Este guia interativo baseia-se fortemente no inovador livro de 1984 de Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation! Também me inspirei fortemente em sua sequência de 1997, The Complexity of Cooperation, e no livro de 2000 de Robert Putnam sobre o declínio do "capital social" americano, Bowling Alone.
sim, sou nerd rato de biblioteca, favor não fazer bully comigo
Para ver uma análise estatística completa, confira Our World In Data. Hummm... estatísticas!
Este jogo também é conhecido na teoria dos jogos como o infame Dilema do Prisioneiro. O Dilema do Prisioneiro é nomeado por ser uma história onde dois suspeitos podem denunciar em seu parceiro no crime ("trapacear"), ou ficar em silêncio ("cooperar"). Eu escolhi não fazer essa história porque 1) neste caso, ambos os jogadores "cooperando" seriam ruins para a sociedade, e 2) é irreal, todo mundo sabe que os delatores podem apanhar a ponto de precisar receber receber pontos de sutura de médicos.
No repetido jogo de confiança (também conhecido como Dilema do Prisioneiro Iterado), é importante que nenhum jogador saiba quando é a última rodada. Por quê? Pense nisso - na última rodada, ambos os jogadores saberiam que sua ação não tem consequências, então os dois trapacearão. Mas isso significa que na penúltima rodada, suas ações não podem mudar a próxima rodada, então eles também devem trapacear. Mas isso significa que na antepenúltima rodada... etc etc.
Esta estratégia é mais conhecida na teoria dos jogos como Olho por Olho (inglês: Tit For Tat). Foi criada por Anatol Rapoport em 1980, para o torneio de teoria dos jogos de Robert Axelrod. Eu escolhi não usar o nome "Olho por Olho" porque 1) isso soa mal, embora seja uma estratégia legal e justa, e 2) muita gente já ouviu falar de Olho por Olho, então se eu usasse esse nome, os jogadores podem apostar neste personagem porque já ouviram falar de "Olho por Olho".
Havia outro cara que era cético também. Durante a trégua, um cabo alemão comentou com repugnância: "Tal coisa não deveria acontecer em tempo de guerra. Você não tem senso de honra alemão?"
Aquele homem era Adolf Hitler.
Você não teria como imaginar uma m*erda dessas.
There's a new, super-young interdisciplinary field that I'm really excited by, called Cultural Evolution. Admittedly, it's a bad name, not least because it sounds uncomfortably close to "Social Darwinism". Which it's not. Pinky promise.
One core part of Cultural Evolution Theory is culture evolves the same way life does: through variation & selection. Variation: people differ in beliefs & behaviors, and invent new ones almost every day. Selection: people try to imitate their heroes & elders, and adopt their beliefs/behaviors.
(Note: this is not quite Richard Dawkin's "meme" theory. "Meme" implies, that, like genes, ideas come in discrete chunks & replicate with high fidelity. This is obviously untrue. Also you can't say "meme" with a straight face these days, so whatever)
The reason why I think Cultural Evolution is so promising, is that it could integrate all the human sciences: psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology, political science, neuroscience, biology. The greatest problems of our time do not obey conventional academic boundaries -- so, it's about dang time we created a common language between the sciences and humanities.
If you want to learn more about Cultural Evolution Theory, I highly recommend Joseph Heinlich's 2015 book, The Secret of Our Success!
You may have heard that someone found a player strategy that can "exploit evolution". From the Scientific American: "[Press & Dyson's results] suggested the best strategies were selfish ones that led to extortion, not cooperation."
Press & Dyson's findings are really important, but Scientific American confused two different uses of the word "evolutionary". The first use, the way this interactive guide used it, was to mean that the tournament's population changes over time. The second use, the way P&D meant it, was that the player's rules changes over time. For example: Detective is "evolutionary" since it changes its own rules, while Copycat is not "evolutionary" since it sticks to its principles.
So, P&D found strategies that could exploit "evolutionary" players like Detective, but their strategies still could not exploit the evolution of the tournament, because in the long run, fair & nice strategies still win.
Seriously, go read Robert Putnam's 2000 book, Bowling Alone. Yeah it's a bit outdated by now, 17 years later, but its core findings and lessons are still true as ever -- probably even more so.
This is kinda cheesy, but I still adore the 1989 book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People -- especially Habit #4: Think Win-Win.
Because, contrary to popular belief, coming up with Win-Win solutions is hard, takes lots of effort, and is emotionally painful. Heck, I'd go even further – I'd say our culture's default stance of Win-Lose "us versus them" is the easy path, the lazy path, the equivalent of activism junk food.
Anyway. Exaggerations aside, I strongly believe "Win-Win" / "Non-Zero-Sum" is something we all urgently need -- in our personal lives, social lives, and definitely political lives.
Just like how Copycat's original name was Tit For Tat, Copykitten's original name is Tit For Two Tats. Same rule: Cooperate, unless the other players cheats twice in a row.
There's another forgiving variant of Tit For Tat called Generous Tit For Tat. It's got a similar but slightly different rule: Cooperate, but when the other player cheats, forgive them with a X% chance. This design, with the variable "X", lets you set different "forgiveness" levels for the player.
Also known as Pavlov, or Win-Stay-Lose-Shift.
I'm only in my twenties, I don't know why I always sound like an old grump shaking my fist at a cloud. But, yeah, anyway, go read Neil Postman's 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves To Death. It's about how the communications technology we use subtly shapes our culture ("the medium is the message") and how technology that is biased towards quick & fast information (TV in 1985, social media now) turns us all into trivial, short-term thinkers.
Although I don't agree with everything in his book, it's a real eye-opener, and surprisingly prescient for 1985. His rant against Sesame Street is kinda weird, though.
Giving advice can come off as condescending, so let me be perfectly honest: I do not have any of this figured out, personally. I'm bad at developing friendships, especially with people of different political views than me. I occasionally forget about win-wins, and lapse into "us versus them" thinking. And judging by this rambling, I'm also still terrible at communicating clearly.
But I want to get better. This stuff is hard. Building peace & trust in the world, from the bottom up, is hard.
And that's why it's worth it. <3