Prisoner's dilemma

I simply loved this game...

I found it very inspirational. Everything in the world runs by laws similar to the games. Off course that consequences aren't as severe, or prizes aren't as big. But in the world, you depend on the way others interact with you to either succeed or fail.

There are many variations in which you experience the game in your life and thus, different ways in which you play it. For example, there is the interaction with people that are your friends. No matter what, most of the people wont put down the friends for their own benefits. Either they will handle the problem alone, or ask them for help. Or if you have to compete with your friend. You wouldn't do it with the wrong intentions.

On the other hand, there are the people that you don't know. There are two choices. Depending on your prospects on the future with them. If you like them, you wouldn't "defect" them either. (Obviously there are exceptions.) On the other hand, if you feel angry or hostile to them, which according to Freud is the common attitude in humans towards the people you don't know, you'll must likely defect at the expense of your own benefit. Expecting that the other will defect too.

The flaw that I saw compared to the game we played in class, was that first of all, the kind of interaction changes if you can talk with other people first. This is what happens most of the times on the real world. For instance, you might defect at first, but you could change your mind and cooperate before the action is complete.

Emotions, relations and socialization affect the way the game is held. You will encounter much less cases in which you cooperate or defect with someone whom you cant see. If you cant see them and you don't know them, the most probable choice would be to defect in protection.

As we've learned in chapter 10, i think. Grudgers are the ones that get more representation on the gene pool. Because they help who helps them but don't kiss as and let others exploit them. This is the attitude you are supposed to take in the game to win the most, or at least loose the less.

Dawkins says that nice guys finish first... why? Because they cooperate until the other person defects and then they defect. This is very much related to grudgers. But with a better name. They help but wont help if the other doesn't. In my opinion though, the nice guy wont gain more points than his opponent because he will act in base of his actions and therefore will be always second. Yet, it may not be bad depending the case. When it is a case that you need lots of money per say, but don't necessarily need more than the other, it does work. On the other hand, if your goal is to beat the other one, this strategy would most likely make you loose.

Anyways. I just wanted to express my thoughts about this dilemma. I'll be definitevely thinking on this for the future...