• 13 Posts
  • 257 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 7th, 2023

help-circle








  • I don’t know if you watch boxing regularly or not, but that match wasn’t close. Tyson won the first 2 rounds because he had enough energy to land a couple of good shots due to experience, but when he ran out of steam Jake just toyed with him until it went 8. Jake could have absolutely gotten a few knockdowns, but chose not to.

    I say that having absolutely zero respect for the Paul brothers. They’re both class A douchebags. Logan more than Paul in my opinion because of the suicide forest incident, but Jake won this fight unanimously and relatively easily.







  • Evolutionarily speaking: If cooperation did not give advantages, why the fuck did we become a social species? Going for anti-cooperative strategies only ever makes sense in zero-sum games and practically nothing in life is.

    In game theory cooperation does give advantages.

    Both co-op: +1/+1 Both defect: 0/0 Defect/co-op: +3/0

    That’s just one interaction. When you expand the experiment, predictability becomes a positive trait and risk is avoided. So by more often choosing cooperation, you become more predictable, avoid the risk of not gaining any points through mutual defection, and more people are likely to interact with you. More interactions=higher potential for points. When you adjust the rules of the game to not define a set number of interactions with each player and you can choose the frequency of interactions with bad reputation players, cooperating is naturally selected for. Conversely, as the pool gets collectively nicer, defection will net more benefits and the pendulum will start to slowly swing the other way.


  • I’ll ignore the first half of this reply because we won’t agree. Not every choice is a conscious decision in my eyes, but the vast majority are.

    As for the second half, believing that bad actors would be weeded out based on the principle of free will is naive. Consider game theory. Two people have something to gain from cooperation, but more to gain from defecting. Meanwhile, the other gains nothing or very little. That simple thought experiment incentivizes bad actions from time to time. You have more to gain by acting selfishly.

    Now blow up the experiment. You vs the world and reputation is introduced. Someone with a perfect cooperation rate is flawed. They offer nothing but blind trust and can be taken advantage of. The opposite also displayed. Someone who makes selfish decisions all the time offers nothing but blind distrust. You’re left to choose which people to interact with that are somewhere along the middle of the reputation gradient. Those that are 70% or lower seem unpredictable or untrustworthy so many choose to interact with people on the higher end of the reputation spectrum when available and reflect that in their own decision making. You can’t always choose who to interact with, so eventually you’ll have to interact with a bad actor. You’ll get burned by making a cooperative choice and they will benefit from it. In turn, ensuring that they will survive natural selection.





  • Can’t speak for everyone. But for myself, the world and humanity was created with free will and it’s up to us to choose good vs evil. God only has dominion over the heavenly afterlife and the hellish afterlife is forced to exist on the principle of yin and yang. There can be no good without evil.

    For context I consider myself agnostic but was born roman Catholic and base my morals on the teachings that everyone was created equal and forgiveness should be shown to those that can be helped. Forgiveness isn’t a requirement in the cases that someone willingly chooses evil in the face of morality over and over. (Putin, Hitler, Trump, Netanyahu, serial violent criminals, etc.)