"Tit for Tat"..a most effective game strategy....

Futhermore: 

 "Overview
 
This strategy is dependent on four conditions that has allowed it to become the most prevalent strategy for the prisoner's dilemma:

1. Unless provoked, the agent will always cooperate
2. If provoked, the agent will retaliate
3. The agent is quick to forgive
4. The agent must have a good chance of competing against the opponent more than once.

In the last condition, the definition of "good chance" depends on the payoff matrix of the prisoner's dilemma. The important thing is that the competition continues long enough for repeated punishment and forgiveness to generate a long-term payoff higher than the possible loss from cooperating initially.
A fifth condition applies to make the competition meaningful: if an agent knows that the next play will be the last, it should naturally defect for a higher score. Similarly if it knows that the next two plays will be the last, it should defect twice, and so on. Therefore the number of competitions must not be known in advance to the agents.
Against a variety of alternative strategies, tit for tat was the most effective, winning in several annual automated tournaments against (generally far more complex) strategies created by teams of computer scientists, economists, and psychologists. Game theorists informally believed the strategy to be optimal (although no proof was presented).
It is important to know that tit for tat still is the most effective strategy if the average performance of each competing team is compared. The team which recently won over a pure tit for tat team only outperformed it with some of their algorithms because they submitted multiple algorithms which would recognize each other and assume a master and slave relationship (one algorithm would "sacrifice" itself and obtain a very poor result for the other algorithm to be able to outperform Tit for Tat on an individual basis, but not as a pair or group). Still, this "group" victory illustrates an important limitation of the Prisoner's Dilemma in representing social reality, namely, that it does not include any natural equivalent for friendship or alliances. The advantage of "tit for tat" thus pertains only to a Hobbesian world of rational solutions, not to a world in which humans are inherently social.^{[citation needed]} However, the fact that this solution does not work effectively against groups of agents running tit-for-tat does illustrate the strengths of tit-for-tat when employed in a team (that the team does better overall, and all the agents on the team do well individually, when every agent cooperates)."

*****

What do you think??

I wonder how Katie would apply that concept to unconditional love.

And it surprises me a bit that some who 'claimed' to be 'biologists' (or have some background in the biological sciences), ...

-sisyphus

Sort of rules out biochemists, eh? But an interseting prospect nonetheless.

.

Hi berto.....

anthropal,
tit for tat has absolutely nothing in relation to unconditional love.
.....if you care enough to think about it........?

anthropal,
tit for tat has absolutely nothing in relation to unconditional love.
.....if you care enough to think about it........?

-achildoftheuniverse

Unconditional love does not play 'tit for tat'. It is one sided.

Unconditional love does not play 'tit for tat'. It is one sided.

-anthropal

I agree Anthro it is

I agree Anthro it is[image]

-ravenwynter1

The 'tit for tat' game is not about the last man standing, it is about the points generated during the game. In effect in the real world unconditional love can win, but be non existant at the end of the game.

ya its a none win.....  thats why I don't like this game and think its destructive

ya its a none win.....  thats why I don't like this game and think its destructive

-ravenwynter1

I think you make a valid point there Raven.

ya well I tried to make it a couple of weeks ago when this shit all started but no one listened to me

Which is why the last man standing is not always the winner.

ya all loose in tit for tat

Depends.
If the 'tit' equals the 'tat' then all can be winners, but if it escalates ...

well I still don't like this game..... 

It's okay if all remain co-operative, as in replying in kind, but as soon as it escalates and both parties reciprocate there are no winners in the game. Of course if that is applied to a debate board then even the other members not involved can lose.

Yup anthro. Quite so.

Thanks Otter.