This is the weekly visible open thread. Post about anything you want, ask random questions, whatever. ACX has an unofficial subreddit, Discord, and bulletin board, and in-person meetups around the world. 95% of content is free, but for the remaining 5% you can subscribe here. Also:
1: Comments of the week, all on the Rise Of Christianity review: I originally said I was embarrassed to learn that early Christians opposed abortion, because I’d bought the liberal story that this was an artifact of 1970s Moral Majority politics. But Stephen Saperstein Frug says I was misunderstanding the story - Catholics have opposed abortion since forever, but Protestants didn’t care until the political realignments of the 1970s. And Ty Harding corrects my misunderstanding of the concubinage issue - Pope Callixtus didn’t try to sneak polygamy into Christianity, only to legitimize certain “lesser” types of monogamous marriage. And David Roman backs the role of women in early Christianity.
2: I started my discussion of the Early Christian strategy with the story of the TIT-FOR-TAT bot. But G2F4E6E7E8 on the subreddit says that the science of game theory has moved on; TIT-FOR-TAT was defeated in certain evolution-like noisy prisoner dilemmas by a strategy called WIN-STAY LOSE-SHIFT:
Why does Win-Stay, Lose-Shift win? In the simulations, it seems that at first, Tit-for-Tat establishes dominance just as the old story would lead you to expect. However, in a Tit-for-Tat world, generous Tit-for-Tat does better and eventually outcompetes. The agents slowly become more and more generous until a threshold is reached where defecting strategies outcompete them. Cooperation collapses and the cycle repeats over and over. It's eerily similar to the good times, weak men meme.
What Win-Stay, Lose-Shift does is break the cycle. The key point is that Win-Stay, Lose-Shift is willing to exploit overly cooperative agents---(defect, cooperate) counts as a win after all! It therefore never allows the full cooperation step that inevitably collapses into defection. Indeed, once Win-Stay, Lose-Shift cooperation is established, it is stable long-term. One technical caveat is that pure Win-Stay, Lose-Shift isn't exactly what wins since depending on the exact relative payoffs, this can be outcompeted by pure defect. Instead, the dominant strategy is a version called prudent Win-Stay, Lose-Shift where (defect, defect) leads to a small chance of playing defect. The exact chance depends on the exact payoffs.
Commenter bibliophile785 adds that this is also obsolete, and the very newest results are even more complicated - read the thread for more, and thanks for the correction / interesting information!
