h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I hope you have considered, if you haven't already, publishing this elsewhere such as 'New Scientist' or a daily such as the 'Independent Review' section?

I found 'Superrationality' very clear and logically sensible, one criticism would be where are the references for Hardin's 'The Tradegy of the Commons' and Douglas Hofstadter et.al? So I can follow up !

What strikes me is that everyone probably has innate 'Superrationality' within them but will only apply it in altruistic situations. Altruism requires knowledge of consequence of action and this is where perhaps, a problem lies. If a population or individual is ignorant or disbelieving of a future outcome of an action then the likelihood of being Superrational is less . If we are talking about Superrationality as a game as in the Prisoner's Dilemma' then getting what you can in order to win the most, is going to lead to a greater percentage of people defecting. It's not until the majority see the eventual 'writing on the wall' for humanity that the global good will exceed the individual gain. A choice in fact between the survival of one or many. A state of flux exists here; the majority sit on a fence not knowing and therefore acting for themselves; those that know, act for the survival of the species. What we hope is that the future is not compromised by the effects of what's happening now purely because the majority didn't understand the game of consequences.
-1

I'm sure I would try to co-operate. Or rather I very sincerely hope I would.
Otherwise, how very sad everything would be.
I agree about publishing this, too.

Ohhhhhhhh, a very nice article. Great examples. It seems that superrationality can be simply stated as "what goes around, comes around". If we all work together, then everyone will want to work together. If we are at odds, then noone will want to work toghther.

Great, nice and tight.

Courtesy

Absolutely. It's all so simple in theory, so obvious. Superrationality, like courtesy, SHOULD be catching. Let's spread it around.

Thanks Joanna. I'm not surprised that you would have cooperated. I think we ought to perform a little on-line experiment. Are you up to running a promotion from your stall?

-1, As you say, the problem lies in that we always have to act without full knowledge of the possible consequences. The choice between cooperation and defection is hard enough in clearly defined situations such as the PD game; when you move from a local scenario to a global one, and the consequences are only vaguely defined, then you're in big trouble.

What we lack more than anything, and what is certainly needed for superrationality to take hold, is an authentic sense of community. If we played PD among our family we would probably cooperate. If we included close friends, we would probably still cooperate, but if we played among all the people on our street, we might well not. There are no shared common values today. There are so many alternative truths abroad in the world, so much freedom of thought, that we just cannot guess what values our fellow players are going to bring to any situation.

I hadn't really considered publishing, but in view of your encouragement, perhaps I should. I would very much like to come up with my own variation on the PD game and run an on-line experiment. I'll give this some thought, and, of course, if anyone has any ideas please let me know.

Thanks for reminding me about references. They will be added very shortly.

I thought I'd post another article which is closely related. I actually wrote this over ten years ago, before marriage and children, when I was full of revolutionary zeal. Watch out for Raftworld.

I'll give you an auto post box of your own, if you like so's people can post their answers to a forum without reading it first, hopefully. Only trouble is it would have to rely on a great deal of trust

This actually needs a little thinking about. Perhaps e-mail would be better. I'll keep you on hold. Thanks.