6 ms·

The author has an interesting game about "trust": https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/

DavidPiper 3y ago
Adding a comment so this stands out. It's the game of Nicky's I come back to the most. A very interesting look into the game theory of trust.
- acomjean 3y ago
  She has a bunch of really though provoking web mini games. I always remember "parable of the polygons" https://ncase.me/projects/ https://ncase.me/projects/ Everything seems fresh, though this door one was 2015.
- rapnie 3y ago
  Also liked the Parable of the Polygons about the shape of society: https://ncase.me/polygons https://ncase.me/polygons Hell, they are all great!
- shever73 3y ago
  I also really like "We Are What We Behold"[0], Nicky's projects are always clever and thought-provoking. [0] https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb
baggachipz 3y ago
This was awesome, thank you for linking.
tamasnet 3y ago
Thanks so much for sharing this, deeply impactful.
- batmansmom1 3y ago
  All of the games made by them are really awesome I highly recommend
DiscourseFan 3y ago
I think game theory is really cool and all, but I'm not sure it actually has much relevance for analyzing human behavior. It is always taught in that way, to simplify it for undergrads, but the mathematical concepts, I think, are significantly more important than the "ethical" questions.
dadadad100 3y ago
This one reminded me that this is a well-studied problem. It turns out cooperation is nearly optimal [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation
nmz 3y ago
More about the prisoners dilemma it seems.
bentcorner 3y ago
Makes me wonder how you could apply this to social media. What if you had a social media site where you could only see the same set of people? (Say, 150 people - Dunbar's number) This isn't perfect by any means, but how would you fix it from there? Would you make it mix the population every few months? Maybe just comments/reactions are restricted to your cohort but you can see all posts? Would you mix the population based on some kind of score? Could that score be multi-dimensional?
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  It probably wouldn't work, because social media is voluntary. People can just reduce participation, or just leave, and find alternative ways to get whatever value they were getting from the social media site. Users stay because it's fun, or because their friends are staying (network effect); your proposed interventions would both frustrate the users and weaken or destroy the "glue" that keeps them coming back. In contrast, those natural social networks of yore - tribes, villages - were all-encompassing, and you were stuck with them. The modern social networks that are strong - school, university, work - also have this strong "like it or not, I'm stuck here with this people" component. Sure, it's easier to change a job than a tribe, but it's still costly.
jspann 3y ago
I liked playing this game! The art style, animations, and overall messages were a really good experience! I look forward to sharing this with my friends later.
xp84 3y ago
Echoing all the others that this Trust game is great, I noticed something else that struck me in some of the "play with the dials" stages. The game showed us that when you decrease the reward for Cooperate/Cooperate from +2 to +1, the Always-Cheats take over. But I tried increasing the reward for above the default of +2 to +3 or +4 and an interesting thing happened: The naïve Always-Cooperates actually took over! It made me think about how a lot of cynical people -- of both sides of the political divide -- play the 'game' as 'cutthroatly' as possible. I think if you asked these people how they see the world, they'd tell you that "the system is rigged anyway" such that there's barely any benefit to cooperating. "So why shouldn't I exploit everything I can to get mine?" And in a world where there's arguably not enough reward for cooperating, I can see how people arrive at a cynical conclusion and become Always-Cheaters. This is why people who work for minimum wage generally don't want to work hard and provide great customer service. And it's why companies who employ them don't want to pay them a living wage and benefits. Both sides would tell you that the rewards of doing that aren't worth the risks or the cost. If we could somehow bring about greater rewards for good-faith participation (working hard → a very high likelihood of affording a moderately nice lifestyle), I think a lot of cynicism would be outcompeted by more cooperative attitudes. Obviously I'd already be President of the World if I knew how to just make that happen, though.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- spoonjim 3y ago
  That’s why the US was higher trust when uneducated people could get well paying factory jobs
hayst4ck 3y ago
I love this game and think it is one of the most important things on the internet, but I hate the consequence. The intended message is great: cooperate and forgive so that you can live in a great society. The corollary is absolutely awful... If you let defectors win, you are responsible for creating the defection.
- cosmojg 3y ago
  Indeed! It's awful, but all-too-true. Those who enable the bullies can be as bad for the group as the bullies themselves. Cultivating, protecting, and maintaining a peaceful and trustful society is an active effort, not a passive one. “First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me” —Martin Niemöller
hddqsb 3y ago
TL;DR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

Adding a comment so this stands out. It's the game of Nicky's I come back to the most. A very interesting look into the game theory of trust.

acomjean 3y ago
She has a bunch of really though provoking web mini games. I always remember "parable of the polygons" https://ncase.me/projects/ https://ncase.me/projects/ Everything seems fresh, though this door one was 2015.
rapnie 3y ago
Also liked the Parable of the Polygons about the shape of society: https://ncase.me/polygons https://ncase.me/polygons Hell, they are all great!
shever73 3y ago
I also really like "We Are What We Behold"[0], Nicky's projects are always clever and thought-provoking. [0] https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb

baggachipz 3y ago

This was awesome, thank you for linking.

tamasnet 3y ago

Thanks so much for sharing this, deeply impactful.

batmansmom1 3y ago
All of the games made by them are really awesome I highly recommend

DiscourseFan 3y ago

I think game theory is really cool and all, but I'm not sure it actually has much relevance for analyzing human behavior. It is always taught in that way, to simplify it for undergrads, but the mathematical concepts, I think, are significantly more important than the "ethical" questions.

dadadad100 3y ago

This one reminded me that this is a well-studied problem. It turns out cooperation is nearly optimal [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation

nmz 3y ago

More about the prisoners dilemma it seems.

bentcorner 3y ago

Makes me wonder how you could apply this to social media. What if you had a social media site where you could only see the same set of people? (Say, 150 people - Dunbar's number) This isn't perfect by any means, but how would you fix it from there? Would you make it mix the population every few months? Maybe just comments/reactions are restricted to your cohort but you can see all posts? Would you mix the population based on some kind of score? Could that score be multi-dimensional?

TeMPOraL 3y ago
It probably wouldn't work, because social media is voluntary. People can just reduce participation, or just leave, and find alternative ways to get whatever value they were getting from the social media site. Users stay because it's fun, or because their friends are staying (network effect); your proposed interventions would both frustrate the users and weaken or destroy the "glue" that keeps them coming back. In contrast, those natural social networks of yore - tribes, villages - were all-encompassing, and you were stuck with them. The modern social networks that are strong - school, university, work - also have this strong "like it or not, I'm stuck here with this people" component. Sure, it's easier to change a job than a tribe, but it's still costly.

jspann 3y ago

I liked playing this game! The art style, animations, and overall messages were a really good experience! I look forward to sharing this with my friends later.

xp84 3y ago

Echoing all the others that this Trust game is great, I noticed something else that struck me in some of the "play with the dials" stages. The game showed us that when you decrease the reward for Cooperate/Cooperate from +2 to +1, the Always-Cheats take over. But I tried increasing the reward for above the default of +2 to +3 or +4 and an interesting thing happened: The naïve Always-Cooperates actually took over! It made me think about how a lot of cynical people -- of both sides of the political divide -- play the 'game' as 'cutthroatly' as possible. I think if you asked these people how they see the world, they'd tell you that "the system is rigged anyway" such that there's barely any benefit to cooperating. "So why shouldn't I exploit everything I can to get mine?" And in a world where there's arguably not enough reward for cooperating, I can see how people arrive at a cynical conclusion and become Always-Cheaters. This is why people who work for minimum wage generally don't want to work hard and provide great customer service. And it's why companies who employ them don't want to pay them a living wage and benefits. Both sides would tell you that the rewards of doing that aren't worth the risks or the cost. If we could somehow bring about greater rewards for good-faith participation (working hard → a very high likelihood of affording a moderately nice lifestyle), I think a lot of cynicism would be outcompeted by more cooperative attitudes. Obviously I'd already be President of the World if I knew how to just make that happen, though.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
spoonjim 3y ago
That’s why the US was higher trust when uneducated people could get well paying factory jobs

hayst4ck 3y ago

I love this game and think it is one of the most important things on the internet, but I hate the consequence. The intended message is great: cooperate and forgive so that you can live in a great society. The corollary is absolutely awful... If you let defectors win, you are responsible for creating the defection.

cosmojg 3y ago
Indeed! It's awful, but all-too-true. Those who enable the bullies can be as bad for the group as the bullies themselves. Cultivating, protecting, and maintaining a peaceful and trustful society is an active effort, not a passive one. “First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me” —Martin Niemöller

hddqsb 3y ago

TL;DR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat