The Evolution of Trust is an interactive presentation by Nicky Case that explores cheating and cooperation. The short narrative experience attempts to explain the rise of mistrust and suspicion in today’s society through the lens of game theory. It’s fascinating, and it’s this week’s Indie Pick.
The Christmas Truce of 1914 was a remarkable show of charity, as soldiers from World War One laid down their arms and turned battlefields into soccer pitches. Recent attempts to recreate this event in Battlefield 1 failed. Figuring out exactly what made the truce possible is a central question of The Evolution of Trust.
To answer this question, Case proposes a thought experiment. There is a machine where two players are meant to insert coins. If both insert one coin, each get two in return. However, if one player withholds their coin and the other inserts their own, the cheater gets three coins instead. If both cheat, they get nothing. What is the optimal strategy? Cheating. There’s everything to gain and nothing to lose.
Case expands to add a variety of strategies to examine if cheating is truly optimal. There are players who only cheat after being wronged and those who copy the last action taken against them. As more play-styles are added, cheating becomes less viable. The Evolution of Trust starts to account for issues like human errors and repeated contact with other players. More complex behavior emerge, including forgiveness and cooperation. These behaviors starts to overwhelm those who always cheat.
Last edited by jediuser598 on Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thy praise or dispraise is to me alike:
One doth not stroke me, nor the other strike.
-Ben Johnson
Let me clue in everyone on Game theory; it's just common sense.
An ingroup that lacks cohesiveness will lose to an outgroup that does. Trust goes down in an ingroup the same as social trust does when the outgroup starts winning. When you have an ingroup actively playing to intentionally hinder its own group they will lose unless the ingroup purges those elements.
Nukedog wrote:Let me clue in everyone on Game theory; it's just common sense.
An ingroup that lacks cohesiveness will lose to an outgroup that does. Trust goes down in an ingroup the same as social trust does when the outgroup starts winning. When you have an ingroup actively playing to intentionally hinder its own group they will lose unless the ingroup purges those elements.
You didn't actually click on the link, did you?
Thy praise or dispraise is to me alike:
One doth not stroke me, nor the other strike.
-Ben Johnson
Nukedog wrote:Let me clue in everyone on Game theory; it's just common sense.
An ingroup that lacks cohesiveness will lose to an outgroup that does. Trust goes down in an ingroup the same as social trust does when the outgroup starts winning. When you have an ingroup actively playing to intentionally hinder its own group they will lose unless the ingroup purges those elements.
You didn't actually click on the link, did you?
This isn't the first time I've heard game theory discussed. It comes up every week.
