Great insight. Can this be related to computer programing? Can a program be designed to play this game?

Richard

Just finished watching this video... very interesting.

My first question would be, how would changing the point structure affect the decision making?  .... and the final outcome.

IE:
If the reward for defecting is really high vs losing points in some combinations.
Or if the "points" only come from all the players.

-Raymond

I'd be interested to see what happens if the rewards aren't always the same. Cooperating makes sense for long term with the current points. But what if some rounds defecting is worth double or triple points so that a few losing defects in the rounds after wouldn't matter so much? What if you did this when people knew it was one of these "bonus rounds" and what if it just randomly happened with nobody knowing? Would that change the outcome to be more of a coin flip?

Richard That's a great video, I've seen several by Veritasium, all great in the detail and explanation.
I remember when this study was first done, with the programs, and doubted the basic premise. I'm satisfied to see the experiments expanded to try alternative gaming situations. So, being nice does pay off in the long run. Now, if I could just convince a few people in my life of the value gained by that strategy.

Albert - absolutely. That's what they did in the video.

Raymond - that would be interesting to see. :)

Adam - ditto.

Thomas - yeah, that's what I've always said... humans are HARD WIRED by evolution to "play nice" with each other. You don't see many civilizations that flourished by constant in-fighting. One looks at the current state of affairs in American politics and wonders how long this can continue...

I once read that a democracy lasts until its citizens learn that they can vote themselves gold from the nation's treasury.  Once that happens, the nation collapses (probably from debt).  I also read that the average length of a democratic nation is 200 years.  So that is "two strikes".  But we could be like San Marino (in the mountains of the Italian peninsula).  Is is recognized as the world's oldest surviving republic, having been founded in 301 A.D.  It's co-leaders are elected every 6 months.  Maybe that is a great argument for term limits.  LOL!!!

I kind of like the way the ancient Greeks did it where they just randomly picked from the pool of citizens. "You're going to be a senator - whether you want to or not - prepare to take a year off from whatever you've been doing and now you're a senator." And senators should get paid the median of what the citizens make.

The problem with this country is career politicians and too much money in politics.

Oh and by "pool of citizens" of course I meant male, non-slave citizens over 30. :)

I've advocated for this idea for years now (if a person wants to be a politician, then we probably don't want them as a politician).  The only additions to the "qualifications" I would add are: 1) You can only "serve" one term (no matter if its House, Senate, or POTUS) in your entire life, 2) if you refuse to serve, you are removed from the selection pool permanently, and 3) If you are convicted of 3 or more felonies, you are removed from the selection pool permanently (if convicted while in office, then you are removed from office immediately).

In the "beginning" of our republic, Representatives and Senators were only given "per diem" when they were actually in session.

If we do give Representative/Senators a salary, it should be the median of the citizens in their district (vs the entire country). The POTUS' salary would be the median of the entire country.

I don’t like career politicians either, but term limits cause two big problems:
1) Loss of institutional memory, leading to us repeating the mistakes of the past ad infinitum
2) inability to function in the complex world of federal bureaucracy. Most people don’t understand simple parliamentary procedure, to say nothing of crafting legislation. If these noobs rely on staffers, those staffers now because the Swamp, embedded n the system and target of Corporate America’s bribes.

Michael I understand your concerns, but...
1) Our entire system was set up to "experiment".  The Founding Fathers set up the "state" system so that we, imperfect beings that we are, had multiple states working on different solutions.  Would every solution be successful...No!  
2) Call me a pessimist (and maybe a conspiracist), but the Federal bureaucracy is complex because it allows the "Deep State" to both grow itself and to siphon off our tax dollars into their own pockets.  The Founding Fathers wanted a very, very small Federal bureaucracy.  That is why they limited the capability of the Federal Gov't to tax.  We can thank those Politicians from the early 20th Century for Federal Income Tax, Social Security, and other "Big Government" programs.
3) People don't understand parliamentary procedure, legislation, etc. because schools no longer teach civics and our society no longer encourages people to participate in their own governance.  It doesn't help that the "Deep State" (at all levels of Gov't) works against "the common folk" becoming involved in governance.  {Sorry for the long rant...I'll get off my soap box now!}

Sam, Michael - I think both of you make good points, but I want to clear up one misconception. The Founders didn't set up the "state system" as some kind of experiment - the states already existed before the federal government. The real challenge at the time was creating a central government strong enough to hold the union together without angering the states or making them feel stripped of their power. That's why we ended up with a bicameral legislature, and why the Senate was designed to give states equal footing regardless of population. There was a huge debate between the Federalists, who wanted more centralized authority, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared losing state control. The Constitution is really a compromise hammered out between those factions. And that made sense... then.

The Founders were brilliant men, but they could not see 250 years into the future. Take the Second Amendment. I fully support personal gun ownership, but in 1791 a firearm meant loading a musket, firing once... and then taking 20 - 40 seconds to reload (if you were skilled with the weapon)... before you could fire again. It was a slow, single-shot process. What they could not have envisioned were automatic weapons that can gun down a room full of people in seconds. Back then, a "well-armed militia" meant ordinary citizens could realistically stand up to a corrupt government. Today, we live in an age of fighter jets, drones, and nuclear weapons - the balance of power is nothing like it was in the 18th century. So things like the Second Amendment could use some tweaking for modern life.

On the issue of government layers, I've always felt we have too many. States, counties, cities, townships - it's bureaucracy stacked on top of bureaucracy. Where I grew up, we had the Village of Hamburg (NY) which had its own government, tucked inside the Town of Hamburg (another level) which was in the County of Erie, State of NY, in the Good Ole USA. That's five layers of government - with a lot of overlapping expenses (and how many salaries?)

In the 21st century, do we really need a state government and a county government? I'd argue no. Let the federal government handle the big picture - national defense, interstate issues, foreign policy - and let local governments handle zoning laws, schools, property taxes. Everything in between just slows things down and eats up money.

As for staffers and "institutional memory," yes, Congress is complicated, but in my view representatives should be able to rely on professional staff to handle the technical side of drafting legislation. You shouldn't have to be a lawyer to serve in Congress. In fact, I'd like to see fewer lawyers and career politicians in office and more people who actually reflect the population they represent. Congress should include scientists, doctors, teachers, factory workers, small business owners - the kinds of people who live with the problems Congress is supposed to solve. Those perspectives are just as valuable, if not more so, than another lawyer's reading of procedure.

Of course, that brings to mind Eddie Murphy in The Distinguished Gentleman, when he hired his buddies as staff - and we all know how that turned out.

I believe the Senate was originally to be the house of career politicians, appointed by states' congress.  While less experienced, the House members would have had more of an ear to the ground regarding the people's concerns.  

Today, someone spending decades in congress with little or no exposure to the private sector is not particularly helpful in a free-market economy.  

I prefer having the different states.  That allows 50 simultaneous iterations of the same function, take schooling for example, to see what ideas perform best.  Income tax is another great example.  This gives people choices.

Well, I find it hard to argue with that, living in Florida with no state income tax, lol. But I still think state governments are dumb.

@Rick @Sam Like everyone, I want less government. But someone with an education in farming or medicine or whatever would have a good year’s worth of learning to understand the committee structure, etc. The “professional staffers” are not true, unbiased pros for the most part. Given noob congresspeople, they will craft policy as they see fit and “explain” what and why to the noob. After they pocket the check from whatever lobbyist.

I’m only contending that we have to go slow to go smooth(!). Start by codifying law against Citizen’s United and stop corporate influence. Start with ten year term limits. Figure out a way to make it possible for a non-millionaire to be elected to office. And for the love of God, stop letting Congresspeople from getting rich of the insider trading!

Especially when those States do their best to interfere with local matters to the degree that average citizens have no chance to make lives better for those living in their communities.  When lobbyists, including big corporations and PACS have more say in whether wetlands are protected, or public schools are decimated by private school vouchers, many people feel completely helpless, and hopeless, for the course of their community's future citizens.  

Michael but haven't you heard? Corporations are people too. LOL. Yeah Citizens has to go. Money needs to be out of politics. Totally agree.

Lisa don't get me started on school vouchers. Ugh.

"Corporations are people too."  I remember reading (somewhere....) that it was not even a court decision, but was a comment put on a court decision by a clerk.  No one has really challenged it yet in the SCOTUS.  Probably because there is too much $$$ involved.  Maybe this is one of those Urban Legends...  LOL!!!

From what I've read and seen on the news, public and private schools seem to be failing (math/reading levels, discipline, propaganda, etc.) around the entire U.S.  Maybe their time has come and gone; and we need to look at new ways to educate our children.  In the future, that education may be more AI based and tailored to the individual child's learning style and speed.  For today, I don't know what should be done.  I'm just glad my children are no longer a part of the "education system".

As someone who went to public school and sent 4 kids through private school in Indiana, I can tell you there is a lot of misunderstanding about private schools and vouchers. I wouldn't write them off based on what people say.  Many people have motive to say things that may not be 100% accurate.  I have plenty more to share but I am not sure this is the best venue.

Sam , Alpha School, in Austin Texas is doing just what you described.

My only problem with school vouchers is they take funds away from public schools that are already struggling. If you have the money to send your kids to a private school, that's fantastic. But I wouldn't have taxpayers subsidize that. But that's just my 2 cents. Feel free to share your thoughts. That's what the Captain's Log is for. As long as we're all polite and civil. Educate me as to why your position is better. I'm the kind of person who will change his mind when presented with evidence and a valid argument.

First, understand that everything i say is relevant to Indiana and their voucher system because that is the only one I have experience with.

In Indiana, it costs about $12000 per student to educate them per year in public schools.  A private school student voucher costs $6500 per year but removing the student from public schools save $12000 per year in expense to the taxpayer.  When the $6500 voucher is deducted from the education system, the other $5500 remains, with no additional expenses.  This effectively drives up the dollars per student available in the public education system.

Without the voucher system, the private school parent, aka the taxpayer, still pays for the full public education of their children but has to pay again for the private education as well.  The fact that parents of private school students are also taxpayers is often ignored in the conversation.  The voucher only allows them to direct half-ish of the money they paid into the government for the education they choose for their children.

Another Indiana native here.   Unless your property taxes are at (or over) $6500 per year, parents with kids in private schools aren't "paying" for both private and public schools.  Property taxes fund schools.  So effectively, those vouchers bleed money from public schools, while helping private (many times, for profit) schools that are not REQUIRED to except all children, nor are they held accountable to the taxpayers who are now funding them.  If you want to send your kids to private school, you are allowed to do so, but taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize private institutions that aren't held to the same standard as public institutions.  When my mother chose to send her five kids to a private (religious) school, the CHURCH provided (what they called) scholarships to enable her to do so.  Taxpayer dollars SHOULD NOT GO TO private schools.   We need to FUND PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  If churches and private companies can't afford to fund their own schools, then maybe they should NOT be in the Business.  Our future depends on well educated, not indoctrinated, citizens.  

Lisa , Thank-you for taking the time to respond and I will try to take these in order.

As for cost, every taxpayer, including parents, pay property taxes from the time they get their first personal residence, before kids, until they move out of their last personal residence.  That is commonly 50-60 years of property taxes.  Parents don't just pay property taxes while their children are enrolled in school.  If the parents rent in Indiana, they pay triple the property tax, percentage wise.  It is just rolled up in their rent payments.

I agree that property taxes are sold "to fund schools".  Why should it matter who administrates the school, so long as the school delivers the service promised?

The public schools go from receiving $12000 for performing a $12000 service, to receiving $5500 for performing no service.  That, to me, is a $5500 windfall of unencumbered funds.  That seems to me like a benefit, on a per-capita basis.

It is true that private schools do not have to accept everyone.  Many of the private schools are small and specialized.  Some are college preparation, special education, military, boarding, etc.  Not every school is a good fit for every student.  This is kind of the college model.  Not every college offers seminary or nursing degrees and they each tend to have academic performance standards.  The point is to allow the parents and schools to determine the best fit, together.  Currently, that is sometimes a private school and sometimes public school.  To be honest, I would like to see some private vocational schools pop up.  I would bet they would succeed.

I am with you 100% that all schools need to be held to the same standards, accounting for their specialties.  This is how parents make informed decisions.  From my perspective, private schools are more directly accountable to parents than public schools.  This tends to make them more responsive to the parents/child's needs.

For performance, Indiana private school students, according to chatGPT, average about 200 points higher on the SAT than their public school counterparts.  Historically, my kids school averages around 1250 and the local public school corporation averages around 1000, so that number is not surprising.  That is what we based our family decision on.

In the end, I pay property taxes, like most people, expecting the children of Indiana to get the best education possible, for our money.  Education is a commodity.

If a better option than private or public schools shows up with supporting data, I would support it.  I don't care if it is private company making a profit, has a religious affiliation, both, or neither.  We just need the future generations to be maximally educated.

Please know that I am not against public schools, in general.  Some of them are doing a great job and they provide services that some private school markets do not.  I am just advocating for choices for parents to maximize the success of their kids.  I don't believe there is a single option that is the best for everybody.

Before I try to address the indoctrination issue, I will need to understand what you mean, exactly.

Have I missed the boat somewhere? :)