Do I? Well, I guess that's what I think, since you said so.
And the rational way to act in prisoner's dilemma is that both defect, meaning both carry a gun..
No, it's not "held up as an example" of that. It's simple logic. And on top of that, it even holds up when taking human nature into consideration. It only supports my argument, so it makes no sense for you to go "yup, basic prisoner's dilemma situation" if you understood PD.
visitors can't see pics , please
register or
loginThat's the impression I got. I wrote it down so that you can confirm/deny and correct me if I'm wrong so the we might have a conversation where we actually understand each other.
Obviously. It being a one-off game has nothing to do with anything, however. Joe Average isn't going to run into hundreds of encounters.
Yes, and? If A tries to cooperate and B defects, B gets the best possible outcome. Therefore there will be defectors, therefore cooperation in vanilla PD is stupid.
Are you perhaps talking of "encounters" as fights? Dangerous situations and the like? That would be a very narrow view. But in this narrow view I would agree that strictly within a combat situation, one would probably be better off armed, if they couldn't run away or in other way avoid it and simply had to fight.
Life in a society isn't "vanilla PD" however.
Humans don't think about "fitness of the society as a whole" when deciding their course of action.
Most people do, actually. Maybe not all the time, but it certainly guides their actions. At least at some level of group benefit, and at some level of abstraction. And then there's this whole thing called politics which as an activity is dedicated to a group trying to decide what would be the best things to do, ie. thinking about the fitness of the society as a whole. And then there's other groups doing the same and so on from the family unit to groups and clans and communities to companies to municipalities to competing countries.
Always acting on pure self-interest is kind of rare.
And defectors get quadruple the benefits, then.
Indeed, but only if they are sufficiently few.
Evolutionary psychology deals with the subject a lot from the perspective of both game theory and biology.
Yes, and an example of "always defectors" in human evolutionary history would be psychopaths. They don't follow "the rules" and so gain individual fitness, but groups with too many of them did not fare particularly well, judging from the number of occurrence.
The checks and balances in place to stop everyone from defecting all the time are nowhere to be seen in a "gun prisoner's dilemma."
There's a number of things a society can do. Laws for example. Like laws controlling guns.
And a number of things that happen to societies.
And even with all those checks and balances in nature, there are whole species devoted to defecting.
What do you mean by that? If you think no carnivore or parasite works in tandem with species-mates (society, in-group), you are quite wrong.
And just getting by is not really the optimal result, that's lowering the bar quite a bit from prisoner's dilemma.
No, it's not. Show me these multiple simulations of gun-prisoner's-dilemma.
I don't have links ready, but you're free to research them if you also found them interesting. Also I never said anything about gun-prisoner's-dilemma simulations.
The main point is, do you think it would be the best kind of society to live in where everyone would be armed?
