Thought the 12th chapter, Dawkin talks about how nice guys finish first. To show that his theory is correct, the author uses a game called Prisoner's Dilemma, where the players have to chose between two option which are to Cooperate or Defect. At first the reader is given an example of two prisoners who have been convicted of the same crime, but given a tempting option of cooperating with the police and getting of the hook (while sinking your inmate/friend). The only problem is if both prisoners give themselves in nobody wins and they both get a harsh punishment. Since neither know how the other will act it's a stressful situation. There is a third way out where both prisoners get a 'mild' punishment (if none of them cooperate) because there is not enough evidence to convict either of them. After reading along the chapter, Dawkin let's one know that the most probable situation that will occur is that both will give themselves in because the temptation is to great. Later on in the chapter, the author mentions an experiment done by a man named Axelrod. This tournament that he had established consisted of sending a computerized strategy to win Prisoner's Dilemma. There were a wide variety of strategies, but after a close analysis the people who chose to base their idea (to win) on being the good guy got the highest points and went further along the game, than those who had the bad thoughts. Once again selfishness has been beaten, as shown in the game.
The most interesting part of this chapter for me as a reader was when Richard Dawkin started to use lawyers as one of his examples. This really caught my attention because as my future career I would like to become a successful lawyer, so reading about how this job always looks for the 'nonzero sum' as Dawkin calls it. "In what are called civil 'disputes' there is often in fact a great scope cooperation. What looks like a zero sum confrontation can, with a little of goodwill, be transformed into a mutually beneficial nonzero sum game. Consider divorce. A good marriage is obviously a nonzero sum game, brimming with mutual cooperation. But even hen it breaks down there are all sorts of reasons why a couple could benefit by continuing to cooperate, and treating their divorce, too, as nonzero sum. As if child welfare were not a sufficient reason, the fees of two lawyers will make a nasty dent in the family finances. So obviously a sensible and civilized couple begin by going together to see one lawyer, don't they? (The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkin, Ch. 12, pg. 221)" Reading this made me remember a wide variety of stories from my grandfather (who was a lawyer) about all the fights he had to pursue at first to make his name important in the 'business.' Although this chapter has been the most interesting up until now, I haven't understood completely how the strategies to win Prisoner's Dilemma work. How does Tit for Tat actually work, it copies it's adversary, but if he or she is wrong? What exactly does the 'zero sum' and 'nonzero sum' do in our daily lives? What can be the perfect example of their uses? Throughout this chapter the selfish gene and it's negative side arise in more than one way, it's like Dawkin wants us to rethink selfishness by showing all the examples of the worse case scenarios.
No comments:
Post a Comment