Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cooperation Works if Majority Can Punish Freeloaders

Posted by michael on from the cooperate-or-die dept.

plasmid writes: "Some Swiss economists ran an investment game... they found that if the majority could punish freeloaders, cooperation flourished. I think this has implications for cooperative peer-to-peer systems and, to a lesser extent, for open source development. I'm so inspired I plan to go out an punish someone right now, as a matter of fact." I had just read this article the other day (go memepool), so this Nature piece seems oddly apropos.

3 of 408 comments (clear)

  1. Reminds me of an experiment by jeti · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People will pay to punish - suggesting that their
    notions of fairness outweigh selfish considerations.


    This quote reminds me of an experiment. It runs something like this: A group of people is divided into two groups of equal size. Then each group is asked this simple question: We will either give both groups $2 per person or we'll give each of you three bucks and each of them four bucks. What would you prefer?

    85% of the participants go for the two bucks.

  2. Basic economics theory - the lighthouse by mccalli · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This is basic economics, as taught to me in my economics 'A'-Level at college in 1990. The example always given is that of a lighthouse.

    A lighthouse is for the common good, but can't exist without being charged for. However, due to its nature (it just emits light), you cannot deny service to those who don't pay - they'll see light regardless of whether they've contributed.

    The dilemma is - as a ship owner, you have no incentive to pay for upkeep as the service is delivered to you anyway. This works right up until the moment the lighthouse has to close, at which point it becomes in your best interest to ensure everyone pays. Note that - everyone, not just you. If only you pay, you're still at a disadvantage.

    Can't remember the exact terminology they used - I think it's a form of 'free good', but I'm prepared to be corrected on that. Why these researchers felt the need to reprove a very old and established theory is beyond me.

    Cheers,
    Ian

    PS: 'A'-Levels - the exams in the UK taken when you're about 18.

  3. a bit more subtle than that... by renard · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I believe the actual research described is somewhat more subtle than your characterization.

    Punishment is a purely selfish strategy: spend money punishing someone, so they will invest more, so your profits increase.

    Incorrect - In the actual experiment, if you chose to punish a `freeloader' then you paid out of your own profits, and no one else's. The games were not iterated (played repeatedly with the same cast of players), so any consequent change in the freeloader's behavior would not be to your benefit. Perhaps on the next time around, the freeloader would have a change of heart, but even if s/he did this was not likely to be to your own benefit.

    Thus in the context of the game, choosing to punish was a very counter-selfish act - not selfish at all, but quite the opposite. That's what makes the research so interesting.

    -Renard