Choose to be a good person

It is a good way of thinking to study some games and find people's value orientation. This is in line with the experiment "experiment, thinking, and expression" mentioned in "true and false learning. In my blog, what I like most is to share the fun of reading their articles. Today, we recommend Wang jianshuo's article "the reason for being a good person. As for good people, in the real world, their reputation has never been very bad. The reason is that "good people" is like "stupid". If good people suffer losses, the following experiment and analysis are conducted, I wonder if it will change people's views?

Original article: Wang jianshuo-reasons for being a good person

In a training session, we made an interesting game. The game is a version of the prisoner's dilemma to prove the possibility and importance of a win-win situation. To simplify it, it is like this:

Two people guessed it.
Everyone can make scissors or cloth.
The points are as follows:
If both of them have scissors, each score is 1 point;
If both are released, each score is 3 points;
If one scissors, one cloth, the scissors scored 5 points, and the scissors scored 0 points.
So forth many times, the winner of the most points.

If you participate in this game, what logic will you choose to fight? If you were playing this game for hundreds of people, you would have won the highest score eight hours later. How would you do it?

Local and overall

From the perspective of personal selfishness and reason, anyone should give scissors at any time. When the other side outputs scissors and cloth, they get more points than the cloth:

If the scissors are distributed by the other side, 0 points are obtained; if the scissors are output by yourself, 1 point is obtained.
If the other party releases the cloth, it gets 3 points and 5 points for the scissors.

At the same time, adding the points of the two players will increase the total wealth. When two people are scissors, the total wealth is increased by 2. When two people are both scissors and one cloth, the total wealth is increased by 5. When only two people are cloth, the total wealth is increased by 6. From the collective perspective, everyone is the best.

This is a dilemma where both sides of the game know that the deployment is more favorable for the whole, but they cannot leave scissors alone.

Optimal Solution

In the competition over the past 20 years, the algorithm for the highest score is as follows (see Wikipedia's explanation ):

The first step is always released.
The second step is the same as the previous step, and so on.

This is a surprisingly simple algorithm. In particular, the first move seems silly, but in the end, such rules can always win the most points. Why?

The layout is a friendly card. He shows his goodwill to the other party, although it is dangerous to him, it is the same as giving a dagger to a stranger with bare hands. Is someone really stupid in real society?

A pair of scissors is a defense card, a non-cooperative card, or a card designed to harm others or at least legitimate defense.

Win or win

For those who generate scissors forever, he almost won every single battle (not 5 points more than his opponent, but at least a flat with his opponent ). But eventually

1. No one would be so stupid that when he made several scissors, he still went out with him. Each time he got only one point.
2. Even if someone is too kind or stupid, or takes advantage of the first chance of contact and takes advantage of each other's advantages, his poor partner will be bullied by him, the game will be eliminated as soon as possible in the future. The number of people he can use is getting fewer and fewer, and the chance of getting 5 points is getting fewer and fewer. In the end, he can only compete for one point each time.

If the world is simply divided into good people and bad people, good people like to deal with good people, while bad people also like to deal with good people. In the end, it is a world where good people and good people can continue to live. He won all the battles, but eventually lost the real war. Because, from the perspective of your death and death, he wins, but from the perspective of both, he loses. More people appear in the overall failed round and will not accumulate much wealth.

It is also a dead end for people who are always released. If there is no principle of "kindness", it is impossible to give up its own interests without principle, and it is the fastest way to get out of the game.

The winner is only for personal gain (that is, the most personal score), but shows the following virtues:

1. Kind. In the first round, he expressed his goodwill to the other party, hoping to find the same kind of response and create a "continuous" partner.
2. Revenge. Do not hesitate to punish unkindness or betrayal immediately. Because if the other party is in a private interest, it will only be released after being punished.
3. Forgive me. When the other party returns to friendship, they immediately give a friendly response.

This is a magical conclusion. From the perspective of experiment and reasoning, it tells us why we are friendly to others and why we are not bad guys.

Practical Significance

The score settings in this experiment are exquisite. It simulates our current society: this is not a zero-sum game (either you die or I live ), it is a win-win game (only by cooperation can we increase the total wealth of our society, and our own one will also increase ).

In such a game, if there is only one confrontation, Maybe scissors are the correct solution. However, if it is a multi-player game for many times, it is possible to choose to be a good person.

This also tells us why we need to shake hands when we meet each other, although the other party does not necessarily reach out. Why do we need to say hello to our neighbors in the elevator, the opportunity to respond is not very high. Why should we avoid making a bid in the case of competition, because one company seems to take advantage of another company, they actually hurt the industry in which the two companies are located and eventually hurt themselves.

Being a good person is not only a utopia, but also an unrealistic moral requirement, but also the only way to maximize your own interests.

 

Extracted from: http://www.zreading.cn/archives/1637.html