Human Nature and Game Theory

I thought game theory was the brainchild of a paranoid schizophrenic and pretty much discredited.

I'm interested in a clod war. There are enough potential participants.

No clod was right.

I like game theory. Robert Winston talks about game theory alot, in "Human Nature". It explains a damned lot to me. When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

Whether or not "Game Theory" was "discredited," it seems to make a lot of sense... I believe it is also frequently spoken of in evolutionary theory - e.g. Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" - tiz fascinating, methinks, his (and others') explanations for the arising of altruism in species... the concept (which also makes perfect sense!) that all life - all behaviour, human or otherwise - is based upon that one central precept of passing on one's genes. Nothing else, in the strictly biological sense, matters! What thinks you about this, jrc...? pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Wait a minute. That's not game theory. That's the starting point of game theory. Game theory goes on to show how Bob and John might calculate the likelihood of different degrees of success, and suggests that the more the experiment is repeated, the more likely they will be to trust each other, because, mathematically, this represents the best longterm strategy. The more betrayals of trust there are, the more both Bob and John will, ultimately, lose out. That's what I thought game theory was all about - the human tendency towards cooperation, and proving that cooperation actually serves self-interest better than selfishness. "According to this theory, Even smiling at some one, is a selfish action designed to get something from the other person?" You're getting selfishness mixed up with self-interest. Selfishness is specifically putting your own immediate desires before anyone else's. So a selfish person would try to get away with both the diamond and the money. As I say, I thought the point of game theory was to show that a lack of selfishness actually serves self-interest better ie. putting other people's needs before - or at least on the same level - as your own, serves everyone's self-interest better than selfishness. It simply can't be said that every action is designed to get something from the other person, or is ultimately selfish. This is a nonsense philosophy that we've gone over before here. People often put the needs of others before their own - there is no question about that. They will help each other out when there is absolutely nothing in it for them (and no, a 'good feeling' does not count). So I guess the more appropriate question is this: if selfless action is ultimately being better for all of us, then are we only selfless because of subconscious self-interest? In other words, do moral principles not come into it at all?

"...a 'good feeling' does not count..." Why not? pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

a) Because it's plainly not a strong enough motivation. There are myriad ways to achieve a 'good feeling' that don't involve putting yourself out for someone else. It'd be like someone who wanted orange juice squeezing an orange with their fist when they could just get some juice out of the fridge. b) Because it doesn't actually happen as a result of most acts of altruism. It's very unlikely that holding a door open for someone, for most people, in most cases, results in any kind of chemical change in the brain. c) Because any 'good feeling' you might get from an act of altruism probably stems from a feeling that what you did was 'right', a moral sense. *If* we only acted out of selfishness, with morality being an arbitrary front, then it is much simpler to rejig your personal moral code so that you get pleasure out of *not* helping people than it is to spend your life making sacrifices for minor emotional pleasure. In other words, an utterly selfish person who went round helping people because it made them feel nice would be a total moron, practically defeating their own objective through incompetence. Please stop this line of inquiry, Peps. It is utterly inane to suggest that no one ever puts the needs of others before the needs of themselves. I do things for other people every day that can be easily avoided without negative consequences and don't make me feel any better about myself. Everyone does. You may argue that, on some deep level, selflessness and altruism stems from human self-interest, but that is a very distinct line of argument to, 'Everything everyone does is actually selfish and just to get something out of other people'.

I only asked "Why not?," Jack! :/ pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

I like to be thorough.