Steve, Yes, and to keep brief, I think there are so very many clear examples of our being clueless about the nature of the 'game' and 'commons' we are sharing that the earlier game theory and tragedy of the commons studies were clearly missing something. It think what they were missing is the arts, and or sciences, of how to read the environment in which your conception of the game and commons are imbedded.
You say "We simply may not understand the implications of what our instruments are telling us in the first case and in the second case, we may not trust the agenda of the social constructs between us and what we are observing (see the long-running argument over whether climate change is real or not)." I see both are examples of trusting our models rather than using them as open questions for the purpose of discovering the true circumstance we're in. Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Steve Smith > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 12:11 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: [FRIAM] Reciprocal Altruism - was: can you have 4 operating > systems on one buss? > > Folks, > > I apologize if I missed this in an earlier part of the thread... these > discussions are so elaborate and rich that I simply find I cannot keep > up with them all front to back. > > However... this divergence of discussing bicyclist pelotons which is > segueing into what feels like a discussion of seeking solutions to what > is known as the "Tragedy of the Commons" has gotten my attention. > > The canonical example is of a resource that begins with having no > limit for > > a small community of users with various cooperative habits for > exploiting > > it. If their habits constitute a growth system, the users will > usually know > > only their own individual experience and have no experiential > information > > about the approach of that limit. It's not clear what their best > source of > > information would be about it, or how they would choose what to do at > the > > limits. > > > > What kind of information might indicate the approach of common > resource > > limits? How would that be different from evidence that other users > are > > breaking their agreements? As independent users of natural > resources tend > > to have less information about, or interest in, each other's > particular > > needs than, say, cyclists in a peloton, how would they begin to > renegotiate > > their common habits when circumstances require it? > > > As most of us know, there has been a lot of abstract study of this in > Game Theory as well as practical study in economics, political science, > and evolutionary biology. > > The bicycle peleton seems to arise fairly directly from "reciprocal > altruism". While there is some cost to the riders at the head of a > peloton in terms of simple distraction and risk of interference, in > general the only cost they bear is relative to the others who gain an > advantage from an emergent common resource, the air pocket behind them > which is unexploited otherwise. "reciprocal altruism" is an obvious > response, each member of the peleton being motivated to contribute to > the group as a "windbreaker" in exchange for not being ejected or > ditched from the peleton. As the end of the race nears, the motivation > to "defect" increases and only those with a shared fate (members of the > same team) are likely to maintain pelotons right up to the last minute. > > Phil makes good points about global optimization under local awareness. > As our actions begin to have longer range consequences and we begin to > exploit a larger commons (global, including earth orbit, Lagrange > points, and the lunar surface soon enough) our awareness of the state > of > said commons must be expanded equally. This also is problematic, as > our awareness must be mediated both technologically and socially (we > must use telescopes, remote sensors, etc. and depend on others to share > their observations and judgements about the condition of the commons). > When these other devices (mechanical and social) are insinuated between > our perceptual system and the commons in question, we are at risk of > them being miscalibrated and of our innate perceptions not being tuned > to them. We simply may not understand the implications of what our > instruments are telling us in the first case and in the second case, we > may not trust the agenda of the social constructs between us and what > we > are observing (see the long-running arguement over whether climate > change is real or not). > > - Steve > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
