The Prisoner's Dilemma: My Grievance

Posted by Gennao Sabbat.

Two days ago we played a game in class to demonstrate the prisoner's dilemma. I waited until the results were released today to verify my hypothesis before posting this. If you're unfamiliar with the prisoner's dilemma, you might pick up the idea from this post, and if not, look it up.

The game in this case is that there are two players, each with two cards: one red card and one black card. One round of this game consists of each player choosing red or black secretly, and then both show each other their choice, ending the round. If both players choose black, each player gets three points. If one player choose red and the other black, the player that chose red gets five points, and the other gets nothing. If both players choose red, each player gets one point.

The point of the game is to show that the way to get the most points is to play red such that your opponent gets nothing, but if both players play like that, both will do worse than if they had cooperated and both played black. In other words, the play that's best for all players is that both play black every time. Indeed, that's the point of the lecture that day, that cooperating is worth it in the long run.

In this particular game, the class was split up into twelve groups, and two groups were pinned against each other, making six pairs of groups. Each group was a player, and the winner was the highest score of the class. The winner got extra credit on the homework, and if multiple groups got the high score, all would receive extra credit. The game consisted of forty rounds. There are a couple ways to interpret strategies in this game, and I'll be discussing the one that I think is the most accurate and comprehensive.

As you can figure out, the highest cooperative score is 140 points for both players, playing black every time. Against this convention, playing red will get you a higher score in the short run, but it eliminates your trust with the other player that, as the results showed, was almost impossible to regain. Therefore, playing red is equivalent to starting a conflict, because if your opponent thinks you're going to leave them with zero points, there best play is to get at least one point by playing red themselves, and the final score will be much lower than 140.

The temptation is to cooperate until the last hand, and then play a red card, giving you a final score of 142. However, the other player knows this too, so they would do the same thing, giving you both a final score of 138, losing to the other cooperative groups in the class. This means that you'd have to play a red card in the second to last hand to gain back the advantage, but your opponent would know that too, leading you both to regression that would have you both playing red for most or all hands, putting you at a severe loss to the rest of the class.

Expressing this concept to the other team, I convinced them that if we played black every time, we would both get 140 points, and both likely get extra credit. They agreed and we began playing. Here's my grievance: the other team played red on the first round.

You may have figured out that the earlier you play a red card, the worse off you are (because it severs your trust with your opponent) and that playing red on the first hand is the absolute worst possible strategy in the game.

Predictably, the rest of the game we spent battling it out each hand, most of them red to red, but every time we tried to get them to cooperate again, they couldn't go more than three hands before reverting to their malevolent ways. The last fifteen rounds were almost completely red against red, and when our opponent figured out what a loss that was causing him, he offered a couple black cards, but it was too late, we couldn't trust him and thus had no choice but keep playing red.

I would later learn in the class discussion that their strategy was to play red the first hand or two, to gain an early advantage, and then we would cooperate for the rest of the game. Hearing that, one word came to mind to describe that strategy: stupid. Really, really stupid. That strategy is basically starting the conversation by saying, "We're going to win and your going to lose; if you could just go along with it, we'd appreciate it." Obviously, them playing red on the first hand puts us at a disadvantage, probably irrevocably, leaving us only with the power to make sure that they lose right along with us, and also leaving us with enough spite to do just that.

For anyone curious, three teams got 140 points, meaning that six groups -- half the class -- got extra credit, by sticking to the best cooperative strategy. Our team got 72, and our opponent team got 76. So congratulations, asshole, you beat us: hope it was worth it.

Just One Look... Sometimes More

By Romeo Montague

It is amazing how much there is to eye contact.

This thought came to me while riding the bus home tonight. I'd say it was an ordinary bus full of students with no crazy people stories or overheard one-liners to report.

I say that but that's not what I felt during the bus ride. If you'd stopped me while I was getting off the bus ask questioned me on my ride I'd probably've said something like this:

"Um... It was weird. In a good way. I think. Just not really a bad way, you know?"

Why? Eye contact. And a good deal more of it what I was used to.

It's not uncommon to make eye contact with others on the bus in sort of a looking-at-the-stuff-around-me kind of way. This evening was different. Three people matched eyes with me multiple times with either no facial expression or one that was vaguely a smile.

Usually I look away as soon as contact is made because, I mean, what would someone think if I didn't?

Tonight was different in that I felt like I was having silent exchanges with these people I didn't know. I don't remember any nods or full-on smiles or frowns or any other signals that people give to strangers.

How much can one say through a look at a stranger who has no way of knowing the context or habits of your looks? This made me consider why we have so many different conventions with eye contact in society at all. Why is staring rude (or flattering)?

I think it's because a look is that person's attention. To have someone look at you is to momentarily have their attention. And to have someone look at you while you look at them is to make known to each other you are giving them your attention, if only for an instant.

Maybe that is why tonight left me pondering. I shared my attention, a moment of my own personal existence, with another who did the same to me. For no reason.

It felt like a mutual recognition of one another's existence.

And,

I think,

that is good.

The Dog Who Wasn't There

Posted by Malachi Constant.

I was walking to school one day, pretty relaxed pace. I had a quiz that day, but felt prepared for it. While walking along, appreciating the architecture of the neighborhood houses, a dog came along. It was a gray westie, with a spring in his step and a smile on his face. He couldn't be happier to be wandering the street alone.

He had a collar on, so I assumed he was safe to pet. I took a knee, and gave his belly a good patting. I looked around for an owner or an indication of somewhere this dog should belong, to no avail. There was a phone number on the collar, so I thought I would give it a call and see what happened.

"Hello, we are not at home right now. Please leave a message and we will return your call when we can?"

No name, nothing personal, just "we're not here." For some reason, I thought back to The Bourne Identity, where Bourne's voicemail message is just his phone number, and a please-leave-a-message, because he was working a couple fake identities at the time.

That made me think this was a little suspicious; I decided not to leave a message. At this point I faced a dilemma. What do I do? I can't leave him here, but I can't hang around and deal with him, I have a quiz to take.

I weighed my options, and decided to knock on the nearest door. I thought I would ask anyone there if they owned this dog, or knew who the owners were. I even considered asking them for some rope or some twine that I might fashion a leash from and take the dog to class with me until I could contact the owner. It had a tag from a company that specializes in retrieving lost pets, so I thought it would be relatively easy to report the dog as lost while keeping it safe.

Whatever I would decide to do, the first step would be to knock on the door of the house in front of me. I was rehearsing in my head what I would say to whomever answered the door, as well as what I might do if no one answered.

Just as I stood up, the dog bolted. He ran off just as fast as he could, and seemed just as happy as he ever was to be on his way again. I faced a new dilemma. Do I chase it? Do I knock on the door anyway and tell them that what may be their dog just ran that way? It was seeming less and less likely that the dog came from this house as he was wandering further and further away.

Given my upcoming quiz, the fact that I had no responsibility over this dog, and that I didn't want to be seen chasing a dog which I did not own, I decided it would be best if I didn't chase this dog.

I assume he was adorable and friendly enough to warrant someone else's compassion, someone without my exact time constraints, but I don't really know what happened to him. I wonder if I did the right thing.

On Tradition

Posted by Jack Aubrey

Our nation's Independence Day got me thinking, like most holidays do, of Tradition.

Why do I care?

To sum up all of my thoughts and conversations and more in brief, I must be to the point:

Traditions are fun. That is ALL they should be. Celebrating a birthday, anniversary or what have you is good. But any religious tradition or family practice that you end up going to out of guilt then feeling like there is no alcohol hard enough to make Uncle Rick tolerable are not in the true spirit of Tradition. They falsely represent a good thing by putting a buzz word like God or Family on it. No. Say 'NO' to this. Traditions should remind us of accomplishments or struggle or whatever. If it matters to YOU. Not to your people who you hardly identify with any other time.

To be fair I am not too proud to be in the same grouping as people like Glenn Beck, Carrot Top, and my old pal Tim as Americans; but I do celebrate the 4th of July. Why? Because

1) it represents something of ideals in practice and
2) it is fun, not boring, guilty or imposing some moral principle I only adhere to during that holiday.

SO

Celebrate everything and anything for sake of those things. That time you won that game in High School with your old buddies?Sure. Your first date with your wife of 25 years. Yes (and you just might get lucky... *wink*) But Jesus being tacked to a piece of wood for your metaphoric sins? Do you believe it every other day of the year? Do you really want to spend a boatload of money on people you don't like and see Uncle Rick be a jerk? No. Not if you don't want to.

Take it or leave it. Tradition.

Karate Kid 5: The Kung Fu Kid

Posted by Susan Calvan.

I recently saw the remake of The Karate Kid, starring Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan. Here are a couple thoughts...

Firstly, I should say that it was basically a frame-by-frame reshoot of the original Karate Kid, the only differences were in the little details. Instead of California, it took place in Beijing; instead of Karate, Kung Fu; instead of wax-on, wax-off, it was jacket-on, jacket-off. But there was one difference that really struck me, that instead of high school senior, it was twelve years old.

My hypothesis is that the producers thought that a remake wouldn't appeal to an older audience, so the target demographic is very young. To get the target audience to better identify with the main character, he is twelve. This isn't inherently a problem, until you consider that the remake follows the original so closely.

In the original version, Danny Larusso was about the age of seventeen, so the coming-of-age story where he defeats a powerful nemesis at his own game, against all odds, growing and learning about himself and even getting the girl makes sense. But at the age of twelve, this story line becomes problematic. For example, although they try to play it off as a just-friends relationship, the male and female lead share a kiss pretty early on in the movie, and there is a brief scene with some sexually suggestive themes between them.

Another example, in the original version, Danny plays a childish prank on the bully, and is chased all the way to the gates of his apartment complex where they begin to savagely beat him. Just in time, Mr. Miyagi jumps in and kicks their asses. It comes off as a badass-but-wise sage defending a beaten victim against a gang of thugs. In the new version, however, Jackie Chan is just beating up a group of school children, and it's quite off-putting.

Something about the original made the karate tournament seem like a sportsmanlike competition for honor and glory. Something about the remake made it feel like a bunch of seventh graders were beating the piss out of each other in front of a cheering audience.

Ignoring the fact that preteens should not be bodybuilding, maybe I'm just romanticizing the beloved Karate Kid movies of my past, but I just find a problem with twelve year olds being pitted against each other in violent competition.

Also, the healing scene was inappropriate.

Crazy Creationist of the Month: June

Posted by Lionel Boyd Johnson.

This month, it's Ray Comfort, for the usual reasons (even I'm starting to get bored by this).

In a blog post he made last month, he attacks the claim that atheists have any right to say that pedophilia is wrong.

The basis of your argument is that pedophilia is morally wrong "because it harms the child." Therefore, if a professional photographer used a two-way mirror, and took photos of naked children without them being harmed (and paid them well for their time), you would therefore consider it to be morally acceptable. The child hasn’t been harmed in the slightest. It fact, he (or she) has been greatly benefited with monetary gain.

Comfort then broadens his claim to all morality.

Your problem is that you cannot say that anything is morally wrong, because your morality is dictated by changing ideals.

And, of course, the punchline.

This isn't so with Christianity. Morality isn't dictated by sinful society nor by "does it harm the person." It is solely dictated by what God says is right and wrong.

In other words, it's okay to cause harm to a person, if God says it is.

None of this is new, especially not from Ray Comfort, but this deserves the prize of Crazy Creationist of the Month because of his follow-up post. When he first made the claim that atheists have no right to declare that pedophilia is wrong, but Christians can because they have the absolute moral standard of God's word to rely upon, the comments section lit up with the observation that the Bible never condemns pedophilia. This is a problem for Ray Comfort because he has already claimed that pedophilia is wrong, and also that right and wrong are specifically determined by the Bible, and nothing else. So if Ray Comfort can't find a verse in the Bible that says pedophilia is wrong, he'll have no choice but to admit that morality does not come from the Bible alone. Here's what he came up with (emphasis added)...

"But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust" (1 Timothy 1:8-11).

In other words, atheists' problem is that they decide what's right or wrong by the standards of the imperfect society in which they live, but Christians can take comfort in the fact that they have God's unchanging moral standard, which includes society's imperfect and ever-changing standard, thanks to this minor loophole found in one obscure verse.

Dear Comcast, You Suck

Posted by Ed Tom Bell.

Comcast has made the switch to digital. They told us a long time ago to get a digital converter box, but I didn't listen because they've been threatening to switch to digital for years and I assumed this was another bluff. Consequently, I had to go get a converter box last week.

As it turns out, the box comes with a little IR antenna, and a remote control to point at it. I always liked that our TV set-up only used one remote to control everything, so I set my sights on programming our new remote to work the television so that we could go on needing only one remote. All the new remote had to do was control the power and volume on the television.

After the simple but tedious task of finding a working code for the remote, the power button worked and I thought it was one more chore I could cross off my list. However, the power button wouldn't turn the TV back on. I turned it on manually and tried the power button again, to have it successfully switch off the TV, but fail to turn it back on.

Hours of experimentation yielded the conclusion that the power button would turn off the TV, but to turn it back on, one would have to press any other button and then the power button. In other words, the power button would work, but its function could switch the TV only on or only off, and that function could be changed by pressing any other button on the remote. The volume still doesn't work (not to change the volume, anyway: it changes the aspect ratio).