Nice Guys Finish First January 27, 2007
Posted by The Probabilist in : [Articles], Consciousness, Communication, Creativity, Games, Goals, Society, Productivity, Psychology, Relationships, Responsibility, Studies , add a comment
I watched this great documentary from 1987 by BBC Horizon, which was narrated/hosted by Richard Dawkins, author of the (im)popular book The God Delusion. I haven’t read the book, but I truly enjoyed this 45 minute presentation of human interaction and cooperation when sharing and dealing with resource allocation. Basically it raises the question if individuals truly only care for themselves or if there’s to be found any natural tendencies to provide altruistic deeds as well for the good of the self, a larger group and/or for the highest good of all.
While the video can be found on Google it might not be available for long, so I’ll cover the fundamental lessons learnt from it as well as my own take on it. The cornerstone of the research was conducted through an experiment called the prisoner’s dilemma. Here’s a description of how it works, what the winning strategy is and what I thought of it.
Two individuals are unable to interact with each other and need to choose between either Cooperating or Defecting. If both choose C, they both get 3 points. If both choose D, they both get 2 points. However, if one chooses C and the other D, the sucker gets 1 point while the greedy one gets 4. Then both of the “prisoners” follow this rule for several rounds only being told how they scored on each round.
Some fancy computer of the late 80s was used when inserting several different strategies into a program that would calculate the different strategies’ outcomes as they all matched up against each other in a long sequence of conducting this experiment. Among them were “cheats” always going for D, “suckers” always going for C, “grudgers” only going for D if confronted by a “cheat” and tens of other more complex and sophisticated strategies.
A quick glance shows that both choosing C scores the highest mutual points, six. The other alternatives are then either four or five. My initial response was that mutual C is self-evidently the best choice, no questions asked. However, if I know what the other participant chooses, D would be my best choice no matter what his/her choice was. So it is quite a dilemma after all. The challenge arises when you make the experiment into a sequence of choices - either building or breaking trust between the two.
The winning strategy that scored the most points when dealing with all other strategies that were programmed, was “tit for tat”. This strategy consists of simply doing what the other participant did on the previous round. The strategy’s strong points lie in predictability, simplicity and strive for equality. It’s neither greedy nor gullible. And it neither manipulates nor gives in. It simply ends up telling the other person that mutual Defecting is worse for both and mutual Cooperation is best for both.
The reason I like the result of “tit for tat” coming out as the champion among all of the other strategies is firstly that it’s an observing role. It starts with a positive C and then goes on rewarding Cooperation and punishing Defecting as the test goes on. Secondly, it immediately responds on a greedy move by letting the other individual know that it won’t tolerate it. Thirdly, “tit for tat” understands that you can’t beat an average score of 3 unless you’re dealing with a chronic “sucker”. And let’s face it, there aren’t many suckers in the world who are happy with consecutive 1 pointers.
This is just one valuable insight Dawkins brings out. Other great examples are how other species come to reach a pattern of mutual cooperation with each other, how in sports you might also come to situations where mutual cooperation is the best solution and how in balancing and conserving natural resources it is best to think in terms of the prisoner’s dilemma. I’ve always known that nice guys finish first - in the long run. I hope you can watch the video so you can see the proof for yourself.
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Polyphasic Sleep, Day 26 January 26, 2007
Posted by The Probabilist in : [News], Movies, Sleep, Blogging , add a comment
26 days into it already? Not really, it feels more like 52 days. 
I’d like to share a dialogue from one of my all-time favourite movies, Adaptation. It’s a scene where John Laroche (Chris Cooper) sits in a car with Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) and explains about one of his passionate interests. In case you haven’t seen the movie yet, you’ll like it if you’re a lurking fan of my blog.
John Laroche: Look, I’ll tell you a story, all right? I once feel deeply, profoundly in love with tropical fish. Had 60 goddamn fish tanks in my house. I skin dived to find just the right ones. Then one morning, I woke up and said, “Fuck fish.” I renounce fish, I will never set foot in that ocean again. And there hasn’t been a time where I have stuck so much as a toe back in that ocean.
Susan Orlean: But why?
John Laroche: … Done with fish.
If you haven’t seen the movie, then this dialogue might sound a bit odd and you’re confused over what I’m getting at. I’m a person just like John Laroche that I’m so incredibly and entirely occupied and passionate about something for a certain amount of time and when the next object of interest comes along, the previous one is most often totally forgotten. I’ve always been this way. And like Laroche, I don’t really know why. I can’t say that I share the same coarse language or that I first renounce something before moving on to something new though as in the example above.
Ok, so what does this have to do with polyphasic sleep? The thing is that when I was two weeks into the system, I felt pretty accustomed or adapted to it. This turned out to be a false notion once I got obsessed with something else - in this case, optimizing, socializing, monetizing and promoting my blog, which has totally occupied my mind and time lately. I could bring up a list of excuses that indirectly caused me to slowly forget the lifestyle of a systematic polyphasic sleeper, like the fact that we’ve got blizzards, heaps of snow and -15 degree temperatures demotivating me from going on my 6-time per day outdoor exercises.
Another thing that forced me to dramatically alter my weekly schedule was my extensive to do list for January. There were loads of things that I had to do and I’m very satisfied with my results. There are only a few things left for me to do and I couldn’t have achieved it unless I put most of my mind’s focus on getting them done. Therefore, I wouldn’t classify my current situation as a failure in any way. Written lists of what I have to do and by when are overriding everything else and I intend to keep it that way. I’d still say that the main reason I’ve lost my polyphasic balance is how my mind prioritizes things.
For the last few days now I’ve been getting a core sleep between 4 am and 9 or 10 am. Then I’ve tried to take the usual naps, but those usually haven’t worked out because of the long core sleep. I’ve been so dreadfully tired at these times that I unconsciously stop the playback of my polynap audio files. Afterwards when I look at my player it shows that I didn’t stop it until far into the worst bagpipe sounds, very closely to that ultimate computer beep tone. *shivers* Go here if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Today I managed to get myself up at 4 am after my nap and it took an hour or two to snap out of what I could classify as level 3 on my 1 to 5 alertness scale.
So what’s next? I’m still going to bed as scheduled and constantly using my audio file to help wake me up. I’m pretty much done with how I visualized that this blog of mine would look and function so I might simply have to adjust my mind’s attention totally on polyphasic sleeping again. I don’t think I’ll be running my 20-minute route in the near future though, but I’ll just have to empower myself to at least take the 30-minute walks six times per day again no matter what the weather. Looking outside my window at the hostility of it, it’s actually sounding a bit challenging in a lunatic and desperate kind of way.
There’s another great quote I’d like to share from the movie that goes perfectly along with the previous comment above.
John Laroche: I’m probably the smartest person I know. 
(No Ratings Yet)
