this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
529 points (98.4% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
4486 readers
1143 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They all fail at game theory. When being negative, everyone loses. Tit for Tat + 10% forgiveness is the most successful and highest growth potential. T4T means you are always nice, always positive, and when someone is negative, you respond in kind but randomly forgive 10% of the time to exit the stupidity spiral. Most world leaders know and operate under T4T now that it was established as the only path to maximal growth for everyone. Failing to apply this when everyone else is applying it will ALWAYS result in bringing everyone down but the most damage will ALWAYS occur to the perpetrating entity when all others are playing T4Tpt.
This is interesting, how did they get those calculations?
There are a variety of ways. One way is to run a computer program that executes each strategy and then just have them all go against each other some number of times like a tournament, or sometimes just "random matchings". Super fast to do so it's easy to try different scenarios and make a lot of different strategies.
They've also done tournaments with actual people, and then compared the different people's behavior to the different "pure" strategies that they made. This helps them validate that the behaviors carry over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
It's worth noting that nation states don't always behave the same as individuals, but often closer to the game theory ideal. Additionally, there are circumstances where tit for tat isn't actually the dominant strategy, specifically when you know that the game is going to end.