Prisoner's Dilemma

The Game:

Get as much reward as possible.

The Rules:

Two players, each has two cards:
1. COOPERATE 2. DEFECT

Each player has to put one card downwards in the table so the opponent cannot see. They turn the card up simultaneously.

The possible outcomes:

The two players have COOPERATE card: Each gets $300.

The two players have DEFECT card: they are fined $10.

Player A has DEFECT and Player B has COOPERATE. Player A takes $500 for the Temptation and Player B has a $100 fine for being a Sucker.

Player A has COOPERATE and Player B has DEFECT. Player A has a fine of $100 for being a Sucker and Player B takes $500 for the Temptation.

KEY TERMS:
Sucker: someone who helps others unconditionally and are exploited.
(pg. 202-204)

I LOVE THIS GAME! I played it with my family to see what happens and as Dawkins said that, “Whole shelves in libraries are devoted to the ramifications of this beguiling game,” (pg. 203) he is indeed right. There is the part of everyone that want to win and get the bets regard and is tempted to draw the DEFECT card and wait for the other player to be nice and draw the COOPERATE card.

I thought of Macbeth, and I found the connection of greed and temptation and not counting if the opponent will fight back or not. Macbeth’s DEFECT card is Lady Macbeth, she is the one that drives him into taking that card, but his opponent’s reactions, Malcolm and Macduff, is something that Macbeth cannot anticipate. He is not allowed to see their card, not in Prisoner’s Dilemma. I think even the title is the perfect description of Macbeth’s situation, he is in a dilemma. He is a prisoner of his wife and of the prediction that the three witches. He gives in to greed and takes the DEFECT card out, and his opponents as well, and they are fined with the cost of their lives.

Popular Culture

I think that from the whole book, the most interesting fact for me has been the memes. I never thought of it like that, I have it known as popular culture. I remember that Mr. Hickey once told us about it, he said that there is some knowledge that everybody simply acquires because “everybody knows it”. Dawkins plots this concept in a very interesting way. He says it is genes, the meme genes. These genes replicate themselves through human minds. Dawkins says that the memes are the new kind of replicators. , “Examples of the memes are tunes, ideas, catch phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches.” (pg. 192) If you look at history we are changing at an amazing speed, developing. I even remember that things were different when I was little, and I am only 16 years old. My mind has changed because it has been influenced by memes of other people that stick in my mind and I pass it to other people’s minds.

If memes are replicators, theoretically they should copy themselves identically, but they don’t. I see them similar to gossip, but in a positive way. Every time it is passed to someone, it is changed according to that person’s thoughts. I do think that memes are the most immortal thing in the world. Dawkins says that, “Once the genes have provided their survival machines with brains that are capable of rapid imitation, the memes will automatically take over.” (pg. 200) There is no way to abolish the passing on of memes, it is passed on by generations. We know of people like Galileo Galilei that lived hundreds of years ago and is still very alive within ourselves. What that has to do with selfishness… I don’t know, but I like the concept.

Win Over Him

What I found more interesting in this chapter, You Scratch My Back, I’ll Scratch Yours, was the relationship between the family, affecting how the investment between one another is. I researched in the New York Times an article about selfishness and altruism between family and I found a very interesting one. Steven D. Levitt says in his excerpt, Unbelievable Stories About Apathy and Altruism, that depending on the wealth of an individual there is different love and apathy given to him, he says that studies have shown that, ‘an elderly parent in a retirement home is more likely to be visited by his grown children if they are expecting a sizable inheritance.’’ This is a rather selfish act, that is, for me, being interested, a hypocrite. Dawkins says something similar about female hymenoptera ants. They want to have more sisters than brothers because sister ants are more closely related (genetically) and therefore can replicate themselves more easily. Because of wanting more sisters Dawkins says that, ‘’this might well predispose a female to farm her own mother as an efficient sister-making machine.” (pg. 175) Female hymenoptera ants that are born form queen ants don’t care about their mothers, only if they are able to give them sisters that are ¾ more related to them than if another mother or father give sisters to them. Once again, that is being an interested human being, a hypocrite.

I have come to realize that most of us are interested in other people’s relationship because of our own wellbeing. In the NYT excerpt because of money inheritance and in the hymenoptera ants because of gene inheritance and replicating themselves. If this is so right from the very species of ants, it should not come to a surprise that we encounter hypocrites in our social circles. Levitt says that, ‘’Economists have traditionally assumed that the typical person makes rational decisions in line with his own self- interest.’’ He is arguing whether a person that donates to charity is doing this to fake an altruistic act but his actual interest is having the name of a helper for charity. There is no way to know the actual intentions of a person, more less of an ant. Dawkins doesn’t know which the actual intentions of an ant are. ‘’The war will be won by whoever manages to get more of her genes into the next generation, via the bodies of the reproductives.’’ (pg. 178)I think that the only thing for sure that there is a rivality between all individuals. Humans, siblings, parents, ants, genes, etc. And the way to live through this rivality is by figuring out ways to outnumber the opponent, and win over him.

The Visual Sex Battle

Am I An Investment?

Battle of the Generations reminded me of the stand up comedy of Andres Lopez that was so popular in Colombia about the different generations, La Pelota De Letras. Andres Lopez talks about a similar concept, obviously not in scientific matters but more of life facts. He says that the generations of below are one social class higher than the previous generation, for example, the children think of themselves of a better family than their own parents. It is a difficult issue to understand because it is related to Colombian culture, yet, Dawkins states that, “It us too small and weak to bully its parents physically, but it uses every psychological weapon at its disposal: lying, cheating, deceiving, exploiting […]” (pg.131) it is a little harsh and very disappointing to think of a child being so cruel to its parents, but it is absolutely true. I have done it, and my brother has done it. Whether it has to do with the gene pool and the genes trying to survive over the other, or if it has to do that the mother has half her genes in her child and not vice versa, I don’t know. I am learning about it while I read, but it does not matter to me. It is sad that, “we must expect that individuals will cheat, will tell lies about how hungry they are.” (pg.130) according to Dawkins, our genes are responsible to such behavior, it is “expected” if we know that we are going to cheat, how could there be trust, or as Dawkins said, how can a parent be able to avoid “getting fooled”.

I have not liked the way Dawkins talks about having a child, I don’t see a son or a daughter as an investment, I don’t think that my parents were thinking on how much I will pay of when they found out that they were going to have a baby. Dawkins says that, “Nevertheless, she should weigh up whether it would not pay her more to invest in grandchildren, nephews […]since although they are half as closely related to her as her own children […]”(pg. 126) He means that according on how related someone is to us how much they pay off will be? Or how good the investment will be? The whole chapter Dawkins is talking about favoritism between the children and what are the best investments for children and the unit to measure it for the mothers. I find it a little materialistic, I know I should not be seeing it that way and that it is a science book, a biology book and it is not supposed to talk about family as a novel, but it annoys me. I hate to think of me as an investment for my mom.

The Fighters

Hawk: Fight as hard as they can, “unrestrainedly”, he will almost always win because they only give up if they are very hurt.

Dove: Seldom threatens an opponent, not with the intention to hurt or get hurt. If he is fought at, he runs away.

Retaliator: fights like a dove, does not want to get hurt, but if the opponent attacks, then the retaliator will fight back. He changes his way of fighting according to his opponent. “conditional strategist”

Bully: He is attacking everybody (like a hawk), and when someone fights back, he runs away.

Prober-retaliator: He does not give up attacking like a hawk if his opponent doe not fight back. If there is an attack back he only threatens like a dove.

This description can actually be found in humans, us, the way we behave. Obviously it is a little generalized, but in some way each one of us fits in one of the categories of fighters. If I am to out myself into one I think it would be a retaliator, I change my behavior according to whom I am addressing and what is the purpose. I am a conditional strategist. Dawkins is trying to prove that the strategy of type of aggressor that survives is the good one. Then the retaliator is the best one, “If all the five strategies I have mentioned are turned loose upon one another in a computer simulation, only one of them, retaliator, emerges as evolutionarily stable.” (pg.74) I agree that it is the most stable one, but I don’t think that it applies to always. There are different environments, and there needs to be different types of fighters for the different environments. For a peaceful place, a hawk would not be appropriate because he would win over all the dove inhabitants and he would be alone, of as Dawkins suggests, he invades the place and takes over. But then it would be stock in a cycle of changing inhabitants with different strategies that would take over each other! Peace could not be reached…

Behavior

Survival Machines-------- feed from organic molecules------organic molecules gone-----plants----sun food (photosynthesis)----animals----feed from plants-----humans----feed from animals.

“This sub-branching has given rise to the immense diversity of animals and plants which so impresses us today.” (pg.46) right from the beginning of times we have an urge to develop and become bigger and better every time. This chapter was about the behavior of the survival machines, the difference between what we desire and the current state of the things. Because of the difference of our present state and the desired state is that we are constantly developing. “It is built in such a way that the larger this discrepancy is, the harder the machine works.” (pg. 50) the discrepancy that it is talked about is between the present state of a being, or in this case, a machine, and the desired state. Personally, my discrepancy is very large. I constantly want to be much more that what I am. According to Selfish Gene, this makes me evolve, and thanks to this behavior is that the survival machines are always evolving. This was interesting, I never thought of humans as survival machines, but we actually are, the problem is that we have grown so much that survival is taken for granted. I think that the only fact that we have a desired state makes us be selfish. The difference is if we affect others in other to get to the desired state.

I think that it is impossible to live without affecting others as one is living, right? We need communication, we need socializing, interacting, “A survival machine may be said to have communicated with another one when it influences its behavior or the state of its nervous system.” (pg. 63) this is a very scientific way to say it, but it right. Every time someone talks to someone else, the behavior changes, there is a reaction, no matter how minimal the reaction can be, but there is one. If I see it that way, I would like to cause a positive reaction every time I communicate with someone. I think that if I am able to always change the behavior of someone else in a good way, then I could maybe change the world, in a 0.00000000000001%. It counts.

No Escape

I have read so many things of so many different subjects that my head is all twisted and confused. Thank God I am learning inheritance in Biology class and I am not as lost as I could be. The Replicators (Chapter 2) is a summary of the beginning of the earth, right from the very bottom, the atoms. It is really hard for me to picture the Earth as made up of atoms and the combinations of different elements. I cannot understand how we came to be the way we are, there are so many different things in the world, so much diversity and the difference of everything, even from the same species makes me wonder if what Dawkins is stating is really true. The replicator theory is very confusing and I don’t get it very much, the only thing that did interested me was the fact that is was a mistaken replicator, “But now we must mention an important property of any copying process: it is not perfect. Mistakes will happen.” (pg.16) Not only the fact that this is an important characteristic of the replicator interests me, but that thanks to the errors, evolution is sparked. This scientific theory reinforces another thing that I said in one of my blogs, there needs to be mistakes happening in order to improve! From the very core of our existence, the replicator, the molecules have to be mistaken to do evolution.

If it wasn’t because of Ms. Blesgreaft I am sure I would not have understood a thing about Immortal Coils (Chapter 3), and I would have probably needed to re read about a hundred times. Reproduction is a VERY complex process. The crossing-over of the chromosomes in genes and the different traits that are passed on, such as the brown or blue eyes example, is the factor that makes each individual, indeed, an individual. Nonetheless, this book proves to us that the genes of our ancestors do not die, “When we have served our purpose we are cast aside. But genes are denizens of geological time: genes are forever.” (pg.35), in other words, there is no way to escape the fate that we are condemned to. For millions of years we have been that way, and for millions of years we will be that way.

Better Than Expected

As I saw the title of the book, the size of the letter and the back description of the content I filled myself with courage to start reading because I figured it would be a very boring and complicated book. To my surprise, it isn’t, so far. I have actually read with enthusiasm. I find the book written in a very simple language, the diction is for almost all audience, which makes it obviously more pleasant.

The main issue caught my attention, especially because in my previous blog I talked about it. I said that, “We have always been like that, there is an evil part in every single one of us, every individual has acted wrongly in some way.” In Selfish Gene, Dawkins talks about how we are condemned to being selfish because it is part of our biological system, unfortunately. I have always thought that there had to be some scientific explanation to our acts, why have he always been the way we are? What is the reason behind it? According to the book: our genes. In order to change this, and break the cycle we have to become altruistic. The way I see it, it mission impossible. Dawkins says, “Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature.” (pg. 3) This brings down my hope. I think of all the people that make campaigns to prolong the good in everyone, all their effort is in vein. All the many protests against violence and to promote peace in the world, all in vein. I don’t like to feel that way, but all the facts that Dawkins is stating, do make me hesitate on the possibility to have a better planet.

He says that they fight and kill just to “protect” or “defend” our nation, regardless if we are fighting against our own species, “Moreover, they are encouraged to kill other individuals about whom nothing is known except that they belong to a different nation.” (pg.9) I have written about that before, because it does amazes me. I consider myself incapable of killing another human being, no matter where he from is or what he had done, killing him is like killing someone like me. That has feelings, and thoughts, and a life. If this selfishness comes in our genes, is there a way to take it out?

The End

What a story! Candide is full of drama, humor, tragedy, romance, murder, philosophy and mockery. An exaggeration of everything through an exceptional class humor, I enjoyed noticing the target of mockery in the novel, and picturing to myself the scenes and characters. I laughed out loud in many occasions, my brother would ask me from across the room what was I laughing at, and I would answer, the stupidity of the story. Every event was exaggerated. Every character was a mockery of a real person or persons in life. Voltaire makes fun of the high aristocracy a lot. Right from the very beginning I noticed that he had that specific target. He mentions Governors, Barons, Priests, Inquisitors, and Kings among many others, and plots them with hyperbole and irony. It is a criticism of the high class people, and how foolish it actually is.

In between all the funny things and the satirical writing, there was some real philosophical analysis in the story. Maybe not in comparison to what is actually philosophy, but I managed to get some quote that could be useful in life. For example, in page 93, Candide’s friend Martin was talking about the evil and good forced to Candide, “I have scarcely seen a town which does not seek for the ruin of a neighboring town, nor a family that does not wish to exterminate another family. You will find that the weak always detest the strong and cringe before them, and that the strong treat them like so many sheep to be sold for their meal and wool.” When I read this, I did not find the humorous part of it, I took it very seriously. It is true what he is stating, in our evil world we are seeking for the bad to others in order for us to have the best. If we could care more about others then everybody would be having good things. My aunt always tells me that “the best is the enemy of the good”, if you seek for the best the good is nothing because it will never be enough. The good becomes the weak, and the best becomes the strong. In our world the best, the strong, will eventually fall while the good, or the weak can always improve.

When Candide was stolen, the thief was defeated by a Spaniard, and Candide says, “You observe,’ said Candide to Martin, ‘that crime is always punished. That rogue Dutch captain has had the fate he deserved.” (pg.93) I think that we do always get the fate we deserve, I deeply believe in karma, even though sometime in life it was defraud me, I think that we get what we earn, from our actions. If we do wrong, something bad or unfortunate will come to us, and vice versa. That’s why I act as cautious as I can, to deserve the good.

“But what was the world created for?’ said Candide. ‘To drive us mad,’ replied Martin.” (pg. 95) I could not agree more. Maybe not the world, but yes life. Life is there to drive us mad. Mad about living, mad about loving, mad about feeling.
Candide describes very well what we have unfortunately become in these lines, “Do you think,’ said Candide, ‘ that men have always massacred each other, as they do to-day, that they have always been false, cozening, faithless, ungrateful, thieving, weak, inconstant, mean-spirited, envious, greedy, drunken, miserly, ambitious, bloody, slanderous, debauched, fanatic, hypocritical and stupid?’” (pg. 96) Yes, it is a little exaggerated, but mostly true. We have always been like that, there is an evil part in every single one of us, every individual has acted wrongly in some way. Some more that others, but I am certain that everybody has done something wrong. It is human nature. There is absolutely nothing we can do about it. We were born that way. The only problem is that, we are supposed to learn from it. Many never realized they could have known better.

Voltaire wraps the whole story with this theory, “When man was placed in the Garden of Eden, he was put there ‘to dress it and keep it’, to work, in fact; which proves that man was not born to an easy life.” (pg. 143) Candide’s journey all over the world, all the calamities and challenges he finds in his way, is because “man was not born to an easy life.” We are not supposed to have it all figured out. We are trusted to work it out, to make the best of it and struggle along. If not, why do we live for?

Random

From castles, and Barons, romances and “Buenos Ayres” we jump to necked ladies and monkey lovers. That’s random. “They found that the cries came from two naked girls who were tripping along the edge of the meadow, while two monkeys followed them nibbling their buttocks.” (pg. 69) Candide feels guilty about killing already three people, and thinks that if he kills the monkeys he would safe the ladies. But he actually killed the lovers of the ladies! Everything turns upside down. This reminded me of Mr. Bean, i hate that series, and i don’t like that kind of humor, but for Mr. Bean, everything he does ends up happening the opposite of what is expected. For Candide, after killing the monkeys, “during the night they had been tied to a tree with ropes of pith by the Orneillons, the inhabitants of the country, to whom the two ladies had denounced them.” (pg. 70) Those are the kinds of things that happen only to Mr. Bean, in other context though. Mr. Bean things are explicitly funny, they are supposed to go wrong and for Candide, theya re not supposed to go wrong, but they do. In this clip, Mr. Bean is trying to entertain a boy, but everything he does is messed up and he ends up being all screwed and indeed he entertains the boy, but its all exaggerated and random as well.

Target

I just realized that all along I have read and understood the book the WRONG way. But I do not regret it, because I like learning from my mistakes. Today’s class I found out that it takes practice to get the tone right to the writing and understand what it is meant to transmit. I thought that Candide had some pieces of satire, yet not that the whole piece was a satire. And looking back I understand that it is true, that it actually is satire. Every event has a target, a mockery that has a specific target. An individual or a generalization, but it does have a target. I couldn’t believe it! It felt so good to understand much better. Is not that I had found the book boring, I didn’t, I actually likes it and had enjoyed it a lot, but now that I know that it is A satire, it get to enjoy it more, get the juice of it.

“He was a quarter Spaniard of half-breed Argentine stock, and had been successively chorister, verger, sailor, monk, commercial traveler, soldier, and footman.” (pg. 61) this satire is targeted to the slaves. Most servants are useful for absolutely everything, and probably know more than the master, but they are not recognized because of it.
“He made a sign, at which twenty-four soldiers surrounded the two new-comers.” Jajaja! Voltaire is evidently making fun through the novel of the aristocracy, the noblemen, the kings, Governors and all the people in power. The exaggeration of their power and wealth, that with just a gesture, twenty four soldiers come in.

A Movie

Yesterday I saw a movie that touched me, and even though I am not supposed to talk about that but about Candide, I think it is worth the entry. It is called Into The Wild. It’s about a boy that leaves everything behind and escapes from his family and society to live, literally, into the wild. His only company is books, he reads a lot of books and applies everything that he reads, all the teachings, the quotes into his own experiences. He was so full of knowledge and thirst for more that every moment he made it worthwhile. I identified with him in some way, I have always wanted to do something radical in my life, twist it 180 degrees and see what happens, but I have never actually dared to do so. Books encourage me to, as they encouraged him, and along with books this class, I have learned to see things other way, to find the fifth leg of in a cat. I love getting the best of every author, paraphrasing them into my own life, and even though I’m not such a reader, I do enjoy what I read, and I know that the good in every novel will stay in my mind, as long as I let it stay.

The Scenes

While reading the chapters i wanted to picture every scene in my mind as a play in a musical, like the clip. The conversation of the Naples guy and the old women, the daughter of the Princess of Palestine, I imagined it as both sitting in the bat telling the stories and a crowd behind them laughing at the exaggerations of their anecdotes. I pictured Lady Cunégonde’s expressions, “Just imagine the situation of a Pope’s daughter, fifteen years old, who in the space of three months had suffered poverty and slavery, had been ravished almost everyday, seen her mother quartet, endured the horrors of famine and battle, and was then dying of plague in Algiers.” (pg.55) She raising her arms and covering her face, frowning at her own misery. Obviously the scene is supposed to be funny and entertaining.

Another very interesting scene was the arrival to “Buenos Ayres” and meeting with the Governor, “Don Fernando d’Ibaraa y Figueroa y Mascarenes y Lampourdos y Souza” (pg. 58), a very over dressed men, fat and full of jewelry with a long mustache, “the greatest nobleman in South America with the most handsome of mustaches.” (pg. 59) over touching Lady Cunégonde and staring at Candide with disgrace. I imagine him talking in English with a Spanish accent and putting too much emphasis at what he says. Just imagining the scenes makes me laugh, out loud.

Surprises

I never imagined that Candide would kill. I always thought that he was a noble man, a charming and loving man that had gone through a lot of things but was wise enough not to commit such things as murder! Many people surprise me, I get “carried away by the appearances” (Epictetus) and judge sometimes in ways that I shouldn’t, and then that person does something that I did not expect and the whole judgment of that person is changed. Maybe by a comment, an action or a gesture, the person becomes someone else. Well, now I picture Candide differently. “I’ve got into the way of killing people. There’s no time to hesitate.” (pg. 45) He not only kills Issachar, but the Cardinal Inquisitor. But, why did he do it? He killed Issachar to defend himself, “With these words he drew a long dagger, which he always carried, and hurled himself at Candide, without pausing to think whether his opponent was armed.” (pg. 44) In a way, that’s an excuse. In the U.S if you kill someone for self defense you are not charged as a murderer, and are not taken to jail. I forgive Candide for killing Issachar, nonetheless I do not accept the murder of the Inquisitor. He did it just to get rid of a trouble. He knew that he might accuse him for the murder of Issachar, so he just avoided the problem by killing him!

The old lady is another one that surprised me. She happens to be the daughter of a Pope and a Princess, and not only a maid, as she seemed to be. She had to go through the same things or even worse than Lady Cunégonde. And again, do not get carried away by appearances.

Everything Happens For A Reason

The cliché says that “Everything happens for a reason.” (Everybody), parents tell you that, friends tell you that, teachers tell you that, and even Voltaire tells you that. You fall days before a competition and break a leg, the car’s tire gets pinched in your way to a party, you get splashed by a car when you are wearing a dress for an important even, you get sick before a trip, etc. They tell you when you are screaming in fury or crying in sadness that “everything happens for a reason” that’s why one should not be worried, but glad that it happened. Sometimes you later realize that it is true, or not. Do you believe in it? I do.

Candide has been going through a series of unfortunate events ever since he was born. He didn’t know who him mother was, some claimed that, “he was the son of the Baron’s sister” (pg. 19) but no one is sure, and his father he didn’t know either, only that he was supposedly from the same neighborhood. But thanks to that, he lives with the Baron and all his commodities, and he meets Pangloss, the tutor of the Baron’s son and he also meets Lady Cunégonde, by whom he falls in love. Candide kisses her behind the screen and because the Baron was passing by he kicked Candide out. Because of that he is then taken to the army, when then he is flogged and finally meets his so beloved tutor Pangloss again! Because of that they later are recruited for a voyage to Lisbon. A storm catches them in Lisbon, making half of the passengers to die, but him, Pangloss and another sailor. That leads them to the village of Coimbra and are taken under arrest “one for speaking and the other for listening with an air of approval.” (pg. 36). Pangloss is hanged and Candide is saved by an old woman of the multitude. This old woman takes him to his beloved Lady Cunégonde, who Candide believed as dead.

If after that you don’t believe that everything happens for a reason. You are in trouble.