>>13355046I'm not in the mood looking for a decades old paper that has become textbook knowledge. They are doing everything they can to bury his contribution and whole existence and the wikipedia still insists on the disproven "rational" strategy.
>>13355146>What about the "cooperation" promoted by kin selection? Is that also getting selected against because of game theory?Yes.
>that that would be dumbNo it isn't.
>All group selection is, is the same mechanisms as Kin selection extended.Yes.
>What makes you say that cooperation is only the result of game theory, but not group selection as if they're mutually exclusiveThd winning strategy is tit for tat. Basically the standard honorable approach. Cooperate if you can, but strike back when you get cheated. The result is that anyone who tries to cheat gets hurt more than he gains.
Ot was long known that this is what people do, but they said it was irrational, and rational was to always try to cheat.
When comouters alliwed to simulate various strategies, the "irrational" tit for tat always won. They did everything they could to come up with a strategy that could outcheat it, but they all failed. They still refuse to accept it some of them come up with some claim it could be outcheated in some way. Wikipedia now says it actually irrational, contrary to the proven fact, and cite some absurd scenario where a massive group sacrifices itself so tgat one of their members can win. (or something like that) which cannot be stable because the whole group except the one gets ruined and then the one has none of the support he needs to win.
Even personally, mentioning this makes them furious and obviously they wouldn't want it to exist and insist it doesn't exist because it clearly contradicts their morals. And they keep pushing in any way they can to educate people about in their absurd morals to the ruin of everyone who listens and the western society as a whole.
