Anders Sandberg wrote:
> Might is right (MIR) doesn't work well. In fact, I even made a simple
> model where I tested it against a simple cooperative strategy
> (cooperate with other cooperators) and it did worse under a wide
> variety of situations (It became a nice little paper I'm going to
> publish). MIR has the problem that it only works for the strong, but
> anyone can earn well in a cooperative endeavor regardless of coercive
> strength, which makes cooperators in the long run better off. This is
> of course why dictatorships and other MIR societies doesn't do as well
> as democracies and non-MIR societies; a lot of work is wasted on
> internal conflict.
I would love to reveiw your model. Have you tested a model where you test MIR only individuals, Co-op only individuals, and MIR/Coop capable individuals? I bet that Individuals who can do both MIR and Co-op, depending on the situation and the behavior of the others will fare best.
>
>
> The problem is that humans in general aren't as rational as they could
> be, and MIR is easy to explain (just use a gun) while coperative
> strategies require more thinking, communication and education. Which
> is why I think we should introduce young people more to game theory,
> the prisoners' dilemma and the theory of cooperation.
>
Yes, I beleive that youngsters should be exposed to much more of this. However I wouldn't leave out the MIR principle in its entirety. As 20th century history shows, MIR individuals are usually only best dealt with in an MIR manner.
Mike Lorrey