[Kyro38]

The author has an interesting game about "trust": https://ncase.me/trust/

[xp84]

Echoing all the others that this Trust game is great, I noticed something else that struck me in some of the "play with the dials" stages.

The game showed us that when you decrease the reward for Cooperate/Cooperate from +2 to +1, the Always-Cheats take over. But I tried increasing the reward for above the default of +2 to +3 or +4 and an interesting thing happened: The naïve Always-Cooperates actually took over!

It made me think about how a lot of cynical people -- of both sides of the political divide -- play the 'game' as 'cutthroatly' as possible. I think if you asked these people how they see the world, they'd tell you that "the system is rigged anyway" such that there's barely any benefit to cooperating. "So why shouldn't I exploit everything I can to get mine?" And in a world where there's arguably not enough reward for cooperating, I can see how people arrive at a cynical conclusion and become Always-Cheaters. This is why people who work for minimum wage generally don't want to work hard and provide great customer service. And it's why companies who employ them don't want to pay them a living wage and benefits. Both sides would tell you that the rewards of doing that aren't worth the risks or the cost.

If we could somehow bring about greater rewards for good-faith participation (working hard → a very high likelihood of affording a moderately nice lifestyle), I think a lot of cynicism would be outcompeted by more cooperative attitudes. Obviously I'd already be President of the World if I knew how to just make that happen, though.

[spoonjim]

That’s why the US was higher trust when uneducated people could get well paying factory jobs

[bentcorner]

Makes me wonder how you could apply this to social media.

What if you had a social media site where you could only see the same set of people? (Say, 150 people - Dunbar's number)

This isn't perfect by any means, but how would you fix it from there? Would you make it mix the population every few months? Maybe just comments/reactions are restricted to your cohort but you can see all posts? Would you mix the population based on some kind of score? Could that score be multi-dimensional?

[TeMPOraL]

It probably wouldn't work, because social media is voluntary. People can just reduce participation, or just leave, and find alternative ways to get whatever value they were getting from the social media site. Users stay because it's fun, or because their friends are staying (network effect); your proposed interventions would both frustrate the users and weaken or destroy the "glue" that keeps them coming back.

In contrast, those natural social networks of yore - tribes, villages - were all-encompassing, and you were stuck with them. The modern social networks that are strong - school, university, work - also have this strong "like it or not, I'm stuck here with this people" component. Sure, it's easier to change a job than a tribe, but it's still costly.

[DavidPiper]

Adding a comment so this stands out. It's the game of Nicky's I come back to the most. A very interesting look into the game theory of trust.

[rapnie]

Also liked the Parable of the Polygons about the shape of society: https://ncase.me/polygons

Hell, they are all great!

[acomjean]

She has a bunch of really though provoking web mini games.

I always remember "parable of the polygons"

https://ncase.me/projects/

Everything seems fresh, though this door one was 2015.

[shever73]

I also really like "We Are What We Behold"[0], Nicky's projects are always clever and thought-provoking.

[0] https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb

[hayst4ck]

I love this game and think it is one of the most important things on the internet, but I hate the consequence. The intended message is great: cooperate and forgive so that you can live in a great society. The corollary is absolutely awful... If you let defectors win, you are responsible for creating the defection.

[cosmojg]

Indeed! It's awful, but all-too-true. Those who enable the bullies can be as bad for the group as the bullies themselves. Cultivating, protecting, and maintaining a peaceful and trustful society is an active effort, not a passive one.

“First they came for the Communists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me

And there was no one left

To speak out for me”

—Martin Niemöller

[DiscourseFan]

I think game theory is really cool and all, but I'm not sure it actually has much relevance for analyzing human behavior. It is always taught in that way, to simplify it for undergrads, but the mathematical concepts, I think, are significantly more important than the "ethical" questions.

[dadadad100]

This one reminded me that this is a well-studied problem. It turns out cooperation is nearly optimal [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation

[jspann]

I liked playing this game! The art style, animations, and overall messages were a really good experience! I look forward to sharing this with my friends later.

[tamasnet]

Thanks so much for sharing this, deeply impactful.

[batmansmom1]

All of the games made by them are really awesome I highly recommend

[nmz]

More about the prisoners dilemma it seems.

[baggachipz]

This was awesome, thank you for linking.

[hddqsb]

TL;DR:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat