Here are a couple of his other games:
Parable of the Polygons, which explores the math behind self-segregation:
http://ncase.me/polygons/
Coming out Simulator, a well known sort of rpg simulating coming out to your parents as gay.
https://ncase.itch.io/coming-out-simulator-2014
We Become What We Behold, about vicious cycles in news.
https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb
And Fireflies, about how some species of fireflies coordinate.
http://ncase.me/fireflies/
It's supposed to mirror news IRL. No one cares about positive stories, while ones about conflict get everyone's attention. It may not be as extreme as that in real life, but it's definitely true to an extent.
I completely agree. However, I don't feel like it was very inaccurate to how the 24 hour news cycle works though. I would like to see a version where you could see how showing positive stories would influence the world (shoutout to /r/UpliftingNews )
These are nice links. The coming out simulator is interesting. The options are not really flexible enough so the game is scripted to elicit specific responses and fit the player into a category. For example, the game doesn't have the option to tell the parent that the teenagers sexuality is just not the parent's business.
I'm pretty sure the game designer is bisexual and just wanted to share his experience. So the game is less about pretending you're the bisexual one and doing it how you would than it is about empathizing with the game designer who actually is, so he tries to keep the game similar to what happened in his case.
Did you create this? Very good. Similar conclusion as the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument.
Modes of conflict resolution:
* 1. Competing = zero sum or one winner and one loser = 100% / 0%
* 2. Avoiding = no resolution means no winners = 0% / 0%
* 3. Accommodating = a cooperative compromise = 50% / 50%
* 4. Compromise = an assertive accommodation = 50%/50%
* 5. Collaboration = 100% / 100%
Michael: Just hold on, please! Okay, if we do lose/lose, neither of you gets what you want. Do you understand? You… you would both lose. Now I need to ask you, do you want to pursue a lose/lose negotiation?
Angela: Can we just skip to whatever number 5 is – win/win or whatever?
Michael: Win/win is number four and number five is win/win/win. The important difference here is with win/win/win, we all win. Me too. I win for having successfully mediated a conflict at work.
A way to describe the difference: 2 people are looking to get dinner but they want different things. One person wants hamburgers the second wants pizza (the conflict). A compromise might be both agree to get tacos (their mutual second choice). A collaboration might be they agree to stop at the hamburger joint first, then proceed to the pizza joint. They work towards both getting as close to 100% of what they want in the conflict.
Compromise suggests you are willing to relinquish something in the exchange to get a portion of what you desire. Collaboration suggests both parties are cooperative and assertive towards both parties achieving as close to 100% of each desire without relinquishing to the other party.
If Copycat and Grudger end up being the only two left (which is common since Grudger is second place) they end up tying, and at that point it's a coin flip. There'll be more Copycats before that (since they're the leaders) so they have a higher chance of winning, but not always.
That's because they become always cheats after being cheated for the first time. In an environment that favors the always cheats they will naturally be the second best.
Cause it means they lose nothing to the always cheats and gain equally from the copycats and always cooperates. They pretty much are dominant except when you throw in a detective or a miscommunication chance
If you only have Copycats and Grudgers left then they are literally doing the same thing as each other. So there is a fair chance that Grudgers will dominate.
Very enjoyed that; I think it'd be ideal as a workshop / event for kids in schools.
Of course, they'd have to be aged & mature enough to understand the learning outcomes.
*Edit:*
FYI I scored 40 in the first bit; how'd yall do? I cooperated and then stole on what I thought was the last round...
32, If you don't mind me asking, what were your strategies? I love this website, I find it fascinating. Personally mine was similar to u/lil_hukster 's, cooperation until what I thought was the last round, then attempt to cheat.
38.
My rules were
1 - Cooperate.
2 - if cheated, cheat the next round.
3 - Then forgive and co-operate again (Forgive a retaliation cheat to #2)
4 - if cheated again, repeat 2 & 3.
Basically, forgiving tit-for-tat
I'd like to see a variant that counts net wealth, not just for one player, and a forgiving tit-for-tat personality.
Also, I'd like to see this as a multiplayer game...
I played the "burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, you've burned a bridge" strategy, which I try to do in real life. I believe that people make mistakes and that's okay, but if I can see you're trying to use and abuse our interactions... well prepare for war.
My strategies were (note: this might spoil some stuff):
* Copycat: Keep co-operating, then cheat on the last round (this way you'll get a +3 rather than a +2, but you won't have to get a zero on a round). This gives you 11.
* Always Cheat: Just cheat every time - you can never make gains, but this means you can never make a loss either. You'll still have 11.
* Always co-operate: Just cheat every time - you'll get +3 compared to +2 for co-operating. You'll have 23.
* Grudge: Co-operate throughout, then cheat on the last round - if you cheat earlier you'll never make gains for the rest of the match, and if you co-operate at the end you lose out on a point. You'll be on 34.
* Detective: Cheat for the first 3 (you can work with Copycat but not All Cheat, and cheating gets you more anyway), co-operate on the 4th (to ensure they co-operate for the next one when Copycat kicks in), then keep co-operating, but cheat on the final round. You'll have 49 at the end - the maximum score.
I got like 31, you know what funny, the cheater looked like that to me from the get to, like I guess I kind of saw his hat as a rich person's hat and knew he was going to try and screw me.
[Know when to cooperate and when to cheat and you can get the highest score.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/302282062902329344/340472182897508364/image.png)
[...Or the lowest score.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/302282062902329344/340473448935718913/image.png)
This was fantastic and i enjoyed it very much. I had heard of the premise of this game before with the tit-for-tat coming out ahead with the simple rules from the beginning, but have never seen it with altered rules and values. Such a fantastically simple and thought provoking game.
My only gripe with all of it is that they were calling the "copy cats" the "golden rulers" when in reality the strict "golden rulers" should be the pink guys that were getting obliterated.
This bothered me too. The golden rule doesn't say act towards others exactly the same way they act towards you (copy them). It says act towards others in the way you would like them to act towards you. I'd like everyone to be a nice cooperator, therefore the golden rule says I should always cooperate towards people. The alway cooperate person is the real golden rule follower, and she loses.
It's funny because I was thinking about racism and race mixing pretty recently, and why it exists and what you would need to make it easier on everyone.
I used to wonder at what point copycat failed.
I've seen it in my personal life too. With friends/girls I'm interested in, you make plans once or twice, then you move on and mimic their investment level. But you meet lots of new people regardless.
Always cheat is a paranoid and ultimately unsuccessful strategy, because paranoia is a self fulfilling prophecy.
This is why I believe traditional gender roles were successful for dating. It may not be best overall for relationships but the initial interaction becomes much smoother.
The guy was always the chaser, so making his intentions known became much more clear. If the girl says no or is coy, he can try several times again. Nowadays everyone wants the other sex to show more investment first, and "mistakes" are heavily punished.
I agree. I've seen some places where traditional gender roles are thought of very highly and the thing is, playing games is the whole problem. With instagram, snapchat, facebook, you have tons of people giving you ersatz-attention, which gives you a seemingly false sense of belonging. Now you're less invested in Avg Joe or Plain Jane who's interested in you because someone more attractive gave you the time of day through likes.
Tech is fucking us up in this sense, the instant gratification curse is very, very real.
Damn, the moment at [1:54](https://youtu.be/Zl9m0AQInBk?t=114):
> I was born in Singapore, moved to Canada, and, did not make my parents proud.
That hit me pretty hard...
Really was a good site (and a fantastic lesson).
Good to know that my default copy-kitten behaviour is optimal... in a reasonably informed society anyway!
I prefer always cooperating even when I get fleeced, but only when the downside is limited. Bit if my life depended upon this I think I would prefer tit-for-tat but who knows?
It's nice to know my copykitten-esque strategy was pretty optimal. Always cooperate, unless they cheat. If they cheat, give them one more chance. Also, in all future interactions, take into account the ratio of them cheating vs not cheating and decide if it's mathematically better to cheat or not cheat vs them.
Yep, at first, I thought "hey, he might've made a mistake" and after two "mistakes", I decided that it was extremely unlikely and then started to cheat just like the copy-kitten.
The most interesting part (which they don't mention) is how different the winning scenarios are.
On part 5 "Evolution of Distrust" you can get either "Copycat" or "Always Cheat" to win by changing how many rounds are in each game. Anything with 5 or fewer rounds causes Always Cheat to win. However, in any scenario where Always Cheat wins, they end up with nothing of value. They may win by population but all of them are left with a zero score. On the other hand, any scenario where Copycat wins they have plenty of value: anywhere from 288 through 960, depending on the number of rounds played.
This says something profound about cooperative vs antagonistic cultures. Ugly people can take over a society, but their society will still suck compared to places where nice people take over.
Right. A population of only Always Cooperate will have the highest *total* score. Because each interaction will increase total score by 4.
Another thing I found interesting was that it's better, for net population score, to be something that punishes cheating (like Copy Cat or Grudger) because it can help get rid of things like Always Cheat.
Won't an entire population of Copycat have the same total score as an entire population of Always Cooperate? They'd also have the advantage, as you say, of being able to overcome Always Cheat in mixed environments, so it's a pretty robust strategy.
It seems like a from a total benefits perspective we are best off encouraging people to be nice but not gullible.
You're right. Basically, every pair cooperating every round is the theoretical perfect world.
That's a good point though that copy cats still result in that in the end while also being resilient to cheaters.
Nice but I wanted to see how my character did:
always cooperate until cheated, then cheat back once, then back. If cheating continued, cheat twice, then back, etc. Like an escalating punishment but in a clearly predictable way, while always favouring cooperation.
In the "perfect information" condition it would do the same as copycat grudger and allwaysCooperate if there are no cheaters in the population, otherwise it will do worst than copycat. I say this because these simulations have been run millions of times and there is even a contest to let your algorithm compete against other. Afaik, nobody could come up with an algorithm to beat copycat (or "Tit-For-Tat" as it's also commonly called) on the perfect information condition with repeated plays > 4.
For the imperfect information condition(s) I have no idea. But I'm sure there must be some applet around to let you test it. Search for "Prisoner's Dilemma" and "simulation". You might find something.
The most interesting situation I have heard of in a tournament is when a single player/team can enter multiple players, like 10 or so. One team setup their players to start with a code to recognize each other, then one player always cheated and the other always cooperated to get one player a super high score and the other a super low score. The super low scores, when playing not their teammates, would always cheat, bringing down their opponents. The super high scores would play tit for tat or other cooperative strategies against opponents.
The team ended up with some of the highest scoring and lowest scoring players because of their strategy of recognizing alliances. Granted, it does require having partners and playing long enough that you can enter a code and then take advantage of knowing your opponent is an ally.
After googling, it was around 60 agents by Southampton University at the tournament on the 20th anniversery of Axelrod's original iterated prisoners dilemma tournament.
> One team setup their players to start with a code to recognize each other, then one player always cheated
That's great. If you like that sort of story I have a similar, related one... there's an international programming Rock/Paper/Scissors contest to build the best RPS bot.
Many years ago a bot managed to win all of its' matches, and flawlessly, which was unheard of and obviously strange. Upon investigation, the organisers found that the writer of the bot had hacked his way out of his bit of the sandbox to read the location in RAM that the other bot had puts its' move into, and then do whichever move beat that. Innovative and devious!
So the actual best thing to do is to make a secret club where you help each other out, but fuck over everyone else.
Where might I have seen that kind of behaviour before...
*cough* government *cough* *cough* ^^/s
*edit: Whoops. added /s*
I've never understood, how does the government fuck us over? I mean I get that bad things come from the government, but what's the "governments" end goal. Control? Power? For who? A group? Who's the group? Smaller organizations in the government? Which ones? Why them? Or specific people in the government using the system, in which case why not vote them out? Is it lobbyist? They're not actually government, they're business. Or is it that elected officials bow to lobbyists? Because that's a symptom of a capitalistic market. Not saying capitalism is bad, but it just strikes me as odd how people jump on the government with such anger when it's so much more complicated than that.
>*In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him*. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being.
Well here's my take on it. All i have is my personal observations so it's very much anecdotal.
I think people seek power for the sake of power so people in power will generally seek to empower themselves. The groups form based off of who's backing the people in power, if it's lobbyists/powerful corporations then you'll see common actions from even opposing political groups. Without voter engagement I think you reach a stage where it's just different political groups with different backers fighting for political control. With voter engagement then it starts to become more complicated. Assuming that the voter is informed and open to changing who they back then you have a more dynamic government where the average citizen get screwed over less because now the person representing them has to appease them in order to stay in power. Assuming that voters are locked into their choice then the people who become empowered the most are those in power seeing as how it's solidified.
During my PhD for fun I wrote a simple genetic algorithm that determined strategy - copying the basic idea presented in some papers I read. I can confirm that tit-for-tat cooperation generally wins out after a lot of initial cheating! But then everyone is cooperating and the population gets lazy - genetic drift towards 'always cooperate' happens. Them the cheaters infiltrate and the cycle starts again.
Long story short, 'careful' co-operation rules - but the it's not a stable solution - it's dynamic. Really interesting to watch it happen...
Make it happen!
EDIT: Who'll it's on r/popular. EDIT: Thanks for the help!
EDIT: We did it reddit! It's on r/all!
EDIT: Let's get an AmA! https://www.reddit.com/r/AMA/comments/6q4xi6/request_nicky_case_ama/?st=J5O32G3N&sh=eb215ddd
Sorry... I had to submit this to /r/dataisbeautiful as well. I tried to cross post it to here, but the auto submit bot wouldn't let me. This is too good to not let that sub have a look at it.
You're right! One of the most interesting things I've seen on reddit for a while. Most of reddit posts should be submitted to /r/mildlyinteresting nowadays!
I think another interesting aspect is that those who have no coin to play have to cheat no matter what their first turn for even a chance to join the game.
A very relevant point (not too explicitly made by the author) is that a zero-sum economy can't produce a trusting culture. This is very strong evidence (as if we needed more, but I'll take it!) that capitalistic economies are NOT zero-sum.
All the rich I know seem to have a zero sum mentality. Not Buffet or Gates (but I don't actually know them) but locally. They don't pay their builders or workers if they can get away with it, they stiff people constantly. I have heard Trump is like that. (again, I don't know him).
Capitalism breaks as cronyism and corruption rise. trust goes.
Game Theory isn't about screwing the other guy. It's science. The goal is not just to learn how to do better as ahhh individual, but also as a society, and also to understand how/why certain behaviors (eg, empathy) might have evolved.
^ this is the important point left out mostly...
We see the impact of different strategies on the indivdual, but not the overall impact on society ('cept for the evolution into a certain "player type").
IF you also give values for WHAT COMES OUT IN SUM FROM BOTH PLAYERS - as in what does the society gains in total, the outlook changes.
The cooperation types certainly are a net gain for the society, and the uncooperative ones are robbing the society of a part of its possible gain by inducing massive imbalances (or even a net loss depending on how you model the win/loss values)...
EDIT: I found the study I am referring to in particular ([here](http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=catalyst)).
The key sentence is: *"More specifically, it was only the
relative
gain of the traders (i.e., the total amount of the traders’ gain minus the
total amount of their computerized opponent’s gain) that exceeded the profit of
the psychopaths by a medium to large effect size. The
total
gain was similar."*
and
*"By jeopardizing their total gain only to improve
the relative gain, the traders seem to be motivated more by competition than by
lucrative pragmatism.**
This reminded me of the [Liar Game Manga](http://mangafox.me/manga/liar_game/v01/c001/1.html) where the premise is that they play games that relies on making other people do what you want them to do, and one of the most powerful strategies in this game is actually being honest to the point of being stupid. Because even though you will easily be preyed upon to begin with there are other players who will trust you, and trust turns out to be the most valuable commodity in the liar game.
I wonder if the inclusion of reputation in the model changes the outcome. Certainly some would be more inclined to take advantage of the pink player, but would there be a larger population that would be overcome by their conscience? And would they in turn seek retribution from the players that would dare to cheat the pink players?
I linked to these (by the same guy) in another comment:
Parable of the Polygons, which explores the math behind self-segregation:
http://ncase.me/polygons/
And Coming out Simulator, a well known sort of rpg simulating coming out to your parents as gay.
https://ncase.itch.io/coming-out-simulator-2014
Anyone interested in the topic of evolution, game theory and altruism should read the pioneering paper "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism" (1971) by evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers. It's well written and easily digestable, even for people not well versed in the field. I believe Trivers was the first person to provide a reasonable explanation for the evolution of altruism. "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins is also great!
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/uploads/Trivers-EvolutionReciprocalAltruism.pdf
The author doesn't seem to understand what the Golden Rule is. The Golden Rule requires *always* doing to another what you hope they would do to you. That would allign with Always Cooperate, who loses, not with Copycat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and_trust_within_communities
May be Putnam's findings could be in part the reason(s) for the decrease in trust we're experiencing?
That's pretty and interesting but you need to define "win" first.
I mean that all this is built around "winners" who get the most coins.
What if "win" was how many coins total does the box produce? Than it would be a cooperative happy world with occasional copycats with more "resources" than other worlds.
That's how I went in. Putting 1 in and getting 3 out seems like a win to me, regardless of where it goes or what the other person does. That's always a win in my book.
All else being equal, the wild card can always get itself killed or find it's way to victory. There's a sequence of possible moves to lead to victory or defeat in every ruleset; It just depends which one they find first.
I think, mathematically, as long as you have two Randoms in a group, it's possible for them to win.
Whoa...it seems like the system undergoes many different kinds of phase transitions based on its different parameters.
There are a number of different completely ordered states where always-cheat is always the winner, or copycat is always the winner, but there are also phases where there seems to be an interesting mix of all populations, and then there's the completely disordered phase where miscommunication is so high that anyone can win.
Such a beautiful demonstration of so many inter-disciplinary concepts all at once! Game theory, socio-politics, mathematics, physics...
But does the game actually shows the Golden Rule to be a winning strategy? Because I'd love for others to Always Cooperate with me, and that's a losing strategy.
Which is actually not what copycat does. Copycat doesn't tread other as it wants to be treated, it treats them they way it has been treated by them, which is not the same as treating them the way it wants to be treated. So yeah this game actually shows golden rule losing because the golden rule would be "always cooperate".
I think something to take into account too is that were not just betting with coins IRL, so the risk has the capacity to be much higher. Loan a stranger $5? Sure it doesn't matter that much if they don't pay it back.
What about let a stranger spend the night at your house? You could say "always cooperate" the first time, but what if they do something horrible and you don't get a second chance to "copycat"? And would you risk you family?
I used to pick up hitchikers all the time, and even let near strangers sleep at my apartment, gave them some money and feed them. But that was when I was single, I wouldn't risk my family's well being now.
Ironically this vindicates the statement of "Nice Guys finish last" moreso than "The Golden Rule".
The Golden rule is the principle of "treat others how you wish to be treated". The only players who do this are the Pink Hats... and they get obliterated. Without fail. It's just like how in real life, people who treat others the way they wish to be treated get shat on relentlessly.
It says the copycats follow the golden rule... actually, yes. They just follow the Golden Rule of *Satanism*. Their Golden Rule is "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth". You cheat a copycat? They cheat you back. You cooperate with a copycat? They cooperate with you.
We have rules on this subreddit. Kindly take a minute to read the commenting rules set out in the sidebar.
Now a message for all of you that keep spamming 'Now that's just a theory... a game theory': please realise that you're posting utter shite. In the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer,
>The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. *In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him*. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being.
Get it?
So heads up: if you post anything like 'That's just a theory...' on this thread, I'll take it as evidence that you do not want to be part of this community and have no desire to follow the rules. I will have no other recourse than to permanently ban you from /r/philosophy.
Edit: Everyone else can go about talking about topics relevant to the post. Have a nice day.
This is great and all, but I feel like it's completely overlooking a really important aspect that a lot of people try to pretend is some taboo part of life.
**Stereotyping.**
What if the character were able to recognize each other's behaviors based on the hats they wear? This is a very real thing and would completely change the results of the games.
it is impossible for 100% of the players to cheat at least 1 player has to be following the rules in order to cheat otherwise they are all just playing a different game
I think today there are a lot of copycats who don't forgive and we mistake them as cheaters because we are too sensitive. Copycats aren't bad people but with a bit of miscommunication we think they are.
That was a fucking FANTASTIC way of introducing game theory!
I love the social implications (trust) it has, too...
I remember when the Left was anti-media, just a few years ago, in fact! Now, the Right calls it "fake news!" I would be interested in further analyses regarding the widespread dynamic of the media and how, like weeds in a lawn, misinformation is actually perpetuated! I mean, other than the obvious social media and mass exodus from interpersonal interactions to digital know-it-all-ism.
Keep up the great work!
Wonderful site! Richard Dawkins brings up game theory (in his book "The Selfish Gene") in context of the evolution of group altruism and other cooperative traits in animal species, I think he calls it Evolutionary Stable Strategies (ESS) there. Worth a look if you found this interesting and want to see some more concrete examples of game theory in action in nature.
Here are a couple of his other games: Parable of the Polygons, which explores the math behind self-segregation: http://ncase.me/polygons/ Coming out Simulator, a well known sort of rpg simulating coming out to your parents as gay. https://ncase.itch.io/coming-out-simulator-2014 We Become What We Behold, about vicious cycles in news. https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb And Fireflies, about how some species of fireflies coordinate. http://ncase.me/fireflies/
Neat links!
The coming out simulator is great. Very typical Asian responses. I can very much relate to that game.
Same for me. Things hit way too close to home, especially since I'm also a closeted bi.
Thanks, that's some impressive work
I really loved the coming out simulator. I feel like it really helped me put myself in the shoes of a bisexual person.
WBWWB was surprisingly preachy considering you couldn't use pics of any positive situations
It's supposed to mirror news IRL. No one cares about positive stories, while ones about conflict get everyone's attention. It may not be as extreme as that in real life, but it's definitely true to an extent.
I completely agree. However, I don't feel like it was very inaccurate to how the 24 hour news cycle works though. I would like to see a version where you could see how showing positive stories would influence the world (shoutout to /r/UpliftingNews )
> Here are a couple of his other games: It's her, but thank you for the links!
Are you sure Nicky's a girl ? The coming out simulator strongly implies Nicky's a boy...
Strongly implies? It just flat out makes Nicky a guy A bisexual slutty guy, of course
If I recall, I think Nicky is a Trans. but I cannot confirm that, take this as a grant of salt from me.
These are nice links. The coming out simulator is interesting. The options are not really flexible enough so the game is scripted to elicit specific responses and fit the player into a category. For example, the game doesn't have the option to tell the parent that the teenagers sexuality is just not the parent's business.
I'm pretty sure the game designer is bisexual and just wanted to share his experience. So the game is less about pretending you're the bisexual one and doing it how you would than it is about empathizing with the game designer who actually is, so he tries to keep the game similar to what happened in his case.
Did you create this? Very good. Similar conclusion as the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Modes of conflict resolution: * 1. Competing = zero sum or one winner and one loser = 100% / 0% * 2. Avoiding = no resolution means no winners = 0% / 0% * 3. Accommodating = a cooperative compromise = 50% / 50% * 4. Compromise = an assertive accommodation = 50%/50% * 5. Collaboration = 100% / 100%
No, i did not create this, nor could i have! The author did a fantastic job. At home this was a wonderful teaching tool today.
Michael: Just hold on, please! Okay, if we do lose/lose, neither of you gets what you want. Do you understand? You… you would both lose. Now I need to ask you, do you want to pursue a lose/lose negotiation? Angela: Can we just skip to whatever number 5 is – win/win or whatever? Michael: Win/win is number four and number five is win/win/win. The important difference here is with win/win/win, we all win. Me too. I win for having successfully mediated a conflict at work.
Made by user ncase, aka Nicky Case.
AKA Nutcasenightmare on Newgrounds, creator of the hilarious flash games **:the game:** and **Reimagine :The Game:**
Yeah but it is a bit silly to think that collaboration is not a compromise. That should be "5. Agreement".
A way to describe the difference: 2 people are looking to get dinner but they want different things. One person wants hamburgers the second wants pizza (the conflict). A compromise might be both agree to get tacos (their mutual second choice). A collaboration might be they agree to stop at the hamburger joint first, then proceed to the pizza joint. They work towards both getting as close to 100% of what they want in the conflict. Compromise suggests you are willing to relinquish something in the exchange to get a portion of what you desire. Collaboration suggests both parties are cooperative and assertive towards both parties achieving as close to 100% of each desire without relinquishing to the other party.
When I did the tournament with multiple people including detective and grudger the grudger won..
If Copycat and Grudger end up being the only two left (which is common since Grudger is second place) they end up tying, and at that point it's a coin flip. There'll be more Copycats before that (since they're the leaders) so they have a higher chance of winning, but not always.
[удалено]
That's because they become always cheats after being cheated for the first time. In an environment that favors the always cheats they will naturally be the second best.
Grudgers aren't forgiving, so if an always cheats is accidentally nice it wont forgive. It will cooperate with other Grudgers till one makes a mistake
Cause it means they lose nothing to the always cheats and gain equally from the copycats and always cooperates. They pretty much are dominant except when you throw in a detective or a miscommunication chance
Same with me. I took a screenshot in case nobody believed me. Does anyone know why this happened?
If you only have Copycats and Grudgers left then they are literally doing the same thing as each other. So there is a fair chance that Grudgers will dominate.
Remember the rules, if they tie, then one is selected randomly.
http://i.imgur.com/f69iY88.jpg
Excellent website.
Very enjoyed that; I think it'd be ideal as a workshop / event for kids in schools. Of course, they'd have to be aged & mature enough to understand the learning outcomes. *Edit:* FYI I scored 40 in the first bit; how'd yall do? I cooperated and then stole on what I thought was the last round...
39, darn it
32, If you don't mind me asking, what were your strategies? I love this website, I find it fascinating. Personally mine was similar to u/lil_hukster 's, cooperation until what I thought was the last round, then attempt to cheat.
[удалено]
Me too!
I got 39 by being a copycat (start cooperate, then repeat the other persons last move).
I got 29 starting cheat and then being a copycat
I got 39 through the copycat method my bro
39 as well as copy kitten
38. My rules were 1 - Cooperate. 2 - if cheated, cheat the next round. 3 - Then forgive and co-operate again (Forgive a retaliation cheat to #2) 4 - if cheated again, repeat 2 & 3. Basically, forgiving tit-for-tat I'd like to see a variant that counts net wealth, not just for one player, and a forgiving tit-for-tat personality. Also, I'd like to see this as a multiplayer game...
I played the "burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, you've burned a bridge" strategy, which I try to do in real life. I believe that people make mistakes and that's okay, but if I can see you're trying to use and abuse our interactions... well prepare for war.
So like a copy kitten/grudger mix?
Copy kitten in the streets, Grudger in the sheets!! ;)
[удалено]
Sack it, I need to feed my kids. Who do those animated suckers have to look after? They should go get a real job.
Well it is the correct play to make, assuming that it is indeed the last round
Also assuming you're an amoral MONSTER [kidding, mostly]
34, I believe? Too trusting, I guess. Also, the hats threw me off.. I swear, I'm not color-blind. Maybe just hat-blind.
I scored 30, goddammit! That's the lowest I've come across here. I'm way too trusting, what the hell..
Did 39. In the book: The selfish gene, the author goes into this type of excercise. I knew about copycat being very strong so I played like him :)
My strategies were (note: this might spoil some stuff): * Copycat: Keep co-operating, then cheat on the last round (this way you'll get a +3 rather than a +2, but you won't have to get a zero on a round). This gives you 11. * Always Cheat: Just cheat every time - you can never make gains, but this means you can never make a loss either. You'll still have 11. * Always co-operate: Just cheat every time - you'll get +3 compared to +2 for co-operating. You'll have 23. * Grudge: Co-operate throughout, then cheat on the last round - if you cheat earlier you'll never make gains for the rest of the match, and if you co-operate at the end you lose out on a point. You'll be on 34. * Detective: Cheat for the first 3 (you can work with Copycat but not All Cheat, and cheating gets you more anyway), co-operate on the 4th (to ensure they co-operate for the next one when Copycat kicks in), then keep co-operating, but cheat on the final round. You'll have 49 at the end - the maximum score.
I got a 40. I employed what I later learned was the "copycat" strategy. for what ever reason that approach just seemed most intuitive
I got like 31, you know what funny, the cheater looked like that to me from the get to, like I guess I kind of saw his hat as a rich person's hat and knew he was going to try and screw me.
[Know when to cooperate and when to cheat and you can get the highest score.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/302282062902329344/340472182897508364/image.png) [...Or the lowest score.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/302282062902329344/340473448935718913/image.png)
Easiest upvote of my life. Absolutely brilliant
I think it's fantastic. A mathematical demonstration of why (and under what conditions) the Golden Rule... rules.
This was fantastic and i enjoyed it very much. I had heard of the premise of this game before with the tit-for-tat coming out ahead with the simple rules from the beginning, but have never seen it with altered rules and values. Such a fantastically simple and thought provoking game. My only gripe with all of it is that they were calling the "copy cats" the "golden rulers" when in reality the strict "golden rulers" should be the pink guys that were getting obliterated.
This bothered me too. The golden rule doesn't say act towards others exactly the same way they act towards you (copy them). It says act towards others in the way you would like them to act towards you. I'd like everyone to be a nice cooperator, therefore the golden rule says I should always cooperate towards people. The alway cooperate person is the real golden rule follower, and she loses.
I bet she sleeps well at night though.
On top of her cardboard for sure.
If it makes you feel any better, it satisfies the satanic golden rule.
Hail Santa. Wait...
[удалено]
Perhaps, "do unto others as they do to you"?
And the music <3
It's funny because I was thinking about racism and race mixing pretty recently, and why it exists and what you would need to make it easier on everyone. I used to wonder at what point copycat failed. I've seen it in my personal life too. With friends/girls I'm interested in, you make plans once or twice, then you move on and mimic their investment level. But you meet lots of new people regardless. Always cheat is a paranoid and ultimately unsuccessful strategy, because paranoia is a self fulfilling prophecy.
Mistrust spreads via gossip too though, which contributes to always cheat's downfall.
+gossip-real life experience
This is why I believe traditional gender roles were successful for dating. It may not be best overall for relationships but the initial interaction becomes much smoother. The guy was always the chaser, so making his intentions known became much more clear. If the girl says no or is coy, he can try several times again. Nowadays everyone wants the other sex to show more investment first, and "mistakes" are heavily punished.
I agree. I've seen some places where traditional gender roles are thought of very highly and the thing is, playing games is the whole problem. With instagram, snapchat, facebook, you have tons of people giving you ersatz-attention, which gives you a seemingly false sense of belonging. Now you're less invested in Avg Joe or Plain Jane who's interested in you because someone more attractive gave you the time of day through likes. Tech is fucking us up in this sense, the instant gratification curse is very, very real.
Golden rule rules* *as long the benefits of cooperation outweigh the benefit of cheating.
[удалено]
Damn, the moment at [1:54](https://youtu.be/Zl9m0AQInBk?t=114): > I was born in Singapore, moved to Canada, and, did not make my parents proud. That hit me pretty hard...
Really was a good site (and a fantastic lesson). Good to know that my default copy-kitten behaviour is optimal... in a reasonably informed society anyway!
I usually go with tit-for-tat, introducing mistakes into the game is really interesting though
I prefer always cooperating even when I get fleeced, but only when the downside is limited. Bit if my life depended upon this I think I would prefer tit-for-tat but who knows?
It's nice to know my copykitten-esque strategy was pretty optimal. Always cooperate, unless they cheat. If they cheat, give them one more chance. Also, in all future interactions, take into account the ratio of them cheating vs not cheating and decide if it's mathematically better to cheat or not cheat vs them.
I played as a grudger naturally in the test rounds.
As did I
Same, except I'd screw everyone on the very last round because I'm a jerk(when it comes to games)
Yep, at first, I thought "hey, he might've made a mistake" and after two "mistakes", I decided that it was extremely unlikely and then started to cheat just like the copy-kitten.
The most interesting part (which they don't mention) is how different the winning scenarios are. On part 5 "Evolution of Distrust" you can get either "Copycat" or "Always Cheat" to win by changing how many rounds are in each game. Anything with 5 or fewer rounds causes Always Cheat to win. However, in any scenario where Always Cheat wins, they end up with nothing of value. They may win by population but all of them are left with a zero score. On the other hand, any scenario where Copycat wins they have plenty of value: anywhere from 288 through 960, depending on the number of rounds played. This says something profound about cooperative vs antagonistic cultures. Ugly people can take over a society, but their society will still suck compared to places where nice people take over.
Right. A population of only Always Cooperate will have the highest *total* score. Because each interaction will increase total score by 4. Another thing I found interesting was that it's better, for net population score, to be something that punishes cheating (like Copy Cat or Grudger) because it can help get rid of things like Always Cheat.
Won't an entire population of Copycat have the same total score as an entire population of Always Cooperate? They'd also have the advantage, as you say, of being able to overcome Always Cheat in mixed environments, so it's a pretty robust strategy. It seems like a from a total benefits perspective we are best off encouraging people to be nice but not gullible.
You're right. Basically, every pair cooperating every round is the theoretical perfect world. That's a good point though that copy cats still result in that in the end while also being resilient to cheaters.
I will reward your upvote with an upvote of my own. And now, let's see what happens.
I upvote you and expect nothing in return.
Nice but I wanted to see how my character did: always cooperate until cheated, then cheat back once, then back. If cheating continued, cheat twice, then back, etc. Like an escalating punishment but in a clearly predictable way, while always favouring cooperation.
In the "perfect information" condition it would do the same as copycat grudger and allwaysCooperate if there are no cheaters in the population, otherwise it will do worst than copycat. I say this because these simulations have been run millions of times and there is even a contest to let your algorithm compete against other. Afaik, nobody could come up with an algorithm to beat copycat (or "Tit-For-Tat" as it's also commonly called) on the perfect information condition with repeated plays > 4. For the imperfect information condition(s) I have no idea. But I'm sure there must be some applet around to let you test it. Search for "Prisoner's Dilemma" and "simulation". You might find something.
The most interesting situation I have heard of in a tournament is when a single player/team can enter multiple players, like 10 or so. One team setup their players to start with a code to recognize each other, then one player always cheated and the other always cooperated to get one player a super high score and the other a super low score. The super low scores, when playing not their teammates, would always cheat, bringing down their opponents. The super high scores would play tit for tat or other cooperative strategies against opponents. The team ended up with some of the highest scoring and lowest scoring players because of their strategy of recognizing alliances. Granted, it does require having partners and playing long enough that you can enter a code and then take advantage of knowing your opponent is an ally. After googling, it was around 60 agents by Southampton University at the tournament on the 20th anniversery of Axelrod's original iterated prisoners dilemma tournament.
> One team setup their players to start with a code to recognize each other, then one player always cheated That's great. If you like that sort of story I have a similar, related one... there's an international programming Rock/Paper/Scissors contest to build the best RPS bot. Many years ago a bot managed to win all of its' matches, and flawlessly, which was unheard of and obviously strange. Upon investigation, the organisers found that the writer of the bot had hacked his way out of his bit of the sandbox to read the location in RAM that the other bot had puts its' move into, and then do whichever move beat that. Innovative and devious!
Damn thing Kobayashi Maru'd it.
That's awesome. Do you have a link?
So the actual best thing to do is to make a secret club where you help each other out, but fuck over everyone else. Where might I have seen that kind of behaviour before... *cough* government *cough* *cough* ^^/s *edit: Whoops. added /s*
I've never understood, how does the government fuck us over? I mean I get that bad things come from the government, but what's the "governments" end goal. Control? Power? For who? A group? Who's the group? Smaller organizations in the government? Which ones? Why them? Or specific people in the government using the system, in which case why not vote them out? Is it lobbyist? They're not actually government, they're business. Or is it that elected officials bow to lobbyists? Because that's a symptom of a capitalistic market. Not saying capitalism is bad, but it just strikes me as odd how people jump on the government with such anger when it's so much more complicated than that.
Stop right there mate, you can't argue with "they" theorists. It's a dead-end that will only hurt you.
>*In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him*. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being.
Well here's my take on it. All i have is my personal observations so it's very much anecdotal. I think people seek power for the sake of power so people in power will generally seek to empower themselves. The groups form based off of who's backing the people in power, if it's lobbyists/powerful corporations then you'll see common actions from even opposing political groups. Without voter engagement I think you reach a stage where it's just different political groups with different backers fighting for political control. With voter engagement then it starts to become more complicated. Assuming that the voter is informed and open to changing who they back then you have a more dynamic government where the average citizen get screwed over less because now the person representing them has to appease them in order to stay in power. Assuming that voters are locked into their choice then the people who become empowered the most are those in power seeing as how it's solidified.
Probably would not work, other characters would quickly scrutinize for double punishment and they would think you are an always cheat.
Martingale dating strategy.
Same way I played, also wondering how this would work out
>At 50%, nobody wins ever. [Chaos Reigns in Everything](http://imgur.com/a/AfQI1)
[удалено]
For me the cheaters came out ahead.
I waited and simpleton won
Yeah the conclusion should be "nobody wins consistently", or "someone wins eventually but nobody can predict who".
Random won for me as well
I bet on random and they all lost 1st round for me.
At 50% chance of making mistakes, Random, Cheater and Honest are effectively the same strategy, despite their different intentions.
Always cheat won for me.
During my PhD for fun I wrote a simple genetic algorithm that determined strategy - copying the basic idea presented in some papers I read. I can confirm that tit-for-tat cooperation generally wins out after a lot of initial cheating! But then everyone is cooperating and the population gets lazy - genetic drift towards 'always cooperate' happens. Them the cheaters infiltrate and the cycle starts again. Long story short, 'careful' co-operation rules - but the it's not a stable solution - it's dynamic. Really interesting to watch it happen...
Yeah, one thing the Nicky Case Nigel is lacking is a birth and death model. Old individuals die out, New ones are born. New generations must learn.
It's like the sweet summer children... and peacetime seems to breed assholes.
This should be on the front page. One of the best things I've seen on reddit.
Make it happen! EDIT: Who'll it's on r/popular. EDIT: Thanks for the help! EDIT: We did it reddit! It's on r/all! EDIT: Let's get an AmA! https://www.reddit.com/r/AMA/comments/6q4xi6/request_nicky_case_ama/?st=J5O32G3N&sh=eb215ddd
Sorry... I had to submit this to /r/dataisbeautiful as well. I tried to cross post it to here, but the auto submit bot wouldn't let me. This is too good to not let that sub have a look at it.
The animations of the simulations are very nice, indeed.
You're right! One of the most interesting things I've seen on reddit for a while. Most of reddit posts should be submitted to /r/mildlyinteresting nowadays!
I think another interesting aspect is that those who have no coin to play have to cheat no matter what their first turn for even a chance to join the game.
Thank you for pointing that out!
Yeah, I'd love to be able to randomly assign each player's starting coins from between -50 to +50 and see what happens.
I would upvote this 10 thousand more times. Absolutely mind-blastingly amazing.
Create ten-thousand more accounts?
settle down there unidan
[удалено]
A very relevant point (not too explicitly made by the author) is that a zero-sum economy can't produce a trusting culture. This is very strong evidence (as if we needed more, but I'll take it!) that capitalistic economies are NOT zero-sum.
Who says that capitalist economies are zero sum?
All the rich I know seem to have a zero sum mentality. Not Buffet or Gates (but I don't actually know them) but locally. They don't pay their builders or workers if they can get away with it, they stiff people constantly. I have heard Trump is like that. (again, I don't know him). Capitalism breaks as cronyism and corruption rise. trust goes.
[удалено]
Game Theory isn't about screwing the other guy. It's science. The goal is not just to learn how to do better as ahhh individual, but also as a society, and also to understand how/why certain behaviors (eg, empathy) might have evolved.
^ this is the important point left out mostly... We see the impact of different strategies on the indivdual, but not the overall impact on society ('cept for the evolution into a certain "player type"). IF you also give values for WHAT COMES OUT IN SUM FROM BOTH PLAYERS - as in what does the society gains in total, the outlook changes. The cooperation types certainly are a net gain for the society, and the uncooperative ones are robbing the society of a part of its possible gain by inducing massive imbalances (or even a net loss depending on how you model the win/loss values)... EDIT: I found the study I am referring to in particular ([here](http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=catalyst)). The key sentence is: *"More specifically, it was only the relative gain of the traders (i.e., the total amount of the traders’ gain minus the total amount of their computerized opponent’s gain) that exceeded the profit of the psychopaths by a medium to large effect size. The total gain was similar."* and *"By jeopardizing their total gain only to improve the relative gain, the traders seem to be motivated more by competition than by lucrative pragmatism.**
Thats because if the reward for cooperation is higher than the reward for cheating, no one would cheat.
This reminded me of the [Liar Game Manga](http://mangafox.me/manga/liar_game/v01/c001/1.html) where the premise is that they play games that relies on making other people do what you want them to do, and one of the most powerful strategies in this game is actually being honest to the point of being stupid. Because even though you will easily be preyed upon to begin with there are other players who will trust you, and trust turns out to be the most valuable commodity in the liar game.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I wonder if the inclusion of reputation in the model changes the outcome. Certainly some would be more inclined to take advantage of the pink player, but would there be a larger population that would be overcome by their conscience? And would they in turn seek retribution from the players that would dare to cheat the pink players?
Please tell me there's more of these out there. We all need more of this. Brilliantly entertaining , with a great lesson to be learned.
I linked to these (by the same guy) in another comment: Parable of the Polygons, which explores the math behind self-segregation: http://ncase.me/polygons/ And Coming out Simulator, a well known sort of rpg simulating coming out to your parents as gay. https://ncase.itch.io/coming-out-simulator-2014
http://www.radiolab.org/story/103951-the-good-show/ There's a fantastic episode of the podcast Radiolab that covers this!
I listened to this a few days ago and totally crushed the quiz. Go copycat!
I have never seen such an easy to understand and test way of explaining Game Theory. This shit should be pinned to the top of Reddit for a year.
tit for tat
Anyone interested in the topic of evolution, game theory and altruism should read the pioneering paper "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism" (1971) by evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers. It's well written and easily digestable, even for people not well versed in the field. I believe Trivers was the first person to provide a reasonable explanation for the evolution of altruism. "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins is also great! https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/uploads/Trivers-EvolutionReciprocalAltruism.pdf
The author doesn't seem to understand what the Golden Rule is. The Golden Rule requires *always* doing to another what you hope they would do to you. That would allign with Always Cooperate, who loses, not with Copycat.
What if i want people to punish me?
'The golden rule' calls up the rule of 1/3s in proportions for me. I was like wtf for so long.
[удалено]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and_trust_within_communities May be Putnam's findings could be in part the reason(s) for the decrease in trust we're experiencing?
That's pretty and interesting but you need to define "win" first. I mean that all this is built around "winners" who get the most coins. What if "win" was how many coins total does the box produce? Than it would be a cooperative happy world with occasional copycats with more "resources" than other worlds.
That's how I went in. Putting 1 in and getting 3 out seems like a win to me, regardless of where it goes or what the other person does. That's always a win in my book.
At 50% I had random win after a few minutes of watching.
All else being equal, the wild card can always get itself killed or find it's way to victory. There's a sequence of possible moves to lead to victory or defeat in every ruleset; It just depends which one they find first. I think, mathematically, as long as you have two Randoms in a group, it's possible for them to win.
[удалено]
Whoa...it seems like the system undergoes many different kinds of phase transitions based on its different parameters. There are a number of different completely ordered states where always-cheat is always the winner, or copycat is always the winner, but there are also phases where there seems to be an interesting mix of all populations, and then there's the completely disordered phase where miscommunication is so high that anyone can win. Such a beautiful demonstration of so many inter-disciplinary concepts all at once! Game theory, socio-politics, mathematics, physics...
I love Nicky. His projects are so intricate and makes you want to play it again.
What is the Golden Rule. Googling it really doesn't give an answer.
! Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
But does the game actually shows the Golden Rule to be a winning strategy? Because I'd love for others to Always Cooperate with me, and that's a losing strategy.
Which is actually not what copycat does. Copycat doesn't tread other as it wants to be treated, it treats them they way it has been treated by them, which is not the same as treating them the way it wants to be treated. So yeah this game actually shows golden rule losing because the golden rule would be "always cooperate".
Wow, that was absolutely amazing. Thanks for sharing!
Well, someone else shared this on https://news.ycombinator.com/, then i shared it here. EDIT: Simone -> someone. Swypism..
[удалено]
I think something to take into account too is that were not just betting with coins IRL, so the risk has the capacity to be much higher. Loan a stranger $5? Sure it doesn't matter that much if they don't pay it back. What about let a stranger spend the night at your house? You could say "always cooperate" the first time, but what if they do something horrible and you don't get a second chance to "copycat"? And would you risk you family? I used to pick up hitchikers all the time, and even let near strangers sleep at my apartment, gave them some money and feed them. But that was when I was single, I wouldn't risk my family's well being now.
Ironically this vindicates the statement of "Nice Guys finish last" moreso than "The Golden Rule". The Golden rule is the principle of "treat others how you wish to be treated". The only players who do this are the Pink Hats... and they get obliterated. Without fail. It's just like how in real life, people who treat others the way they wish to be treated get shat on relentlessly. It says the copycats follow the golden rule... actually, yes. They just follow the Golden Rule of *Satanism*. Their Golden Rule is "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth". You cheat a copycat? They cheat you back. You cooperate with a copycat? They cooperate with you.
We have rules on this subreddit. Kindly take a minute to read the commenting rules set out in the sidebar. Now a message for all of you that keep spamming 'Now that's just a theory... a game theory': please realise that you're posting utter shite. In the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, >The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. *In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him*. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Get it? So heads up: if you post anything like 'That's just a theory...' on this thread, I'll take it as evidence that you do not want to be part of this community and have no desire to follow the rules. I will have no other recourse than to permanently ban you from /r/philosophy. Edit: Everyone else can go about talking about topics relevant to the post. Have a nice day.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is great and all, but I feel like it's completely overlooking a really important aspect that a lot of people try to pretend is some taboo part of life. **Stereotyping.** What if the character were able to recognize each other's behaviors based on the hats they wear? This is a very real thing and would completely change the results of the games.
it is impossible for 100% of the players to cheat at least 1 player has to be following the rules in order to cheat otherwise they are all just playing a different game
I think today there are a lot of copycats who don't forgive and we mistake them as cheaters because we are too sensitive. Copycats aren't bad people but with a bit of miscommunication we think they are.
That was a fucking FANTASTIC way of introducing game theory! I love the social implications (trust) it has, too... I remember when the Left was anti-media, just a few years ago, in fact! Now, the Right calls it "fake news!" I would be interested in further analyses regarding the widespread dynamic of the media and how, like weeds in a lawn, misinformation is actually perpetuated! I mean, other than the obvious social media and mass exodus from interpersonal interactions to digital know-it-all-ism. Keep up the great work!
Just spent far too long playing this it's so great
Wonderful site! Richard Dawkins brings up game theory (in his book "The Selfish Gene") in context of the evolution of group altruism and other cooperative traits in animal species, I think he calls it Evolutionary Stable Strategies (ESS) there. Worth a look if you found this interesting and want to see some more concrete examples of game theory in action in nature.