I was reading through reference material for another thread (re: co-operation vs. competition) when I came across something that sounds a lot more
like a Cointelpro operational model than a good strategy for anything else.
What do you think?
link:
en.wikipedia.org...'s_dilemma
excerpt:
(Southampton University) game strategy takes advantage of the fact that multiple entries were allowed in this particular (iterated prisoner's
dilemma) competition, and that the performance of a team was measured by that of the highest-scoring player.
The strategy relied on cooperation between programs to achieve the highest number of points for a single program. Southampton submitted 60 programs
to the competition, which were designed to recognize each other through a series of five to ten moves at the start. Once this recognition was made,
one program would always cooperate and the other would always defect, assuring the maximum number of points for the defector. If the program realized
that it was playing a non-Southampton player, it would continuously defect in an attempt to minimize the score of the competing program. As a result,
this strategy ended up taking the top three positions in the competition, as well as a number of positions towards the bottom.
[edit on 15-1-2009 by Rumpelstiltskin]
|
This thread sure doesn't seem to be getting any attention, which surprises me because the content seems like good ammo for debunking the conspiracy
theory debunkers. So, I will try to advance the discussion myself in this post.
I'm not suggesting here that counterintelligence learned of this strategy from Southampton University. What's interesting to me is that
Southampton's strategy seems to prove that there is no competing strategy that could ever defeat counterintelligence tactics. That is, unless the
rules of the game are changed by us. Maybe a paraphrase of the previous sentence would have been a better the title of this thread.
If you don't understand what I'm talking about, please feel free to ask questions. This is a lonely thread. 
|
Essentially what you are suggesting is that because the suspects (ie terrorists in this case) are capable of communication, they can use the
southampton superrational method to create designated patsies, so as to allow the real masterminds to skip free.
However your theory is false on two counts :
1. It suggests that terrorism is treated like a normal criminal case, and that the defector (mastermind terrorist) is let free once he defects and the
patsy takes the fall.
2. That the mastermind will not be exposed to further games- when in reality the masterminds release videos and tapes etc which freely state their
objectives.
|
Cool reply 44soul... I think you might not understand where I am coming from, but that would be my fault if true.
In the 'game' that I am talking about, WE are the prisoners, not the terrorists. And by WE, I mean you, me, and everyone else with no real
political power in the game, at least not under the current rules. Of course, the point of the game is for us to get out of prison, and to do that we
need to find the truth.
Truth is the key. Problem is, we don't co-operate with each other nearly as well as those who would like to keep us from finding the key. And even
if today we decided to start co-operating (to find the key), it's too late. Why? Because even the most successful strategy of honest co-operation
known to modern science (designed to find keys) cannot defeat our opponents who cheat at will by entering as many rogue players as needed into the
game (and even into our own camp) to foil all of our attempts to escape.
Nothing can be done about this until the RULES of the game CHANGE.
Until then, Southampton will always win.
Did that help?
[edit on 16-1-2009 by Rumpelstiltskin]
|
reply to post by Rumpelstiltskin
Totally with you now my friend.
I think essentially we can sum it up with two things:
a) That people are generally selfish and will attempt to squeeze every last drop out of the system by "betraying" others in order to get ahead.
and
b) Perhaps more sinisterly the poem :
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Rationally speaking humanity would advance if we all worked together. We would advance not only against any oppression, but in new realms of science,
technology and spirituality.
However the nature of man is intrinsically selfish. Cooperation will never work, unless a greater goal is found; and certainly cannot work in the
mundane long term.
Am I on the right tracks?
|
reply to post by 44soulslayer
Yes, I think you see. The poem fits in well too. I would disagree that humans are incapable of evolving beyond naive, short-sighted selfishness,
though, and I would disagree that co-operation would never work over the long term, but that is the subject of another thread I started entitled,
“Cooperation is more profitable than competition,” which I hope you will check out and agree with or challenge me there.
As for this thread, if you understand that the only way for us to get out of prison in this game is to change the rules of the game (by simply
co-operating with each other to vote through rule changes), then you understand exactly what I was hoping someone would understand in this thread.
Thank you, 44soul... !
[edit on 16-1-2009 by Rumpelstiltskin]
|
