Copycats Prevail

[toastywombel]

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58095/title/Copycats_prevail_in_computerized_survival_game

 

Pretty interesting little article, here is a peak,

 

Being a maverick doesn’t pay, at least not when braving a strange new world in a computer game that’s like Survivor meets Second Life. The outcome of a computerized game tournament, which finds that a copycat strategy is best, may help explain why mimicking others is so prevalent in nature.

I wanted to know what you guys think.

 

Does this study accurately reflect nature?

 

On another point. I am guessing the independent thinkers, however, do play a necessary role in the game, despite the copycats being more successful. The reason I say this, is because someone has to break the ice initially and try something. However beneficial or detrimental the actions of a bold individual are serves as a lesson to the other individuals in the environment. Even though the risk takers/individuals may have a greater chance of dying or making a mistake, if it was not for their initial mistakes/success the copycats would have nothing to copy or not copy for that manner.

Edited April 9, 2010 by toastywombel

[Mr Skeptic]

Interesting. However, code is something that is very easily copied and much harder to produce -- the real world is rife with copied, recycled, repurposed code. I'm not clear on the details of the participants' coding skills, nor on how exactly the copying is done.

[toastywombel]

Interesting. However, code is something that is very easily copied and much harder to produce -- the real world is rife with copied, recycled, repurposed code. I'm not clear on the details of the participants' coding skills, nor on how exactly the copying is done.

 

Good points, maybe better programmers could program unique actions more successfully.

 

And yeah I would think unique actions are easier to come about and produce using a human brain and body, as opposed to coding it into a computer.

[ewmon]

Going into the study, the researchers thought the optimal strategy would be some kind of mixture of copying and innovating, Laland says

The researchers wanted to compare imitation to innovation, so I get the impression that they arranged the game to allow players to copy behavior, not to copy code. Thus, the actions and status of other players are available as data.

 

For example: "IF (>50% of players = eating) AND (<10% = sick), THEN eat UNTIL (full) OR (no food)." So, upon entering a berry field, if many players are eating and few are sick, then the player eats.

 

In the least, this explains the mob mentality and human "lemmings", and it shows that innovation is risky.

[toastywombel]

The researchers wanted to compare imitation to innovation, so I get the impression that they arranged the game to allow players to copy behavior, not to copy code. Thus, the actions and status of other players are available as data.

 

For example: "IF (>50% of players = eating) AND (<10% = sick), THEN eat UNTIL (full) OR (no food)." So, upon entering a berry field, if many players are eating and few are sick, then the player eats.

 

In the least, this explains the mob mentality and human "lemmings", and it shows that innovation is risky.

 

Well to some degree it was copying code because the actions were not displayed as visual they were displayed as mathematical code.

[ewmon]

Right, actions and status available as "code-able" data. I think copying the decision-making of an innovator (ie, copying innovative code) would cause a player to act as an innovator.

[toastywombel]

Right, actions and status available as "code-able" data. I think copying the decision-making of an innovator (ie, copying innovative code) would cause a player to act as an innovator.

 

I would disagree, copying code written by an innovative person implies that you did not create the code, and there is no innovation in that.

[Mr Skeptic]

For example: "IF (>50% of players = eating) AND (<10% = sick), THEN eat UNTIL (full) OR (no food)." So, upon entering a berry field, if many players are eating and few are sick, then the player eats.

 

But is that really copying? This simply shows that the data shows the berries to be safe. Is there a way to tell what berries are safe independent of watching the other players?

[toastywombel]

But is that really copying? This simply shows that the data shows the berries to be safe. Is there a way to tell what berries are safe independent of watching the other players?

 

I don't think so, also the article seems to imply that the environment is constantly changing, so a berry that is safe one day could be dangerous the next or the safe berries or no longer located where they previously were.

[Mr Skeptic]

Right, but if that is so, then the researchers would have to be pretty dense to expect anything but "copying" (since that is the only data available).

[ewmon]

The article's language seems very ambiguous to me ... it seems that the software copied actions. It's very hard to copy someone's thought process, but it's very easy to copy someone's behavior.

 

...the players could copy others’ behaviors or write a program to create a new move.

 

... [a program called] discountmachine [had a] penchant for copying

 

... This allowed avatars to pay less attention to previous actions that were once successful.

 

...the winning program’s success ... works only when there are other agents around to copy

[Genecks]

The article's language seems very ambiguous to me ... it seems that the software copied actions. It's very hard to copy someone's thought process, but it's very easy to copy someone's behavior.

 

Are you saying that it is difficult for conscious organisms, such as Homo sapiens, to copy thought processes?

[ewmon]

Yes. I think that our exchange is a prime example of this difficulty. It was very easy for you to copy my words (ie, my behavior), but you needed to ask me to explain my thoughts to you.

 

;)

“I know you believe you understand what you think I said,

but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

;)

[toastywombel]

Yes. I think that our exchange is a prime example of this difficulty. It was very easy for you to copy my words (ie, my behavior), but you needed to ask me to explain my thoughts to you.

 

;)

“I know you believe you understand what you think I said,

but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

;)

 

Well our language is very well adapted at allowing us to communicate ideas and thoughts. Humans also are very well adapted at copying, so I don't think it is as hard to copy a thought process as you may think.

[pioneer]

Copying is easier and requires little effort. Copying is like stealing, if what is being copied, is not being given freely. Someone else puts in the front end effort and takes the hard knocks. The thief comes in and skims the cream. Humans are natural born thieves.

 

Some people will put in the effort but will share the cream. This is not stealing.

 

Corporations, universities, etc., go through a lot of trouble to protect intellectual property from copying. One can invest millions developing and testing an idea or concept. Someone can copy it for free and then capitalize on it with less effort. They have less overhead and can begin the race at point B, instead of starting the race at point A.

 

If the game had rules to protect the intellectual property of the initiators, so one could not steal quite as easy, the results would change.

[toastywombel]

Copying is easier and requires little effort. Copying is like stealing, if what is being copied, is not being given freely. Someone else puts in the front end effort and takes the hard knocks. The thief comes in and skims the cream. Humans are natural born thieves.

 

Some people will put in the effort but will share the cream. This is not stealing.

 

Corporations, universities, etc., go through a lot of trouble to protect intellectual property from copying. One can invest millions developing and testing an idea or concept. Someone can copy it for free and then capitalize on it with less effort. They have less overhead and can begin the race at point B, instead of starting the race at point A.

 

If the game had rules to protect the intellectual property of the initiators, so one could not steal quite as easy, the results would change.

 

Yes, but I think the point to be made, is most everything you or I know was at some point copied from other individuals.

[moth]

how far does this copying go? am "i" a collection of memes the way my physicality is a collection of genes.

maybe the brain is a meme replicator and "i" am an illusion like hofstadter strange loopiness.