest life for the individual is to live in a world that entirely believes in cooperation.

There is no foundation to suggest that if the individual had millions of dollars they could have a better life living in a world full of war than if they had zero dollars in a peaceful world.

However this is the argument you are all giving.

Your argument is also the principle our world is governed by.

There is no better world than one in which everyone is free. Being the king of a non free world is not better for the individual.

There is no math that will show that to be false. None.

To deviate from a free world cannot bring gain to the individual.

This is clear unless you are stuck thinking in terms of finite games.

Look at the world we live in, think about a world in which everyone believes they are on the same team.

You cannot gain by creating your own team, it destroys the synergy created by the peace.

As I am presently wathching the Heat/Pacers game 5 while reading this thread I'm thinking of an example relevant to newguy's view. For arguments sake let's assume that if all the Heat players play together perfectly as a team they will win. But if one player decides to go all playground, ignoring teamwork to hog the ball and take bad shots trying to look the superstar, then the team will lose. The player who "defects" in this way might boost his stats but, for arguments sake, what he gains pales in comparison to what he loses when the team doesn't win.

If the few rich people in the world become too rich at the expense of making too many other people too poor then in the long run the rich people will suffer when the poor people revolt. Maybe not so relevant but what the hell.


PairTheBoard

It appears that we simply need to add conceit to the list of "his" jargon.

The rest of us will use some minor variant of the following:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conceit

Or perhaps more ironically...

All that is happening is that newguy is asserting the existence of an alternate utility function that always favors cooperation. I don't even think his position goes as far as asserting an alternate rationality (like superrationality). Basically, his utility function is 0 everywhere except when everyone cooperates.

Yes all this is good and relevant.

But we should point out that rich people don't just lose when the people revolt, rich people in this world would live far better lives if they lived in a world where everyone had access to abundance.

In this we should understand or hopefully begin to understand that king is only as free as his subjects. Which is not free at all.

Freedom is total, its hard for us to understand but, Canada for example cannot be free if the rest of the world is not.

No one is free here.

Again this depends if what I understand that Zumby doesn't is important and correct.

I have made no such claims as being more important or above anyone. I do not have a conceited tone other than that which you apply to my words. I have stated everything as simply and unemotionally as I can.

I think pride in all forms is a negative thing.



This is a better understanding than previous but its not quite there.

Again this is almost true. I'm suggesting when everyone cooperates the utility for every individual is maximized (more than the individual could create on there own). I'm not sure though if I have mixed jargon when I say that. We would have to go back and forth on it if its jargon.

But I should point out that solution or concept doesn't hold true for games, but irl it does. If the world saw itself as the same team everyone's ev would be maxed.

Deviating could only decrease this.

I am saying there would be no war, no famine, no poverty, no violence etc, and you all are arguing with me and suggesting defecting for 10bux (or a million) could improve that for the individual.

I don't think anyone is seriously challenging newguy1234's claim that if everyone cooperated that the world would be a better place--maybe even a better place for the worst off than the current best off. I think some of us (myself included) are skeptical of this claim, but are not really interested in challenging newguy1234's tautological and speculative claims about utility.

I think what we mostly object to is newguy1234's misappropriation of the terminology of game theory in describing this claim. He thinks that such a world would be in a Nash Equilibrium. I think his reasoning for this is based on his claim that since the worst off would be better off in that world compared to the best off in this world, everyone would prefer that world to this one. Hence, that world would be a "Nash Equilibrium" because no one could unilaterally be better off if they lived in a world where people didn't cooperate compared to that world.

The Nazis cooperated.

Yes and also that deviating breaks 'that world' and brings it back to 'this world'.

The nazis didn't believe we were all on the same team.

You behave contrary to your beliefs.

Well there's two aspects of that you might be referring to one is my tone that I think you and other reads into it wrong. The worse I am guilty of in that regard is not sugar coating things and being direct and blunt.

But as for my actions, I am not acting out of or in the name of pride.

This world is full of unnecessary suffering.
It can be brought to a peaceful state.
We should be trying to figure out how.

I'm not conceited for pointing that out.

I know.

Its plainly simple and true that no individual can profitably defect from a world in such a state.

This won't perfectly satisfy the conditions of the definition of a nash equilibrium only because people are thinking in finite terms of game theory. By finite I mean a piece of the world and not the whole of it.

Another issue people were having is that in this new world that cannot profitably be deviated from, it is the optimal strategy. But generally NE does not imply optimal, its just in this case it is.

When we see this the question arises as to how to do such a thing, how to bring about the change or can the change be brought about.

It can be shown that if the players share strategies to the point where poker reaches a state in which no one can profitably deviate that we will have developed the tools to bring the world to its 'equilibrium state'