Proof That Cooperation Is More Profitable Than Competition

This info is a bit dated but I cannot find an existing thread that raises the subject of a significant scientific discovery made in 1981 within the science of game strategy, called “tit for tat.” With this thread I am hoping to generate ideas as to how this strategy might be adapted to work in the real world. Link to a summary of this discovery is below. Any other forms of comment are also welcome. Thanks! P.S., I think the ATS point system resembles tit for tat strategy, which might partly explain why this website is so successful.

== External link ==
tit for tat.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by Rumpelstiltskin]

Mod Edit: All Caps Title

[edit on 12-1-2009 by MemoryShock]

Mod edit: fixed link

[edit on 15-1-2009 by sanctum]

I actually participated in a psychological experiment on this last year. Pretty much there were a bunch of groups of four and each group would play a game of Scrabble. At the end the person with the highest score in the group would get a prize of some sort, as would the group with the highest score. In the end the groups that worked together got higher total scores, as well as producing higher individual scores. Furthermore, groups that were composed entirely of females were more likely to work together than groups comprised entirely of males.

Thanks Xcalibur. Very interesting that females were more likely to co-operate with each other in your experiment than male with male groups. How did the game of scrabble fit in? Were you playing against the same people that were helping you build you build your own words? I must be missing something because that does not sound exactly the same as tit for tat strategy.


Long story short for everyone else,


TIT FOR TAT strategy has four features (or rules), which are as follows:


1.Never be the first to defect
2. Retaliate only after your partner has defected
3. Be prepared to forgive after carrying out just one act of retaliation
4. Adopt this strategy only if the probability of meeting the same player again exceeds 2/3.


I suggest rule 4 be ignored for the purpose of the question posed in this thread, which is how TFT strategy can be applied in the real world. Or, to ask the same question another way, why can't the evolution of co-ooperative behavior in human beings rise to the level of the stickleback fish?

I think that a TFT strategy has higher merit and a better success probability than a competitive one. However, I don't think that society can ever accept a TFT strategy as opposed to a competitive one because humans, by nature are competitive.

I like the other poster's example with the scrabble game, it shows that males still have their competitive instincts, but that those instincts have evolved with them to adapt to our new environment. Women will always be more open to cooperating and helping one another because that's part of their evolution.

Sorry, but this is another liberal minded "Utopian" fantasy.

Competition is the basis for success. Competition breeds innovation and advancement. It encourages personal growth and success.

People seem to believe that there is some inherent problem with our current competitive system, but the real problem lies in governments interference in that system.

If you are trying to find the root of the "problems" with the way we do things now, I'd start at the White House.

Originally posted by nyk537
Sorry, but this is another liberal minded "Utopian" fantasy.

No need to apologize for politely disagreeing with me.

Originally posted by nyk537
Competition is the basis for success.

I agree that competition is a basis for success, but not with what seems to be your definition of competition as THE only (or best) basis.

Originally posted by nyk537
Competition breeds innovation and advancement.

Agreed, but do you allow it could be possible to achieve more innovation and advancement through co-operation than competition? Do you allow that TFT strategy proves this, mathematically?

Originally posted by nyk537
(Competition) encourages personal growth and success.

Agree here too, but think the focus on “personal” as opposed to communal makes us duller and ultimately stunts our capacity for personal growth and success also.


I get the same impression from your reply as I did from the previous reply to yours, that TFT would be impossible for humans to adhere to because, as it was said, humans are competitive by nature. Question I would ask is, are we not capable of evolving? I think we are, but at the same time I have to admit that it seems like we could still fill plenty of seats at the Roman Coliseum if we let those games begin again.

Can I ask how you're tying this tidbit of game theory to political ideology? Not that it's ever a stretch to do so.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Can I ask how you're tying this tidbit of game theory to political ideology?

The “how” part is the question posed in this thread that I hope will generate the ideas needed to answer your question. I appreciate your question, though, because it does appear that a little further elaboration from me might help.

As we know, capitalism already follows a strategy, which resembles an inferior game strategy called Bourgeois, and which involves offering different levels of co-operation under varying circumstances. Follow the link at the beginning of this thread to see all known strategies that have been tested against Tit For Tat. What I am asking for here is ideas to change the rules of the game that we are already playing, if you will. What might develop is a new political ideology altogether. Or, maybe the exercise will only confirm that the safest financial investment in this world is in the weapons production industry.

Mod, can you please fix the link at the top of this thread and send me whatever form response you have for people who fail how to post links 101?

I will now try to advance this discussion by making the first two rule change suggestions for adapting Tit For Tat strategy to work in the real world.

Rule change 1: No more voting for people. From now on, everyone can vote on every issue. Yes, this is called government by referendum.

Rule Change 2: Voting on all issues never closes, so you can change your mind as often as you would like. But at any one time, only your most recent vote counts.

I'm looking for up or down votes on these two suggestions, and I'm hoping for more rule-change suggestions from you. Thanks!

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Rumpelstiltskin]

Originally posted by nyk537
Sorry, but this is another liberal minded "Utopian" fantasy.

Competition is the basis for success. Competition breeds innovation and advancement. It encourages personal growth and success.

People seem to believe that there is some inherent problem with our current competitive system, but the real problem lies in governments interference in that system.

If you are trying to find the root of the "problems" with the way we do things now, I'd start at the White House.

Thomas Pynchon: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers."

There is no way that I could have produced, by myself, the computer upon which I am writing this article. Had I devoted my entire life to the undertaking, I would have been unable even to have conceived of its technology. Many other men and women, equally unable to have undertaken the task by themselves, cooperated – without even knowing one another – in its creation. Lest you think that my writing would have to have been accomplished through the use of a pencil, think again: I would also have been unable to produce a pencil on my own, as Leonard Read once illustrated in a wonderful, brief essay. These are the ideologies you are sold in order that the system can function, in truth, their creation did not wait for the systems to be produced to exist, and the system did not wait on their production to exist.
Such cooperative undertakings have been possible because of a a "noble" lie sold as a truth – acknowledged by students of marketplace economic systems, particularly the Austrians – about human nature: each of us acts only in anticipation of being better off afterwards as a result of our actions. When in truth we act because we exist. Toward whatever ends we choose to act – and such ends are constantly rearranging their priorities within us – their satisfaction is always expressed in terms inextricably tied to decision making over something one owns (or seeks to own). Whether I wish to acquire some item of wealth, or to give it away; whether I choose to write some great novel or paint some wondrous work of art; or whether I just wish to lie around and look at flowers, each such act is premised on the fact that we cannot act in the world without doing so through property interests. It is in anticipation of being able to more fully express our sense of what is important to us, both materially and spiritually, that we cooperate with one another. Such things we are conditioned, from cradle to grave, to believe. However, these systems are not the reason why we do as we do. They are merely there for the many to be in the control of the few.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

While it is propagated that the USA are consumers they are in fact producers global producers at that. Competition may drive our markets but people aren't currency, time is. We are actually co-operative as a people. Tit for Tat could apply. People could choose it or it can be forced on them but it is not inconceivable and no evolving need be involved. Competitive people have to be co-operative to achieve their own status. What star athlete never needed a team to get them where they are? What musician or actor or company employee didn't co- operate with others to get the work done?

AND

reply to post by Rumpelstiltskin


Wouldn't that be a way for the many to be in control of the few. In the heat of the moment the majority vote could trample the minority vote even if it's wrong. One voice one vote on every issue would require self accountability and and many need others to blame and so could never be sovereign accountable for ones own actions such as a vote. If the all could do it - it would be a true democracy, mob rules, majority whim, anarchy (why does that word always get associated with negative connotations?). If we treated our currency and co-operations as people as the law does and people are by nature co-operative then the real question is whether to take away their right to not co-operate such as with resisting arrest which is competition. Until interrogation which is co-operative. Although, I suppose an arrest can be co-operative also such as compliance with arrest. I don't know, I guess I'm saying that a true democracy as your rules would create sounds nice in theory but in practice the minority would suffer without representative votes to give them equal footing so we'll always have republic representor - represented co-operative or competition relationship. And it is usually when the two compete that public opinion isn't high of the vote or speech of the representative or he- they. But, that's the system we got. A good way to change it is to make it act as the system it seeks to replace. Don't ask me how to do that these are just random thoughts. And hi again Rumple, message me your email, I lost the account I had it in when I moved from Alabama.

In short Our world may seem purely competitive but we are just as much Co-operatists, everything we do co-operates with some nature while we compete with others, all the forms of life and regeneration, the food chain. And Tit For Tat would benefit many but injure some.