From: Scott Shenker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 01:43:36 PST

> 
> 
> 
>  >1) The 'subtle meta-game theory' ("if everyone was trying to
>  >choose an algorithm to achieve this same goal, then what should I choose 
>  >[being like them] to get the best for me") is standard 
>  >non-cooperative game theory, first studied by John Nash, who won the
>  >Nobel Prize this year for this work. The equilibrium so achieved is called
>  >the Nash equilibrium [J. Nash, "Non-Cooperative Games", Annals of Mathematics,
>  >V54, 2, September 1951, pp 286-295). 
>  
> the hofstadter iterated prisoners delimma is NOT nash equilibrium, i'm
> afraid.

The game theoretic analysis of the iterated prisoner's dilemma does not
predict that everybody will cooperate.  There are a wide variety of
stable "iterated" solutions, and universal cooperation is merely one of
them.  Universal noncooperation is another stable "iterated" solution,
and so is everything in between (this is the so-called "folk theorem"
on repeated games).  I don't think the large degree of adherence to
VJCC can be explained by game theory (and I don't think this adherence
will last).  There are many other similar situations (e.g., industrial
pollution, negative campaigning here in the U. S.) where in fact most
players did choose the antisocial behavior despite the obviously
disastrous outcome.

--Scott