Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Snowdrift' game tops 'Prisoner's Dilemma' in explaining cooperation (2007)

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 117 posts

Re: 'Snowdrift' game tops 'Prisoner's Dilemma' in explaining cooperation (2007)

#41

Post by burkaman »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #20
burkaman wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These experiments are about trying to explain what you mean by "cooperate". Your points feel right, but even if they're true they aren't very helpful in actually explaining behavior. For example, your explanation seems to directly apply to adoption, but most people don't choose to adopt despite the enormous number of orphans in the world. Why not?

> These experiments are about trying to explain what you mean by "cooperate". It's not clear to me what you mean by this. In the example of the experiment in the example cooperate means the snow is cleared faster. In my example cooperate means raise the young together. > but most people don't choose to adopt Because our biology drives us to want to have our own offspring. It seems obvious that if our biology drove us…

> Because our biology drives us to want to have our own offspring.

But just a few minutes ago you said our biology drives us to "cooperate to raise the young." Do you see how this topic might deserve some more study? Basically, my only issue with your comment is "The end."

Re: 'Snowdrift' game tops 'Prisoner's Dilemma' in explaining cooperation (2007)

#42

Post by s_kilk »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #4

These experiments are nonsense. Firstly, from the article: “In principle, natural selection predicts individuals to behave selfishly” is a faulty premise. Obviously humans who cooperate to raise children to sexual maturity will have more descendants. Secondly, in these simulated games it seems likely to me the participants would be, at least to some extent, randomly selecting cooperate / defect because a potential mo…

> Firstly, from the article: “In principle, natural selection predicts individuals to behave selfishly” is a faulty premise. Obviously humans who cooperate to raise children to sexual maturity will have more descendants.

I think there's an enormous gulf between the way logic-dorks think people behave, and how people actually behave.

All this game theory stuff needs to go in the trash, frankly.

Re: 'Snowdrift' game tops 'Prisoner's Dilemma' in explaining cooperation (2007)

#43

Post by slg »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #15
svachalek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iterated game (which they studied here) accounts for retribution, but not reputation.

The iterated game... The iterated game proves the participants are randomly selecting an option, because they know it's a game. Otherwise we need to create a model that explains why participants aren't consistent.

You don't need any model to explain inconsistency. People are not consistent because they are learning the rules and results of the game as they play. The players' first move might be somewhat random, but every subsequent move is based upon their previous experiences with the game. That is why you do these things iteratively.

Re: 'Snowdrift' game tops 'Prisoner's Dilemma' in explaining cooperation (2007)

#44

Post by PeachPlum »

See also

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160915085719.h...

Two people can hunt deer together, but if they are alone, they can only hunt rabbits. The person belonging to the Envious group will choose to hunt rabbits because he or she will be at least equal to the other hunter, or maybe even better; the Optimist will choose to hunt deer because that is the best option for both hunters; the Pessimist will go for rabbits because that way he or she is sure to catch something; and the hunter who belongs to the Trusting group will cooperate and choose to hunt deer, without a second thought.

The largest group, accounting for 30%, being the Envious -- those who don't actually mind what they achieve, as long as they're better than everyone else;

Next are the Optimists -- who believe that they and their partner will make the best choice for both of them -- on 20%.

Also on 20% are the Pessimists -- who select the option which they see as the lesser of two evils -- and the Trusting group -- who are born collaborators and who will always cooperate and who don't really mind if they win or lose.

There is a fifth, undefined group, representing 10%,

Re: 'Snowdrift' game tops 'Prisoner's Dilemma' in explaining cooperation (2007)

#45

Post by Danihan »

majewsky wrote: post #40
Danihan wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are reputation scores for everyone: net worth and credit score. ;p

A good reputation score would start out at +/- 0 and not punish you for being the lone righteous guy in an otherwise immoral neighborhood.

It does, no one really has a net worth one way or another when they are a child.

Define righteous? Define immoral?

Capitalism rewards providing actual value to people. It doesn't reward shallow niceties and self-righteousness, those are common.

Re: 'Snowdrift' game tops 'Prisoner's Dilemma' in explaining cooperation (2007)

#46

Post by jdonaldson »

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the payoff for these games never takes into consideration reputation effects. That is, what's the result of other participants observing your actions? Are they more likely to trust you or not trust you when you interact?

I mention this because it's clear that we're changing the way we trust and interact with each other online. Whether it's virtue signaling or trolling, we're adopting new strategies for "winning"... whatever that prize may be.

Re: 'Snowdrift' game tops 'Prisoner's Dilemma' in explaining cooperation (2007)

#47

Post by StanislavPetrov »

In my opinion the PD has always been worthless because it is based on a series of false paradigms.

Most importantly, this scenario involves only a binary decision. In reality, there are no binary decisions. Every single possible decision involved countless contingencies to consider which are limited only by the awareness and imagination of the person making the decision. Trying to apply this false paradigm to reality is nonsense. You might as well try to discern real-world data about the number of angels that people believe will fit on the end of a pin.

>Compare this with the Prisoner’s Dilemma. For a quick synopsis, two prisoners being questioned each have the choice to either defend the other’s innocence or betray the other’s guilt.

The underlying assumption is that innocence and guilt are the only factors driving the prisoners decision. What if the prisoner's primary motivation is the rejection of coercion by his captors? Making assumptions about motivation completely nullifies any potentially valuable insights about human behavior.

Re: 'Snowdrift' game tops 'Prisoner's Dilemma' in explaining cooperation (2007)

#48

Post by quadrangle »

lisper wrote: post #28

Note that the SD is not actually a dilemma. The PD is a dilemma because you ALWAYS do better for yourself in any given iteration by defecting no matter what your opponent does. In the SD, if your opponent defects, you still do better for yourself by cooperating. So of course people will cooperate more under those circumstances. The only thing left to argue about is what the payoff matrix for real-world situations loo…

You're correct in most of your description, but it's STILL a dilemma. It's a game of chicken. The dilemma is wanting to wait to see what the other player decides, so the dilemma is everyone refusing to decide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowdrift_game (redirects to chicken game)

Re: 'Snowdrift' game tops 'Prisoner's Dilemma' in explaining cooperation (2007)

#49

Post by quadrangle »

mslate wrote: post #39

Snowdrift is just a variation of the Prisoner's Dilemma with a specific constraint on payoffs. This is not novel research

The article is from 2007, but the research provides real value even if the fundamental concept isn't novel. It says that besides the hypothesis that this adjustment has a particular impact, here's data from real research testing that hypothesis.

Re: 'Snowdrift' game tops 'Prisoner's Dilemma' in explaining cooperation (2007)

#50

Post by quadrangle »

https://snowdrift.coop is an in-progress fundraising platform for public goods (particularly free/libre/open software and cultural works) based specifically on addressing the cooperation needed to solve the snowdrift dilemma…

https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/snowdrift-dilemma has more specifically and https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about covers the concepts for the whole project.

Post reply on HN