= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stuart_Armstrong comments on CEV-inspired models - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (41)
You can't be Pareto and game-theoretically stable at the same time (I have a nice picture proof of that, that I'll post some time). You can be stable without being Pareto - we each choose our favoured outcome, and go 50-50 between them. Then no one has an incentive to lie.
Edit: Picture-proof now posted at: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/8qv/in_the_pareto_world_liars_prosper/
You can estimate where the others' favoured outcomes and go a ways in the opposite direction to try to balance it out. Of course, if one of you takes this to the second level and the others are honest, then no one is happy except by coincidence (one of the honest people deviated from the mean more than you in the same way, and your overshoot happened to land on them).