Game Theory Analysis Shows How Evolution Favors Cooperation's Collapse

First time accepted submitter Ugmug (1495847) writes Last year, University of Pennsylvania researchers Alexander J. Stewart and Joshua B. Plotkin published a mathematical explanation for why cooperation and generosity have evolved in nature. Using the classical game theory match-up known as the Prisoner's Dilemma, they found that generous strategies were the only ones that could persist and succeed in a multi-player, iterated version of the game over the long term. But now they've come out with a somewhat less rosy view of evolution. With a new analysis of the Prisoner's Dilemma played in a large, evolving population, they found that adding more flexibility to the game can allow selfish strategies to be more successful. The work paints a dimmer but likely more realistic view of how cooperation and selfishness balance one another in nature."

Comments

Academic Beclowining

[PopeRatzo]

Just so you know, most of the people doing the work applying Game Theory to Sociology are just jacking off.

Seriously. These are the people who found Psychology too rigorous and got thrown out of the Economics departments for making shit up.

Here, check this shit out. Look especially at the last sentences:

“It’s a somewhat depressing evolutionary outcome, but it makes intuitive sense,” said Plotkin, a professor in Penn’s Department of Biology in the School of Arts & Sciences, who coauthored the study with Stewart, a postdoctoral researcher in his lab. “We had a nice picture of how evolution can promote cooperation even amongst self-interested agents and indeed it sometimes can, but, when we allow mutations that change the nature of the game, there is a runaway evolutionary process, and suddenly defection becomes the more robust outcome.”

In other words, "Cooperation works in social systems until I change the rules to get the outcome I want. Vote Rand Paul 2016."

Seriously, Dr Plotkin, do U even Science, bro?

Re:TIt-for-tat fallacy

[hey!]

What's unrealistic is believing one strategy is always favored by evolution. Evolution tries everything, so you get all strategies tried.

The substantive argument here should be over this question: what is it that makes H. sapiens such a successful species? The vast majority of discourse on this, unfortunately, is tainted by ideological bias.

I think what makes us successful can't be boiled down to one strategy without being simplistic. The minimum number of strategies that's interesting, in my opinion, is two, because realistic strategies have to interact. Personally the two I'd go with would be cooperation and behavioral flexibility, noting especially that behavioral flexibility sometimes works *against* cooperation. People cooperate to build a successful village, but during a disaster having a few selfish bastards who grab what they can and run is good for the survival of the species. But just because a *little* bit of something is good, doesn't mean a *lot* of it is good. So much selfishness people can't cooperate efficiently is too much selfishness. So little selfishness that nobody saves themselves when they can't save anyone else is too much selflessness.

One more thing to chew on: nature doesn't owe you a justification for your behavior, and it's certainly not going to provide you a logically complete and non-contradictory ideology. It doesn't even give us that for arithmetic.

Re:Matters of Scale

[Kjella]

Actually capitalism has a huge section on utility theory, it's the basis of all bartering and trade. You're a fisherman but you've only got a limited utility of fish for your own use, which is why you're willing to sell fish to buy bread and the baker is willing to sell bread to buy fish. If you got your typical price-quantity curve the utility is the whole area under the curve, which companies try to extract as much as possible of as profit. The difference is that capitalism's utility theory optimizes on the individual level, you spend your money in order to gain as much benefit as possible and society's utility is the sum of the individuals' utility.

Social theories optimize for the whole society and take into account externalities society has to bear the burden of like pollution, littering, congestion, crime and so on, even when it's to the disadvantage of some of the individuals. They fit in the same PQ chart though like this where the social optimum is offset relative to the micro-economic optimum. The issue is that often you end up with quite a lot of wealth redistribution because essential services to the poor have greater utility for society than luxuries for the rich, so while the total goes up it's clearly favorable for some and unfavorable for others.

Then you run into the classic arguments that people change behavior to game the system and in order to not create needy individuals living on welfare you need to reward those who produce value instead, which is countered by arguing that those on welfare need education and opportunities to become net contributors to society and so on. It's not really easy to understand society's dynamics, but as a static snapshot they're not really all that different. It just depends on what "costs" you take into consideration and what you optimize for.

Re:Justifying

[Sique]

The argument against Ayn Rand's philosophy is Douglas Adams' story of the people from Golgafrincham as told in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. The Class A people try to get rid of all those people that make their life miserable(*) by insisting on rules and procedures and regulations, and to keep only the serfs and drones just like John Galt who withdraws to his island in an attempt to throw out all those pesky socialists out of his life.

The consequence Douglas Adams points out is that an incomplete society based solely on the egoisms of its members will die out from the next triviality -- in his case the infected telephone.

(*) For Class A values of "miserable"