= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lessdazed comments on Open Thread: September 2011 - LessWrong
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 (441)
So you're saying two people, in a closed system, were able to influence the other to cooperate but are no longer able to, and "status" is the ability to influence, and ability to influence has been lowered?
If so, I think in this case "ability to influence" was for environmental rather than social reasons. The words on the line describe how the environment will react to an individual's cooperation/defection.
I see status as more ability to influence or resist influence for social, non-environmental reasons - if you have a super-laser-of-doom-and-evil on the moon pointed at the Earth, you may have influence, but not status.
Maybe I have something different in mind when I say "status". To the extent that an agent's treatment of an opponent is based on some sort of persistent state, rather than on the opponent's local behavior, I would say that that state is a form of status information. (Thus, one can have a status with a grim trigger, but not with a tit-for-tat.)
In humans (and I conjecture in approximately-winful strategies generally?), status tends to be one-dimensional, with one end eliciting "do nice things for this person" behavior, and the other end eliciting "do mean things to this person" behavior.