Steve Olson January 29, 2007
Posted by The Probabilist in : [Links], Emotions, Goals, Society, Independence, Personal Growth, Beliefs, Work, Blogging , 1 comment so farSteve Olson has managed to become quite known in the blogosphere after only four months of blogging. I found many similarities in Steve’s reasons to start as he mentions that mediocrity, the common American dream and living as everyone else seems to be living just didn’t cut it any longer. His family is on a self-proclaimed quest of freedom and he’s pouring out his freedom of speech to many people’s delight, amusement and improved clarity of thought.
Steve goes to show that you don’t need to put much effort into making a snappy design, applying lots of fancy plugins or providing lots of media-rich instalments in order to draw attention and grab more readers and traffic. The attention grabber is found in the phrasing of his topics that are known to fare well on social bookmarking sites. (Just look at his top entries in the sidebar and you can learn something.) Moreover, the contents then add a stickiness to the blog as many readers find reasons to reply to his entries, be it either controversial or downright useful information he provides.
I’d say his main point of interest is his (debunking) thoughts on the education system and how to generate income. And since this issue finally seems to surface in the minds of the majority of people as they start to notice the real effects of the information age, it’s bound to elicit more discussion. He’s also a stickler for questioning things, which is a great virtue and prerequisite for making major leaps on a quest like theirs.
Steve-olson.com is a daily read for me since there’s always a new perspective to be gained on the social, emotional, financial and educational hot potatoes that dominate the current era we dwell in. How we actually respond and relate to them is what ultimately and solely affect the results we get in and out of life. Pay his blog a visit and browse through his archives and you’re sure to find something interesting.
(No Ratings Yet)
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 commentI 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)
