Game theory has become a useful way to evaluate strategies for survival in cultural evolution scenarios. In a new study, scientists set up a model where human players engage with each other and compete for resources, and can change their strategies for doing so in various ways. They found that as more rounds of the game were played, the human players developed a tendency to imitate the best player, causing the players as a group to tend to play the game the same way. This implies that in cultural evolution, as one member of aspeciesgroup enjoys more and more success, its methods become hard to ignore for the others, which will eventually follow its lead.
The error was confusing biological evolution with cultural evolution. So if Brian and I are playing a game, and Brian consistently wins, I am likely to start playing the game the same way Brian does. That's how groups change their social behavior, and it is a form of cultural evolution. For it to be biological evolution, *I* would have to change my biology to be more like Brian, or at least so that my offspring are more like Brian (and if that happens, I'm going to be VERY suspicious about what Brian has been up to with my wife! ;-) ). People do not change their biology when they adapt new behaviors, but groups can change their culture to adopt new ways of doing things. (See Lamarkian Evolution)
Other than that, I'm OK with the article, and I've even looked up the original publication. Maybe I'll have more to say after I give that a read.
3 comments:
Perhaps that paragraph could refer to biological evolution in the sense that the more a species utilizes something, the more that attribute evolves in later generations. For example, let's say that before humans became perfectly erect, one human saw that it was much more efficient to use tools, and thus the other humans copied him. Of course, this doesn't cause the humans to instantly evolve into erect creatures, but in later generations the humans become more and more erect and ultimately walk perfectly upright because using tools require hands, and it is much easier to use your hands when you are upright. So basically, what I am saying is, while it is true that biology cannot change instantly, perhaps it can be affected in later generations by that human who used the tools, and in this way Game Theory affects evolution, but only if you stretch out the effects and time frame of the game to encompass generations.
Haha, well I don't know how much weight I can put into my words, seeing as I don't know too much about Game Theory. I only studied it briefly once in a class I had, but we mostly focused on The Prisoner's Dilemma, but I do find it very interesting.
I like your blog.
Hello Irene, thanks for your comments. If we stretch the definition I suppose it might count as evolution, but then it loses any aspect of "survival of the fittest". This application of game theory is certainly not about survival of the fittest.
Hi Trucker, you have it right: When we see players more successful than we are, we learn to adopt the same methods - the same army selection - the same tactics, that allow that player to win. If you work/play hard and win a lot of games, people will start copying you.
Post a Comment