Notes on Axelrods' The Evolution of cooperation




from 'Evolution and the theory of games', by John Maynard-Smith.


I first heard about Axelrod's study of the prisoner's dilemma, The Evolution of Cooperation (published in the early 1980s) from Carol Webb of Complexual. The project bears many similarities to Rethinking Wargames. It poses the question "Under what conditions will cooperation emerge in a world of egoists without central authority"




According to Axelrod's studies the most successful algorithm for mutually beneficial, long term cooperation is tat-for-tat. Employed over a long period of time- or many times over a short period, the tit for tat strategy leads to balance and synergy in a stable environment, and all players benefit.



The key and relevant elements of the 'tit for tat strategy'

1) be nice- never attack first

2) be fair- always retaliate but be measured in your retaliation

3) be forgiving- once punished, your opponent should be given the benefit of the doubt and trusted to cooperate.

4) be sure that the relationship has longevity
5) be clear- communicate your strategy clearly through your actions, don't be too clever it will make to your cooperatee- nervous and more likely to cheat.

6) ensure that you understand the nature of your cooperatee so that reward and punishment cannot be confused.

7) VERY IMPORTANT- do not envy your cooperatee - if they do well, so will you. Judge the benefits of your cooperation by how well someone else might be doing in your shoes.



Chris Meredith provides a clear and more in depth explanation of 'the prisoners' dilemma' and 'tit for tat'.



Axelrod illustrates the tit for tat strategy in a chapter about the 'The Live-and-Let-Live System in Trench Warfare in World War I'

"Sometimes cooperation emerges where it is least expected. During World War I, the Western Front was the scene of horrible battles for a few yards of territory. But between these battles, and even during them at other places along the five-hundred-mile line in France and Belgium, the enemy soldiers often exercised considerable restraint. A British staff officer on a tour of the trenches remarked that he was





”astonished to observe German soldiers walking about within rifle range behind their own line. Our men appeared to take no notice. I privately made up my mind to do away with that sort of thing when we took over; such things should not be allowed. These people evidently did not know there was a war on. Both sides apparently believed in the policy of "live and let live." (Dugdale 1932, p. 94)





The common sense of the 'tit for tat' approach appears to hold sway as a cooperative strategy in the global community at large. With the recent war on Iraq, Bush and his allies, struggled to justify their preemtive strike by identifying Sadam Hussein's equivalent punishable crimes:genocide against the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, the manufacture of weapons of mass distruction, harbouring Al-Kaida terrorists. It is clear that they were less concerned about being regarded as liars than of openly breaking the number 1 tit for tat rule (be nice- don't cheat first) by declaring a motivation of clear self interest, ie we need to maintain control of oil and security in the Middle East.



The 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission'website documents the attempt by the Government of National Unity in South Africa to 'help deal with what happened under apartheid. The conflict during this period resulted in violence and human rights abuses from all sides. No section of society escaped these abuses.' Through an alternative interpretation of the tit for tat strategy, it became clear that the public shame felt by perpetrators of inhumane actions, served as a 'measured' punishment. This and the policy of reparations for victims (funded by the government) were adopted to maintain the cooperation of all communities once it was established that they were to live in equality for the foreseeable future.