I’d argue that in game theory, cooperation is an arbitrary label placed on the rows/columns that the researcher wants to bias the reader for. In some cases, it’s used to indicate the rows which are greater total payout even with lower individual payout for some, again as a bias inducer rather than as a defined term which is part of the analysis.
Regardless, the original post is correct in it’s use. “cooperation” can be among a subgroup, even if it’s antagonistic or lower-value to other subgroups or the naive sum of the whole.
I mean, this isn’t a big deal either way, but I suspect that the exposure of the median LWer to game theory consists primarily of the prisoner’s dilemma, where “cooperate” is the standard name for one of the two actions.
Regardless, the original post is correct in it’s use. “cooperation” can be among a subgroup, even if it’s antagonistic or lower-value to other subgroups or the naive sum of the whole.
I also wondered something like this when reading, but this felt like a bad reason to use the term. But, well, it really just comes down to what you associate with the term.
I think that’s a weird take. A cooperation game typically has actions where you lose, but others gain more (whatever actions others take). Prisoner’s Dilemmas and public goods games are simple examples. The only wrinkle is “what counts as more” if you take seriously the idea that utility is non-comparable across persons. But a weaker criterion is just “everyone would be better off if everyone cooperated”, which again the PD and public goods games satisfy.
I’d argue that in game theory, cooperation is an arbitrary label placed on the rows/columns that the researcher wants to bias the reader for. In some cases, it’s used to indicate the rows which are greater total payout even with lower individual payout for some, again as a bias inducer rather than as a defined term which is part of the analysis.
Regardless, the original post is correct in it’s use. “cooperation” can be among a subgroup, even if it’s antagonistic or lower-value to other subgroups or the naive sum of the whole.
I mean, this isn’t a big deal either way, but I suspect that the exposure of the median LWer to game theory consists primarily of the prisoner’s dilemma, where “cooperate” is the standard name for one of the two actions.
I also wondered something like this when reading, but this felt like a bad reason to use the term. But, well, it really just comes down to what you associate with the term.
I think that’s a weird take. A cooperation game typically has actions where you lose, but others gain more (whatever actions others take). Prisoner’s Dilemmas and public goods games are simple examples. The only wrinkle is “what counts as more” if you take seriously the idea that utility is non-comparable across persons. But a weaker criterion is just “everyone would be better off if everyone cooperated”, which again the PD and public goods games satisfy.