What you pick up over a pint or two...

Recently some sites have been bombarded by individuals or groups who don't seem to understand why good behavior is just as important as whatever you're trying to promote with your fellow activists. Examining the Prisoner's Dilemma might help clarify some points for everyone, not just the misbehaving.

The Prisoner's Dilemma is a problem presented in game theory that explores the risks and rewards of loyalty and betrayal. It can help explain to those behind the curve why good behavior is important for success.

The "classical" form:

Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal: if one testifies ("defects") for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must make the choice of whether to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?

To make a very long story short, basically if it's a one off--that is, there is only one play to the "game"-- it is always advantageous to defect, that is screw the other player over. True, you're not guaranteed to get off free, but you are guaranteed to avoid a 10 year sentence. That is if you only play the game once and there is no expectation for consequences for your betrayal.

But what happens when you play the game over and over? This is called the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma and successful strategies that work in the one off don't work in the long run.

Another way to put it is, screwing over someone once you can probably get away with if you're careful. But making it a habit increases the chances of not only being found out, but losing any advantages you might have gained in previously. In the short run bad behavior appears to have a payoff, in the long run it's a bankrupt strategy.

One analysis:

By analysing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod stated several conditions necessary for a strategy to be successful.

Nice

The most important condition is that the strategy must be "nice", that is, it will not defect before its opponent does (this is sometimes referred to as an "optimistic" algorithm). Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice; therefore a purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent, for purely utilitarian reasons first.

Retaliating

However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must sometimes retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad choice, as "nasty" strategies will ruthlessly exploit such softies.

Forgiving

Another quality of successful strategies is that they must be forgiving. Though they will retaliate, they will once again fall back to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to play defects. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points.

Non-envious

The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent (impossible for a ‘nice’ strategy, i.e., a 'nice' strategy can never score more than the opponent).

Therefore, Axelrod reached the Utopian-sounding conclusion that selfish individuals for their own selfish good will tend to be nice and forgiving and non-envious.

I wouldn't call it Utopian so much as enlightened self interest. Another way to think of these strategies:

Nice: don't start shite

Retaliatory: but if someone starts something, finish it. Basic self-defense.

Forgiving: once the fight is over, leave it out. After successfully fighting back, don't look to continue the fight. Move on.

Non-envious: don't get stuck in a pissing contest.

Many good activists have some parts of successful strategy but are missing other parts. The common problem is focusing on "nice" and "forgiving" and not understanding the need for, or knowing how to, implement "retaliatory". Unfortunately when this is recognized, it is often after the nick of time.

However, groups that have had repeated instances of bad behavior, when you analyze their actions they have twisted the successful long term strategy into a parody that ensures "fail":

First, they use short term win strategies, yet play for the long term--and wonder why this doesn't result in "win".

Second, they are rarely "nice", even during initial interactions. This sets them up for "fail" if they insist on repeat plays, which they always do.

Third, they use "retaliatory" strategies preemptively, resulting in consistent non optimal results. "Retaliatory" strategies work best when their is something to retaliate against (duh).

Fourth, they never "forgive". They try to continue the fight long after they lost.

Fifth, they often feel the need to gratuitously put down the opposition to increase their own "honor" among members.

I'm not saying all these mis-behaving groups have malicious intentions. But the ones who have proven themselves untrustworthy consistently use this sure to "fail" strategy. Why?

All I can figure is disruptive groups aren't interested in "win". "Win" being defined as not only succeeding in their alleged goals, but being able to successfully work with activists who would, if not for their strategies, be willing to work with them. I have hard time believing these people, as intelligent as they are elsewhere, do not understand their strategy is one guaranteed to produce "fail".

As we understand the dynamics, why they do what they do becomes irrelevant. Anyone consistently using short term antagonistic strategies on a long term basis in activism is not worth everyone elses time or energy.

Besides, the odds are stacked against these groups. Consistent attacks, betrayal and deceit are their own reward. If for no other reason than all the people attacked, lied about and deceived eventually band together ensuring permanent "fail" for the perpetrators.

The rest of us could do worse than taking to heart longterm "win" strategies of game theory for our activism.

For those who want a more thorough analysis of The Prisoner's Dilemma:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma