Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

wikipedia on 'tit for tat'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

Tit for tat is a highly effective strategy in game theory for the iterated prisoner's dilemma. It was first introduced by Anatol Rapoport in Robert Axelrod's two tournaments, held around 1980. Based on the English saying meaning "equivalent retaliation" ("tit for tat"), an agent using this strategy will initially cooperate, then respond in kind to an opponent's previous action. If the opponent previously was cooperative, the agent is cooperative. If not, the agent is not. This is equivalent to the concept of reciprocal altruism in the context of biology.

This strategy is dependent on four conditions that has allowed it to become the most prevalent strategy for the Prisoner's Dilemma:

*Unless provoked, the agent will always cooperate*

*If provoked, the agent will retaliate*

*The agent is quick to forgive*

*The agent must have a good chance of competing against the opponent more than once*.

aint that exactly what I been doing?


BF

 

[drkitten]

aint that exactly what I been doing?

No. Among other things, you're not playing in an iterated prisoner's dilemma.

 

[WWHP]

You understand nothing!

Go ahead, ask me what [latex]$$\{\textrm{James Randi}\} \cup \{\textit{Mystery}\}$$[/latex] is... ask me!!
.

the intersection between james randi and deception is mystery. That is so well put and elegant. I have begun to use that phrasing now 'intersection' to describe various things, thank you Jonny.


But you could put deception/delusion into the same category, no?

The intersection between james randi and mystery is deception/delusion.

 

[drkitten]

e
Why ignore them? When tit for tat is happening, there is chance for communication/resolution

Because there's also a chance that using tit-for-tat will draw moderator action upon you. And, also, because tit for tat isn't relevant. unlike the prisoner's dilemma, the "penalty" for you continuing to be cooperative while others are uncooperative is not greater than the penalty for continued failure to cooperate.

Here's a simple example, phrased in a prisoner's dilemma fashion. We're both prisoners, and you have the option to rat me out or not.

If you rat me out, you will be killed in prison by my fellow Mafia members. If you do not rat me out, you will be sentenced to ten years. My behavior in this instance is irrelevant -- and the only reason you're in prison is because I already ratted you out.

Under this situation, "tit for tat" is literally suicidal.

 

[WWHP]

No. Among other things, you're not playing in an iterated prisoner's dilemma.

Yes, that is exactly what I am doing and have been refining this in live discussions for over 4 years. No, I am not playing the prisoner's delimma, I am using tit for tat strategy in heated discussions, which is defined in the prisoner's delimma, not orginating from it.

And you should consult the writings of Richard Dawkins, especially the Selfish Gene, on the natural tit for tat strategies in nature being refined into win win organizations, and the similarity to the prisoner's dilemma. Also, Robert Wright's excellent book 'Non Zero, the Logic of Human Destiny'

Nature has been playing tit for tat and non zero sum games for a very very very long time. I didnt make them up, and niether did John Nash, they are 'hard-wired' into mammalian behavior, especially mating games.

I am not yet prepared to make a formal presentation on OS 012 and behavorial game theory, but that's coming very very soon, and it's very very interesting!


BF

 

[WWHP]

Because there's also a chance that using tit-for-tat will draw moderator action upon you.

yes, there is that chance, but if it's drawn upon me for arguing both x and y, then it's drawn on my opponent, who only argues y. My x arguments still remain, while my y arguments can cease to exist, it doesnt matter.

Where is PV, anyone know?

[edit: Also, I make a point to keep my integrity in tact with the forum rules and the moderators]

And, also, because tit for tat isn't relevant. unlike the prisoner's dilemma, the "penalty" for you continuing to be cooperative while others are uncooperative is not greater than the penalty for continued failure to cooperate.

This is tit for tat being applied to a very live and chaotic situation, where behavior is accounted for relative to the conflict of idea and the value of truth. This method, although I can't say for certain if it is perfectly refined, it's pretty close to it. I keep the discussion going until either i get banned (or some equivalent action), or there is group synthesis. I have had success doing this, success is my proof.

Here's a simple example, phrased in a prisoner's dilemma fashion. We're both prisoners, and you have the option to rat me out or not.

If you rat me out, you will be killed in prison by my fellow Mafia members. If you do not rat me out, you will be sentenced to ten years. My behavior in this instance is irrelevant -- and the only reason you're in prison is because I already ratted you out.

I dont know how to play the common's delimma with tit for tat with the same efficacy that I engage in discussions. My 'games' are models for real life situations. Discussion forums are the best, and probably ONLY real, honest, and SAFE environments for the free flow of ideas and unrestricted communication.

Under this situation, "tit for tat" is literally suicidal.

all I know is that tit for tat is considered a highly effective strategy in the common's delimma. I can't explain how that is, I have never played the game.


BF

 

[drkitten]

Yes, that is exactly what I am doing

No, it's not. I just said, quote, "you're not playing in an iterated prisoner's dilemma." Are your reading skills really so poor that you directly contradict me and then state, a sentence later, that

No, I am not playing the prisoner's delimma,

Now, I agree, that you are, in fact, "I using tit for tat strategy in heated discussions," ...

but you should know that in "heated discussions," and outside of the well-established and artificial rules of the iterated prisoner's dilemma, TFT is a strategy for interpersonal relationships that can only be characterized as "stupid."

So, are you so stupid that you don't know that the strategy you are using is stupid, or are you so stupid that you know that your strategy is stupid, but you use it anyway?

I am not yet prepared to make a formal presentation on OS 012 and behavorial game theory

That's self-evident. I have an eight year old niece that has a better understanding of game theory and of trivalent logic. The scary thing is that you think that you might be capable of giving such a presentation.

So, are you so stupid that you don't recognize your failure to understand the elements of game theory and trivalent logic, or are you so stupid that you recognize that you know nothing about those subjects but are expecting to prepare a formal presentation on them anyway?

 

[drkitten]

all I know is that tit for tat is considered a highly effective strategy in the common's delimma.

I believe that the French Defense is considered to be a highly effective strategy on the chessboard. Why don't you use it on a web discussion?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

the intersection between james randi and deception is mystery. That is so well put and elegant. I have begun to use that phrasing now 'intersection' to describe various things, thank you Jonny.


But you could put deception/delusion into the same category, no?

The intersection between james randi and mystery is deception/delusion.

And that is exactly your problem. You adopt 'intersection' and begin using it "to describe various things". Intersection, especially as displayed in JonnyFive's latex code example, has very specific meanings and applications in dealing with Sets. Your stating, "the intersection between james randi and deception is mystery," is exactly equivalent to saying, "For all elements of James Randi and all elements of Deception, the elements that they both share in common are Mystery." Which, frankly, makes no damned sense whatsoever.

 

[WWHP]

Now, I agree, that you are, in fact, "I using tit for tat strategy in heated discussions," ...

Good, I hope we have that clarified then.

but you should know that in "heated discussions," and outside of the well-established and artificial rules of the iterated prisoner's dilemma, TFT is a strategy for interpersonal relationships that can only be characterized as "stupid."

And you should know that 'tit for tat', in relationship to online human dialouge, is a highly effective strategy in gaming truth values, and that such a strategy can come to, in a significant number of instances, alter human behavior to A.) Advance the most refined and objective truths that can be obtained in chaotic and unpredicatable group discussion and B.) Alter the behavoir of the participants into agreement and resolution, win win, by adopting the dominant and most effective strategy.

So, are you so stupid that you don't know that the strategy you are using is stupid, or are you so stupid that you know that your strategy is stupid, but you use it anyway?

I'm sorry, Dr. Kitten, I made a promise to Jonny not to tit for tat statements that are childish and insulting, and will work towards more refined and respectable discussion. Please re-submit this statement and code it into BASIC and COMMON decency.

I have an eight year old niece that has a better understanding of game theory and of trivalent logic. The scary thing is that you think that you might be capable of giving such a presentation.

I'm sorry, Dr. Kitten, I made a promise to Jonny not to tit for tat statements that are childish and insulting, and will work towards more refined and respectable discussion. Please re-submit this statement and code it into BASIC and COMMON decency.

So, are you so stupid that you don't recognize your failure to understand the elements of game theory and trivalent logic, or are you so stupid that you recognize that you know nothing about those subjects but are expecting to prepare a formal presentation on them anyway?

I'm sorry, Dr. Kitten, I made a promise to Jonny not to tit for tat statements that are childish and insulting, and will work towards more refined and respectable discussion. Please re-submit this statement and code it into BASIC and COMMON decency.

BF

 

[WWHP]

And that Your stating, "the intersection between james randi and deception is mystery," is exactly equivalent to saying, "For all elements of James Randi and all elements of Deception, the elements that they both share in common are Mystery." Which, frankly, makes no damned sense whatsoever.

well you will have to talk with jonny about that.

And yes, The set JAMES RANDI does share something in common with the set DECEPTION/DELUSION, and that thing in common is 'MYSTERY'. When facing an unknown, James Randi did not state it was an unknown, but rather stated it was a known, a know fraud/hoax. That's delusion/deception.

 

[drkitten]

And you should know that 'tit for tat', in relationship to online human dialouge, is a highly effective strategy in gaming truth values, and that such a strategy can come to, in a significant number of instances, alter human behavior to A.) Advance the most refined and objective truths that can be obtained in chaotic and unpredicatable group discussion and B.) Alter the behavoir of the participants into agreement and resolution, win win, by adopting the dominant and most effective strategy.

I don't know anything of the sort.

Largely because it's UNTRUE.

As in WRONG

As in MADE UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH

As in BEARS NO RECOGNIZABLE RELATIONSHIP TO REALITY

As in TOTAL BULLS**T

 

[drkitten]

The set JAMES RANDI does share something in common with the set DECEPTION/DELUSION,

If you're going to be using set theory, you should use it properly.

Will you please list the elements of the set JAMES RANDI?

 

[WWHP]

I believe that the French Defense is considered to be a highly effective strategy on the chessboard. Why don't you use it on a web discussion?

i dont think human behavior is that predicatable, but actually am looking at a few ways to model discussions as a game of chess. (Someone I know created a chess strategy that produces a stalemate everytime)

I call the truth a 'king', and in some ways, a game of chess could be used to model discussions. In chess, all moves are 'out in the open', there is no deception, only misunderstanding of strategy and intention. The strategy of chess is 'honest' as opposed to the strategy of 'poker', which uses deception and manipulation, and cards are 'hidden'. So OS 012 could be modeled as a way to out strategize the 'poker' face of dishonesty in discussion with the 'honest' methods of chess.

Or, as I like to say, Global Foriegn Policy is a game of chess where the world leaders play poker to negotiate.



BF

 

[WWHP]

I don't know anything of the sort.

Largely because it's UNTRUE.

As in WRONG

As in MADE UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH

As in BEARS NO RECOGNIZABLE RELATIONSHIP TO REALITY

As in TOTAL BULLS**T

well, I would like then to prove you absolutly mistaken, and we can use this discussion as a perfect example.

We can use this discussion as an example because i have been succesful in employing the tit for tat strategy to effect behavior relative to the conflict of idea.

we can note the distinctions between the behavior of Jonny5 and myself, and say the badscience.net crowd, and myself.

Tit for tat was used on both of them. Yet me and Jonny have mutual respect within each other's behavior, and our disagreements on the math have been concluded in certainty. Badscience.net and myself are also tit for tating, and they are still responding to me, the communication is still very much alive and well, after more than three months, untold number of times beings stated that 'they would no longer discuss with me', or threatening me with being banned, yet they are still here discussing with me, and I didnt even invite them! They came on thier own inclination.

I understand what is going on psychologically that is allowing for that, our mutual inclination to engage in the conflict of idea, and the values of truth and perception of self that is it's environment.


BF

 

[WWHP]

If you're going to be using set theory, you should use it properly.

Will you please list the elements of the set JAMES RANDI?

I am not sure I can do that properly in the same sense that a mathematician would, so I shall refrain from doing so. I can tell you I can distinguish all elements once I am clear on how they are defined and used in set theory,and can make the clear distinctions between sets.


BF

 

[drkitten]

I am not sure I can do that properly in the same sense that a mathematician would, so I shall refrain from doing so.

And yet you feel confident that you can enumerate at least one of them, to wit, "MYSTERY."

I can tell you I can distinguish all elements once I am clear on how they are defined and used in set theory,and can make the clear distinctions between sets.

You can indeed tell me that. I have no reason to believe you when you do, however.

One of the reasons that you completely lack credibility is your tendency to coopt ideas and terminology and to completely misapply them in areas widely outside their area of validity.

For example, "Aristotle" did not murder anyone, least of all someone eight hundred years from being born. Nor did Pythagoras murder anyone for introducing the "zero" -- the idea of "zero" and "infinity," are, quite literally, as far apart as numbers can get.

Tit-for-tat has indeed been shown to be an effective strategy for the iterated prisoner's dilemma, but it provably does not work even for the single-session PD, let along for the general case of interpersonal interaction.

Set theory doesn't apply to people; the set JAMES RANDI does not exist, and the set {JAMES RANDI} has only a single element -- and it's not MYSTERY.

et cetera et cetera ad nauseum.

 

[drkitten]

Tit for tat was used on both of them. Yet me and Jonny have mutual respect within each other's behavior, and our disagreements on the math have been concluded in certainty.

That, in and of itself, is sufficient to demonstrate that "Tit For Tat" isn't a very good strategy. If it worked so well with Jonny, why didn't it work with the badscience crowd?

 

[WWHP]

And yet you feel confident that you can enumerate at least one of them, to wit, "MYSTERY."

yes

You can indeed tell me that. I have no reason to believe you when you do, however.

I dont care. I'm not trying to convince you of my analytical ability, nor is this discussion about set theory, which I am no expert, but rather this discussion is about the CONTENT of sets James Randi, Deception/Delusion, and MYSTERY.

One of the reasons that you completely lack credibility is your tendency to coopt ideas and terminology and to completely misapply them in areas widely outside their area of validity.

such as?

For example, "Aristotle" did not murder anyone, least of all someone eight hundred years from being born. Nor did Pythagoras murder anyone for introducing the "zero" -- the idea of "zero" and "infinity," are, quite literally, as far apart as numbers can get.

So I made one historical error about an ancedotal point, who cares? I dont use Greek History as a foundation for my argument on the third value.

Tit-for-tat has indeed been shown to be an effective strategy for the iterated prisoner's dilemma, but it provably does not work even for the single-session PD, let along for the general case of interpersonal interaction.

I'm talking about discussions, online, and nothing more. If you have research on tit for tat and online discussions, please forward it over, can't wait to read it.

Set theory doesn't apply to people; the set JAMES RANDI does not exist, and the set {JAMES RANDI} has only a single element -- and it's not MYSTERY.

et cetera et cetera ad nauseum.

fine, who cares? My argument is not resting on set theory, nor greek history.

You have an oppurtunity to contradict me on the third value, or what?


BF

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

well you will have to talk with jonny about that.

And yes, The set JAMES RANDI does share something in common with the set DECEPTION/DELUSION, and that thing in common is 'MYSTERY'. When facing an unknown, James Randi did not state it was an unknown, but rather stated it was a known, a know fraud/hoax. That's delusion/deception.

Look, stop trying to use terminology that you are clearly not familiar with.

JAMES_RANDI={MYSTERY,...}
DECEPTION={MYSTERY,...}
JAMES_RANDI

DECEPTION = {MYSTERY}
You better be ready to defend it properly.

You can start but defending that MYSTERY is an element of the set JAMES_RANDI and that MYSTERY is an element of DECEPTION.

And, since you apparently didn't catch it, JonnyFive's OP using Randi and set notation was, I believe, a joke.


ETA:

I dont care. I'm not trying to convince you of my analytical ability, nor is this discussion about set theory, which I am no expert, but rather this discussion is about the CONTENT of sets James Randi, Deception/Delusion, and MYSTERY.

stopit stopit stopit! Stop trying to use words that have specific meanings within specific context in some half-assed manner outside of those contexts. You've made it clear you don't understand set theory in the least, as now, you are trying to claim that JAMES_RANDI, DECEPTION, and MYSTERY all all sets and that MYSTERY is the intersection of JAMES_RANDI and DECEPTION. The only way for that to be true is if MYSTERY is a subset of both JAMES_RANDI and DECEPTION, but you've already defined MYSTERY as being an element of both sets, not a subset. So, just stop. Stop trying to adopt terminology that you don't understand. It makes your blithering even less readable.