Non-zero sum game

The Selfish Gene

P. 222-233

.

What is a non-zero sum game?

"In zero-sum games, the fortunes of the players are inversely related. In tennis, in chess, in boxing, one contestant's gain is the other's loss. In non-zero-sum games, one player's gain needn't be bad news for the other(s). Indeed, in highly non-zero-sum games the players' interests overlap entirely. In 1970, when the three Apollo 13 astronauts were trying to figure out how to get their stranded spaceship back to earth, they were playing an utterly non-zero-sum game, because the outcome would be either equally good for all of them or equally bad. (It was equally good.)

.
Back in the real world, things are usually not so clear-cut. A merchant and a customer, two members of a legislature, two childhood friends sometimes—but not always—find their interests overlapping. To the extent that their interests do overlap, their relationship is non-zero-sum; the outcome can be win-win or lose-lose, depending on how they play the game." Taken from http://nonzero.org/gametheory.htm

.

What is a zero-sum game?

In game theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s). It is so named because when the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Chess and Go are examples of a zero-sum game: it is impossible for both players to win. Zero-sum can be thought of more generally as constant sum where the benefits and losses to all players sum to the same value. Cutting a cake is zero- or constant-sum because taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others. In contrast, non-zero-sum describes a situation in which the interacting parties' aggregate gains and losses is either less than or more than zero. Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum

Nice Guys Finish First

The Selfish Gene

Pg. 202-222

.

.....I began reading Chapter 12, Nice Guys Finish Last, and quite honestly I didn't understand much of how Prisoner's Dilemna is really played. I didn't even understand the game relating to Tit for Tat. However, all I know is that most probable thing any human would do is chose whatever saves him from the consequences or punishment he/she will receive. Humans are a selfish species after all; we might appear to have altruistic moments and characteristics but when it comes to life or death, we are definitely selfish. What would you do if you had to choose whether to tell on someone or spend the next 10 years (a whole lifetime!) of your life in a 3X3 cell? I would definitely tell on the person and so would you and everyone you know! Even if there's only a chance that by risking someone else you can save yourself, you will still betray the person. The little piece of hope that "what if" brings, will always push you to tell on the person. I think this has something to do with Darwin's survival of the fittest.

.

......The fittest person is the one that is willing to do whatever it takes in order to insure their survival. They are the selfish ones because they are willing to risk and endanger anyone else as long as they are safe. If you just stand around trying to protect everyone, then you aren't watching after yourself and this could put your survival at risk. Therefore, in my opinion, the fittest are the selfish beings that want to ensure their survival above anyone else's.

Gene Machines

The Selfish Gene

Pg. 50-65

......As I read this chapter, I had no idea where Dawkins was heading, not to mention it was one of the hardest chapters I've read so far. It was a jumble of ideas. It was as if he was trying to tie loose ends in one chapter with very little explanations. I mean, he began by talking about muscles, then he compared genes and brains to a computers and programmers, then he talked about electronic chess games. But his jumble didn't stop there he began a brief talk about simulation and learning, and just when it couldn't become more confusing he jumped back to his thesis, selfish vs. altruistic species. I must admit I was confused through most of the chapter and had to read many passage more than once, but now that I look back at it, it's all connected.

.

......The chapter is called "The Gene Machine," and as I read I soon found out the brain is a gene machine. The brain was created by genes, in order for them to survive and flourish in the world. However, the brain soon got powerful enough to avoid the gene's commands by learning and simulating what it wanted. The genes in a way conformed to the brain's newly acquired power as long as they could live in peace, and the brain provided them with a hearty survival. (But wouldn't this conformity also lead to their end? The brain obviously has the upper hand; it can do whatever it wants. What if the brain makes a bad choice and the body dies? What happens if a choice affects a gene and makes it unrepairable? What would the genes do then to ensure their survival? They wouldn't be able to do anything, I mean, they would be dead!) But, this example is present in every day action; it isn't as unique as one would think.

.

......Everywhere we look, people conform to their government, to their society, to their culture, to their economic status, to their friends, to anything really, as long as their confomity provides some sort of stability and security. People are willing to accept just about anything as long as their choice doesn't endanger their existence in any way or form. However, their choices are never 100% insured; no one can tell what's going to happen for sure in future. However, as the famous saying goes, Like father, like son. As humans beings we are just like the genes that make us up.

The Selfish Gene

Response to Richard Dawkin's Video

.

....Up to what I've read in this book, I don't understand why Dawkins could have called the book "The Altruistic Animal." I mean, Altruistic Gene would make sense, but just because you have a selfish gene doesn't mean you will automatically be altruistic. You need both genes in order to be one or the other. If you only have the selfish gene and not the altruistic one, then you can only be selfish. Or does it mean that the selfish gene contains both selfish and altruistic characteristics? I really don't understand these whole area. However, I completely agree when he states that his book is just another approach to the Darwinian theory. In my opinion, it's the same theory just looked at it from a gene's point of view, as well as from evolution. In the book, Dawkins is looking at humans, humans aren't the ones looking at evolution.

RESEARCH PAPER RULES AND SOURCES

RESEARCH RULES

Paraphrased from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/553/03/

1. Read the preface, as it will allow you to see what the author wants to portray in his writing. This will also allow to see if it´s detailed enough or not.
2. Look at the sources used in order to find other useful sources for your own paper.
3. You should make sure the material you are looking for is friendly for the audience you choose. Is it age appropiate?
4. Decide whether your source is biased or factual. Will this help your own research or not?
5. Evaluate the effectiveness of the source for what you need it.
6. Is the paper opinion or objective?
7. Is the theme overstated or oversimplified this might affect your own paper.
8. Is the source reliable, does it use reliable sources to back up his information?
9. How accurate is the source?
10. Does the author back up his points of view?
11. Is the source up to date? If not is this pertinent to your paper?
12. Try to look for the same information in another source to check it's accuracy.
13. What is the integrity and credibility of the source? Do they have any? Are they well-known and reliable?
14. Are both sides looked at in order to make the arguments? In other words, good arguments are given looking at both sides of the issue.

5 Secondary Sources for Table Manners

• http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=9FY516586155&site=ehost-live
• http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W62573137519&site=ehost-live
• http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=200706226010835811&site=ehost-live
• http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W64162464285&site=ehost-live
• http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W64209653248&site=ehost-live

Immortal Genes not Immortal DNA

The Selfish Gene

Pg. 35-50

.

November 18, 2007

1:59 P.M.

.

.......In my last blog about the Selfish Gene, I completely misinterpreted Dawkins' message. As I continued reading the "Immortal Coil" chapter, I realized that DNA isn't immortal. DNA does die eventually, however, genes are constantly passed down from generation to generation. Even if you die, another relative or another human being will probably have the genes that died along with you. They might not have your genetic combination, but they will have some genes and another person others. All your dead genes will still exist in other people. I had never looked at it this way, and I found it very interesting. It's true, as crazy as it sounds, genes never die. Some one else always have the genes that died (not all, and not in the same configuration), but they are very much present.

.

........Even if I do agree with Dawkins' point of view regarding gene longetivity, I don't agree with the theorical value he gives to sex. Dawkins calls sex a "bizarre perversion of straightforward replication (p. 43)." He thinks sex is an inefficient way to spread one's genes. Why go through all the trouble of finding a suitable partner and then go through all the trouble of sex? But sex isn't just for reproduction. Sex represents passions and emotions. Humans are a very passionate species; we just don't do things in order to "survive" as a species. I mean, we are driven by emotions: love, greed, ambition, and as corny as it sounds, we do follow our hearts. Sex isn't as superficial as Dawkins makes it sound, it has a much deeper, psychological meaning to humans. If it was only for the species' survival, then it would actually become more of a pressured burden than anything else.

.

.....I also don't agree with Dawkins' point to alter genes in order to prolong human lifespan. I mean, alter the genetic sequences in order to trick the genes to believe your are younger? There world's already overpopulated, the water supply is growing less and less with each day that passes by, why do you want more people to compete in order to survive? That's ridiculous. We need to let things run their course, because our need to intervene in everything in order to prolong our survival is just going to lead to our end.

So That Nobody Has To Go To School If They Don't Want To: Paraphrasing, Summarizing, Quoting

So That Nobody Has To Go To School If They Don't Want To

CLASS EXERCISE

November 15, 2007

PARAPHRASING: People have a misconception about schools, they aren't somewhere to play, fool around, or socialize; just as well, they aren't in place as babysitters. Schools are in place so people can go there and learn. If obligatory education is taken away, then people that don't want to enjoy this priviledge can have the choice to stay away.

ORIGINAL: First, it would alert everyone that school is a serious place where one goes to learn. Schools are neither day-care centers nor indoor street corners. Young people who resist learning should stay away; indeed, an end to compulsory schooling would require them to stay away.

SUMMARY: Studies have shown that obligatory education is very inefficient and a complete waste of time. Obligatory education just holds back students that actually want to learn something, and allows troublemakers to ruin the learning experience for others. Parents are usually deceived into believing that their children are attending a well rounded education that will help in the future; however, this isn't the case. By cleaning the learning environment of malefactors, the credibility and the reputation of educational institutions will improve. Costs will go down and the financial benefits for the different communities that apply will sky rocket. By taking away obligatory education, public education will not be ruined, it will just be a new incentive for legislators to fund even better education. In other words, by taking away obligatory education a lot of new benefits will be gained.

QUOTING: As Roger Sipher said in his "compulsory education" article: " Schools should be for education," not for playing around.