Cooperation is not a terminal goal. Winning the game is.
If I don’t see my team’s Reaper (or Tracer) ever, but the rear ranks of the enemy team mysteriously drop dead on a regular basis, that’s perfectly fine.
Agreed, but if a virtue and comparative advantage of rationalists is cooperating than our path to victory won’t often involve us using Reaper or Tracer.
I’m a bit mystified by how cooperation became a “virtue and comparative advantage of rationalists”. I understand why culturally, but if you start from the first principles, it doesn’t follow. In a consequentialist framework there is no such thing as virtue, the concept just doesn’t exist. And cooperation should theoretically be just one of the many tools of a rationalist who is trying to win. In situations where it’s advantageous she’ll cooperate and where it isn’t she won’t.
Rationality is systematized winning. If failure to cooperate keeps people like us from winning then we should make cooperation a virtue and practice it when we can. (I’m literally playing Overwatch while I answer this.)
The situation is symmetrical: if eagerness to cooperate keeps people like us from winning then we should make non-cooperation a virtue and practice it when we can.
Why are you phrasing this as either-or? We don’t need to decide whether a hammer or a screwdriver has a “higher marginal benefit”, we use both as appropriate. Cooperating is conditional on it being useful, sometimes it’s a good idea and sometimes it’s not.
Getting back to Overwatch, there are cases where you need to grab an assassin and go hunting for the enemy sniper, and there are cases where you need to be a healbot and just stand behind your tank...
Cooperation is not a terminal goal. Winning the game is.
If I don’t see my team’s Reaper (or Tracer) ever, but the rear ranks of the enemy team mysteriously drop dead on a regular basis, that’s perfectly fine.
Agreed, but if a virtue and comparative advantage of rationalists is cooperating than our path to victory won’t often involve us using Reaper or Tracer.
Do you play on the Xbox?
I’m a bit mystified by how cooperation became a “virtue and comparative advantage of rationalists”. I understand why culturally, but if you start from the first principles, it doesn’t follow. In a consequentialist framework there is no such thing as virtue, the concept just doesn’t exist. And cooperation should theoretically be just one of the many tools of a rationalist who is trying to win. In situations where it’s advantageous she’ll cooperate and where it isn’t she won’t.
Nope, I play on a PC.
Rationality is systematized winning. If failure to cooperate keeps people like us from winning then we should make cooperation a virtue and practice it when we can. (I’m literally playing Overwatch while I answer this.)
The situation is symmetrical: if eagerness to cooperate keeps people like us from winning then we should make non-cooperation a virtue and practice it when we can.
My multitasking isn’t as good :-)
I guess it comes down to what has a higher marginal benefit, learning to cooperate or learning to succeed without cooperation.
Why are you phrasing this as either-or? We don’t need to decide whether a hammer or a screwdriver has a “higher marginal benefit”, we use both as appropriate. Cooperating is conditional on it being useful, sometimes it’s a good idea and sometimes it’s not.
Getting back to Overwatch, there are cases where you need to grab an assassin and go hunting for the enemy sniper, and there are cases where you need to be a healbot and just stand behind your tank...
I was wrong. Reaper and Mei can greatly benefit from cooperation.