this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)

You Should Know

33133 readers
5 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.

Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.

Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
3
YSK : Moral values of being nice, forgiving and generosity are justified by game theory to be successful strategies (youtu.be)
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Prisoner's dilemma is a problem commonly featured in game theory. Each player is given an option to be either nice or nasty. Each combination of player plays multiple number of rounds. When tested against different strategies, it is found that the best performing strategies are :

  • nice first ( they don't start the provoking),
  • retaliatory (when opponent is nasty they also resond nasty),
  • forgiving (they don't hold grudges),
  • clear (their strategies are clear for opponent to interpret) and
  • generous (when the opponent has been nasty, they do not retaliate 10℅ of the time )
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

Only works when there is a genuine risk of retaliation equal or worse than the damage done, i.e.:

  • There are multiple rounds or each round is done is such a way that the second person has a real choice, or in other words people can't just make a one-sided choice, cash their gains and dissapear but instead face consequences immediatelly or on subsequent rounds.
  • Both sides have similar power to inflict hurt on the other side.

In fact various experiments from Behavioural Economics similar to these and done with conditions more like I describe show exactly that effect: far fewer behave nicelly and are generous and forgiving when others can't meaningfully retaliate.

It's not by chance that most situations in real life of somebody taking advantage of somebody else either involve a context where the abuser can just extract a gain and dissapear, escaping retaliation, or there is a massive power imballance so the victim can't actually retaliate in any meaningfull way (say, the "boss" vs an employee that can easilly be fired or an elected politician making choices that hurt a minority of electors).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

How does this explain that the world is essentially ruled by ruthless billionnaires? The strategies referenced may be vindicated, but that doesn't preclude them from being eclipsed by another, even greater strategy, that of total domination.

Or is anyone going to tell me straight-faced that all those people are great examples of our species and should be revered? None of them got where they are by playing nice.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

Take away the power to tit for your tats, and now you can be almost as nasty as you want.

The prisoner's dilemma is of course, a highly simplified model. If you could just submit a strategy like "my opponent doesn't get to play, so I take all the points" then yeah, that would beat tit for tat.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

This isn't really about the current global economic situation, more about like human behaviour.

In the prisoner's dilemma, aggressive options tend to do well only in the short term, so you could see ruthless billionaires as short-sighted, considering their reaping of the earth will end up destroying the ecosystems we live in.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

It explains why the most selfish people often lack foresight and are not smart outside of a very narrow focus.