Comments on: Triumph of the Golden Rule

By: Game theory and the Golden Rule - Mind Your Decisions

Game theory and the Golden Rule - Mind Your Decisions — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:08:19 +0000

[...] Golden Rule is not opposed but rather entirely compatible with game theory. In fact, the golden rule emerges naturally as a strong strategy in the repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma, called by economists as the [...]

By: Karthik CV

Karthik CV — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:40:04 +0000

Actually the same thing was discussed in one of Richard Dawkin’s Documentaries. All the things above are explained with live examples.

By: El triunfo de la Regla Dorada [ENG]

El triunfo de la Regla Dorada [ENG] — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:24:59 +0000

[...] El triunfo de la Regla Dorada [ENG] http://www.gmilburn.ca/2010/02/24/triumph-of-the-golden-rule/  por nitsu hace 2 segundos [...]

By: Weekendquote | Lief zijn werkt - Sargasso

Weekendquote | Lief zijn werkt - Sargasso — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:54:26 +0000

[...] may be showing us that being nice does pay off – and giving us the numbers to prove it.”Het staat vast, lieve mensen doen het toch beter in deze wereld. Beetje jammer dat we er zo weinig van merken in [...]

By: r3volve

r3volve — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 05:44:50 +0000

A complete theory on building trust by wasting time. Anyone interested in expanding their understanding of game theory and how it applies to your behavior should start here:

http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/publications/forthcoming/BergstromEtAl07.pdf

Or google: building trust by wasting time

Tit for tat is just the beginning. . .

By: Theorist

Theorist — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:40:29 +0000

Is there a site where we can play online to know what type we belong too?
It is good to know theory but in practice all of us are quite different. We all know E = mC2(squared) but how many of us put it to real use? I think theories are good for reading and feeling good about thats all. In practice most of us suck. We suck, even if we know the right theory.

By: Fluck

Fluck — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:27:14 +0000

“Dashing Leech”, I couldn’t fault what you said until the very last sentence. Bankers and executives exploit and manipulate and deceive (i.e. they’re takers) more than any other people I can conceive of. Just because they don’t directly lie and manipulate the people they end up getting their money from doesn’t make their selfish greed any more tolerable. If anything, it makes it more atrocious.

By: moracast » Triumph of the Golden Rule | gmilburn.ca

moracast » Triumph of the Golden Rule | gmilburn.ca — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:20:12 +0000

[...] via Triumph of the Golden Rule | gmilburn.ca. [...]

By: Sapere Aude

Sapere Aude — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:17:25 +0000

Blake is right. Tit-for-Tat is not quite the same thing as the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule implicitly acknowledges a moral order based on reciprocity (i.e. you reap what you sow); but it doesn’t explicitly prescribe reciprocity. Instead of saying: “Always follow the strategy of Tit-for-Tat,” the Golden Rule seems to be saying: “Always play the game as if the other player is following the strategy of Tit-for-Tat.” If you are about to play an iterated PD against a player who you know (or strongly suspect) will be using a Tit-for-Tat strategy, then it doesn’t matter whether you use Tit-for-Tat or All-C, since the outcome will be the same in either case — and the Golden Rule seems to be advocating an All-C strategy (or something akin to it).

If you know (or assume) that the other player is always going to mimic your behavior, then the prudent move is to cooperate. In fact, if you know that the other player is playing Tit-for-Tat then it is NEVER a good idea for you to defect, since that will provoke a retaliatory defection, which might ignite a conflict spiral of retaliation, counter-retaliation, counter-counter-retaliation, and so forth. While Tit-for-Tat works brilliantly under conditions of perfect information (i.e. no possibility of misperception) and perfect control (i.e. no possibility of accidents), it can be dangerously escalatory under conditions of imperfect information and imperfect control. What happens if you misinterpret the other player’s actions as a defection? What happens if the other player accidentally defects? Tit-for-Tat demands a response in kind; but is this wise? The problem with Tit-for-Tat is that, while it may work ideally under laboratory conditions, it has a tendency to overreact under real world conditions.

The Golden Rule goes hand in hand with the principle of “turning the other cheek” — i.e. not responding in kind to a provocation, but instead showing mercy (at least for the first offense). This is a violation of the core principle of perfect reciprocity that Tit-for-Tat is built on. But it may help prevent conflict spirals by acknowledging that accidents and misperceptions do happen from time to time, and shouldn’t automatically trigger a Tit-for-Tat retaliatory response.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:29:12 +0000

Hey Blake – Definitely agree with you, I think Tit-for-Tat can best be viewed as an “enforcer” of the Golden Rule. I’m working on another post describing some more complex strategies, and Leech is definitely a very, very interesting example.