• huginn@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    10 months ago

    Friendly reminder that cooperation is mutually beneficial and the mathematical solution to the prisoner’s dilemma is to cooperate but not be a pushover.

    • essell@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      The mathematical solution to the prisoners dilemma depends on how the variables are framed. The standard values are chosen to represent your point and so don’t provide evidence of anything.

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        In the sense of the values awarded for cooperation vs competition? Sure it’s an approximation but that doesn’t mean it’s arbitrary. The entire point is to explore the nature of altruistic behavior, which we know exists. We know there are deer who groom each other even though it is in each deer’s best interest to be groomed but not groom in turn. There is a larger benefit to betrayal than to cooperation but a cost associated with everyone acting selfishly.

        The prisoner’s dilemma is a model of reality. Sure you can insert numbers that make it work in reverse but it’s as valid as saying gravity is 4m/s² proves that I won’t die by jumping off this building.

        • essell@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          In any form it’s fundamentally misleading as a model.

          Even if we were to accept that the dilemma proves the value of universal cooperation, achieving that outcome would create the most fertile environment for exploration. When everyone is trusting, that’s the best time to lie.

          • huginn@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Your ignorance of the solution is on full display, and you should probably go look up what the solution is before you act like you know what you’re talking about.

      • stanka@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        10 months ago

        Don’t kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he’d eat you and everyone you care about.

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        10 months ago

        Don’t ascribe motivations to biological processes.

        That fungus wouldn’t eat the tree because it doesn’t eat the tree. There are tree eating fungi but that is not one of them.

        That fungus is proof of cooperation being mutually beneficial and evidence of how “altruism” works out in favor of the cooperators.

        • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          There are tree eating fungi but that is not one of them.

          Based on what?

          According to my quick research, symbiotic fungus doesn’t fruit unless the tree is in trouble. That tree seems fine, so then the fungus probably isn’t good for the tree

          • Inconcinnity@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Where on earth are you researching to come to that conclusion? Mushrooms overwhelmingly fruit based on climatic conditions. If the weather is right, they fruit. And it is well established that mycorrhizal fungi are good for the trees and other plants they have symbiotic relationships with, which is why fungal inoculation is becoming increasingly popular. It’s also why they are called symbiotic, and not parasitic.

              • Inconcinnity@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                I’d be wary of using a foraging blog as a source of information, there is a lot of misinformation that gets around in foraging communities.

                In this case the information is mostly okay, with some caveats. Morels certainly don’t fruit exclusively when a tree is dying (this blog doesn’t quite assert that, but it does highly emphasise the dying trees part so I can see how you would take that away) and it’s important to note that the trees death was caused by a separate parasitic fungi and not the morels. They’re fruiting in an attempt to spread their spores before they go down with the ship, so to speak.

                Personally I’m a little skeptical about the old timer stories and the conclusion drawn from them, but I live on a different continent with completely different species of fungi so I couldn’t say for sure. Over here our most prolific morel seasons are always when the temperature is mild, there have been good rains and the forest is happy and healthy. From an evolutionary perspective, this makes perfect sense. The fungal spores have a much better chance of establishing new colonies when resources are plentiful. A symbiotic mushroom that only fruits when all its symbionts are dying around it is going to be naturally selected out of existence.

      • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Your dog would kill you in a heartbeat if he thought he could

        Which is unfortunate, since you would also slaughter your dog if you ever realize you can

        Oh gods, no… What have I done?

        • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I mean, yeah?

          I’m sure if I slipped and died in the shower my cats would eat me, and I’d eat them if it was between that and starvation