<p>This interactive guide is heavily based off Robert Axelrod's groundbreaking 1984 book, <ahref="https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Cooperation-Revised-Robert-Axelrod/dp/0465005640">The Evolution of Cooperation</a>! I was also heavily inspired by his 1997 sequel, <ahref="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6144.html">The Complexity of Cooperation</a>, and Robert Putnam's 2000 book on America's declining "social capital", <ahref="http://bowlingalone.com/">Bowling Alone</a>.</p>
<p>yes i'm a bookworm nerd, plz don't bully me</p>
<h3>"Fewer and fewer people say they trust each other"</h3>
<p>To see a thorough statistical take on this, check out <ahref="https://ourworldindata.org/trust">Our World In Data</a>. Mmmm stats</p>
<h3>"The Game of Trust"</h3>
<p>This game is also known in game theory as the infamous <em>Prisoner's Dilemma</em>. The Prisoner's Dilemma is named after a story where two suspects can either squeal on their partner-in-crime ("cheat"), or stay silent ("cooperate"). I chose not to do this story because 1) in this case, both players "cooperating" would be bad for society, and 2) it's unrealistic, everyone knows that snitches get stitches</p>
<h3>"You won't know in advance when the last round is"</h3>
<p>In the repeated game of trust (also known as <em>Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma</em>), it's important that neither player knows <em>when</em> the last round is. Why? Think about it - on the last round, both players would know their action has no consequence, so they'd both cheat. But that means in the second-last round, their actions can't change the next round, so they'd also both cheat. But that means in the third-last round... etc etc.</p>
<h3>"Copycat"</h3>
<p>This strategy is better known in game theory as <em>Tit For Tat</em>. It was created by Anatol Rapoport in 1980, for Robert Axelrod's game theory tournament. I chose not to use the name "Tit For Tat" because 1) it <em>sounds</em> mean, although it's a nice & fair strategy, and 2) a lot of the public have already heard about Tit For Tat, so if I used that name, players might just place their bets on this character because they've already heard of "Tit For Tat".</p>
<h3>"You may be skeptical about the Christmas Truce"</h3>
<p>There was another guy who was skeptical, too. During the truce, a German corporal remarked with disgust, <ahref="http://time.com/3643889/christmas-truce-1914/">"Such a thing should not happen in wartime. Have you no German sense of honor?"</a></p>
<p>That man was Adolf Hitler.</p>
<p>You can't make this sh*t up.</p>
<h3>"For culture to evolve"</h3>
<p>There's a new, super-young interdisciplinary field that I'm really <em>excited</em> by, called <em>Cultural Evolution</em>. Admittedly, it's a bad name, not least because it sounds uncomfortably close to "Social Darwinism". Which it's not. Pinky promise.</p>
<p>One core part of Cultural Evolution Theory is culture evolves the same way life does: through variation & selection. Variation: people differ in beliefs & behaviors, and invent new ones almost every day. Selection: people try to imitate their heroes & elders, and adopt their beliefs/behaviors.</p>
<p>(Note: this is <em>not</em> quite Richard Dawkins' "meme" theory. "Meme" implies, that, like genes, ideas come in discrete chunks & replicate with high fidelity. This is obviously untrue. Also you can't say "meme" with a straight face these days, so whatever)</p>
<p>The reason why I think Cultural Evolution is so promising, is that it could integrate <em>all</em> the human sciences: psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology, political science, neuroscience, biology. The greatest problems of our time do not obey conventional academic boundaries -- so, it's about dang time we created a common language between the sciences and humanities.</p>
<p>If you want to learn more about Cultural Evolution Theory, I highly recommend Joseph Henrich's 2015 book, <ahref="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10543.html">The Secret of Our Success</a>!</p>
<h3>"[Always Cheat's] exploitativeness was its downfall"</h3>
<p>You may have heard that someone found a player strategy that can "exploit evolution". From the <ahref="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/game-theory-calls-cooperation-into-question1/">Scientific American</a>: "[Press & Dyson's results] suggested the best strategies were selfish ones that led to extortion, not cooperation."</p>
<p>Press & Dyson's findings <em>are</em> really important, but Scientific American confused two different uses of the word "evolutionary". The first use, the way this interactive guide used it, was to mean that the <em>tournament's population</em> changes over time. The second use, the way P&D meant it, was that the <em>player's rules</em> changes over time. For example: Detective is "evolutionary" since it changes its own rules, while Copycat is <em>not</em> "evolutionary" since it sticks to its principles.</p>
<p>So, P&D found strategies that could exploit "evolutionary" <em>players</em> like Detective, but their strategies <em>still could not exploit the evolution of the tournament</em>, because in the long run, fair & nice strategies still win. </p>
<h3>"We have fewer friends -- period."</h3>
<p>Seriously, go read Robert Putnam's 2000 book, <ahref="http://bowlingalone.com/">Bowling Alone</a>. Yeah it's a bit outdated by now, 17 years later, but its core findings and lessons are still true as ever -- probably even more so.</p>
<h3>"Non-zero-sum game" / "Win-Win"</h3>
<p>This is kinda cheesy, but I still adore the 1989 book, <ahref="https://www.amazon.com/Habits-Highly-Effective-People-Powerful/dp/0743269519">The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People</a> -- especially Habit #4: Think Win-Win.</p>
<p>Because, contrary to popular belief, coming up with Win-Win solutions is hard, takes lots of effort, and is emotionally painful. Heck, I'd go even further – I'd say our culture's default stance of Win-Lose "us versus them" is the easy path, the lazy path, the equivalent of activism junk food.</p>
<p>Anyway. Exaggerations aside, I strongly believe "Win-Win" / "Non-Zero-Sum" is something we all urgently need -- in our personal lives, social lives, and <em>definitely</em> political lives.</p>
<h3>"Copykitten"</h3>
<p>Just like how Copycat's original name was Tit For Tat, Copykitten's original name is <em>Tit For Two Tats</em>. Same rule: Cooperate, unless the other players cheats <em>twice</em> in a row.</p>
<p>There's another forgiving variant of Tit For Tat called <em>Generous Tit For Tat</em>. It's got a similar but slightly different rule: Cooperate, but when the other player cheats, forgive them with a X% chance. This design, with the variable "X", lets you set different "forgiveness" levels for the player.</p>
<h3>"Our modern media [...] has increased our miscommunication"</h3>
<p>I'm only in my twenties, I don't know why I always sound like an old grump shaking my fist at a cloud. But, yeah, anyway, go read Neil Postman's 1985 book, <ahref="https://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/014303653X">Amusing Ourselves To Death</a>. It's about how the communications technology we use subtly shapes our culture ("the medium is the message") and how technology that is biased towards quick & fast information (TV in 1985, social media now) turns us all into trivial, short-term thinkers.</p>
<p>Although I don't agree with <em>everything</em> in his book, it's a real eye-opener, and surprisingly prescient for 1985. His rant against Sesame Street is kinda weird, though.</p>
<p>Giving advice can come off as condescending, so let me be perfectly honest: I do <em>not</em> have any of this figured out, personally. I'm bad at developing friendships, especially with people of different political views than me. I occasionally forget about win-wins, and lapse into "us versus them" thinking. And judging by this rambling, I'm also still terrible at communicating clearly.</p>
<p>But I want to get better. This stuff is <em>hard</em>. Building peace & trust in the world, from the bottom up, is <em>hard</em>.</p>
