Recent Media
Jon Gold's 9/11 Videos
Michael Wolsey interviews Karen Johnson
Ray McGovern Warns of False Flag Attack
Nafeez Ahmed: The War on Truth
Karen Johnson's Floor Speech
Sen. Gravel on Democracy Now!
20 Minute OMNI TV Interview with Richard Gage, AIA - AE911Truth.org
Blogads
More Ads
This site looks its best in Firefox, get it now!
User login
9/11 Related Sites
911Research.WTC7.net
9/11 Environmental Action
911review.com
911proof.com
911Truth.org
truthmove.org
911pressfortruth.com
patriotsquestion911.com
911revisited.com
william911.com
Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission
International Citizens' Inquiry Into 9/11
mujca.com
truthaction.org
911readingroom.org
9eleven.info
tyrannyalert.com
universalseed.org
deceptiondollar.com
legitgov.org
911omissionreport.com
timetowakeup.net
911tv.org
grandtheftcountry.com
Youth for 9/11 Truth
truth911.net
justacitizen.com
MartialLaw911.info
911truestory.com
911sharethetruth.com
wanttoknow.info
explosive911analysis.com
flight93crash.com
911bookshelf.com
summeroftruth.org
supportthetruth.com
mime11.com
physics911.net
911docs.net
nw0.info
investigate911.com
theultimateconspiracy.com
9/11 International Sites
investigar11s.org
911truth.no
911belgium.be
v911truth.org
stoplying.ca
911truth.eu
911truthpeterborough.com
luogocomune.net
911info.se
1192001.dk
11syyskuu.org
serendipity.li
eqgen.nl/aanslagen911
onderzoek911.nl
waarheid911.nl
zapruder.nl
911truthbristol.com
911truthtotnes.com
september11.se
vaken.se
911oz.com
nineeleven.co.uk
hintergrund.de
broeckers.com
thecoop.tv
operation911.de
medienanalyse-international.de
911komplott.de
deepjournal.com
truth4peace.co.uk
911truthskipton.com
wytruth.org.uk
reopen911.info
editionsdemilune.com
cremationofcare.com
Swedes for 911 Truth
9/11 Truth Europe
Toronto 9/11 Truth
911.yweb.sk
9/11 Memorial Sites
Blog Roll
RIGOROUS INTUITION
Loose Change blog
tvnewslies.org/blog
Rosie.com
georgewashington.blogspot.com
Not a Sheep
Questioning the War on Terrorism
culhavoc.blogsome.com
And Now The Apocalypse!
Lone Lantern Society
damien911.blogspot.com
911fraud.blogspot.com
mackwhite.com
americathebushieful.blogspot.com
911campusaction.pbwiki.com
arabesque911.blogspot.com
Game Theory : The Prisoner's Dilemma in Activism
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.
- 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:
You're welcome
;-)
______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
http://truthaction.org/forum/
http://www.911blacklist.org/
conflict will get us nowhere
nicely put. great analysis of the potential for strategically sound and cohesive individual behavior to produce socially optimal results (in the context of activism). conflict will get us nowhere, but a consensus on what should be promoted should be formulated in order to standardize the means (activism) to achieve our end (social awareness, independent investigation etc.). For too long this movement has relied on for-profit conspiracy/ fear-mongering entrepreneurs such as Alex Jones et al for leadership----that allows them to dictate discourse and determine the nature of "Truth" activism while turning a nice profit at the same time.
It's been awhile Sparks...
Nothing objectionable in this essay, per se. But I'm wondering.
1) Are you still standing by your position that last year's possible missing nuke fly-over was (I believe your quaint little phrase was) "overblown gak," even though as many as six people in our armed services may have been killed in relation to the incident, which was taken seriously by respected commentators across the web, including in a detailed analysis at GlobalResearch.ca? If so, is it your position (a simple yes or no will suffice) that such considerations as possible missing nukes have no place in the 9/11 truth movement?
2) Are you still dedicating yourself to incessantly belittling the efforts of some of the strongest voices in our movement, merely because they have the temerity to consider ideas you don't approve of?
3) Are you still dismissing, or refusing to answer direct questions about, the war-games issue as it pertains to 9/11? Again, a simple yes or no to the following: do exercise and war-games scenarios have a proper place in 9/11 truth and in the consideration of false-flag operation, or not?
4) Are you still the divisive force that you have been for so long now in 9/11 truth?
See, I'm all for forgiveness, and not getting hung up in "pissing contests" and other "shite." But when I see others I respect getting pissed and shite on by anonymous members (ostensibly) of our own movement, even after these public figures have sacrificed so much, including their careers and health, for the cause of 9/11 and related issues of truth, I fight back.
It's been awhile since I've seen you around these pages, not that I've been looking all that closely. You've never been quite so clear about your positions as you've insisted others must be, so turnabout, as they say, is fair play. You're not exactly known for winning arguments before you turn away from them, deary, even though you're pretty accomplished at PRETENDING like you win them. Try to remember, this isn't a presidential election: pretending you won isn't the same thing as actually winning.
You are faced with three clear questions, based on your record, in search of clear answers.
Don't cha just know I'd LOVE to be friends, Sparks, but you've got some cleaning up of your own to do before offering to potty train 9/11 truth...
Tom
Just out of curiousity...
why not email her these questions and why choose to post it here?
(I did vote you down, btw)
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, yes?
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Um, right.....
I think you may be confused.
"Forgiveness" in the context of a winning game strategy is not some touchy feely bollox. It's not about being "mates". It is being willing to forgo attacks, no matter how tempting, given that attacks against you stop. It does not preclude future retaliation if attacks start again. It is simply the willingness to restrain oneself from perpetuating drama.
This increases your chance for "win" in the long term by showing you are a reasonable ally who will cooperate under reasonable conditions.
That's me staying on topic. You seem to be on about something else.
FYI: your strategy, if you chose to continue, will guarantee "fail" in the long run, sunshine.
______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
http://truthaction.org/forum/
http://www.911blacklist.org/













Col. Sparks
I think this is a very, very important essay. Thank you for writing it.