The Evolution of Cooperation

Nice book on how cooperation can emerge even in a world of egoists -- based on simple computer models! I love this stuff. Axelrod is very entertaining and accessible, and succinctly expresses the implications of all his academic findings in daily life.

Turns out that when cooperation benefits everyone but is hard to ensure, the secret of your own success can be found in these axioms: Be nice. Don't be envious. Be provocable, but forgive if the other apologizes meaningfully. Be clear. A tit-for-tat strategy that is initially cooperative and then automatically echoes whatever the other person did in the last round is one of the best strategies you can use (more successful than the Golden Rule) -- even though you may never beat your partner, it is still the way to do the best for yourself, and improves society simultaneously.

Though the biology chapter reads like picked-and-chosen evidence and the book is a bit repetitious (all the better for assigning to university students), this book gets a thumbs up from me. ( )

This book might be a bit dated but it still offers interesting in what makes cooperation between individuals work (or not) by interpreting results coming from a computer experiment in game theory. Axelrod begins by describing the famous "Prisoner's dilemma" and discussing which computer algorithms are the most efficient in solving it. He then shows how many real-life situations can be modeled as "prisoner's dilemma" and how individuals tend to react just as the abstract computer algorithms do. By drawing upon his observations, both in game theory and in real-life examples, the author concludes by giving some tips on how to foster cooperation in a given environment, or how to provide an environment favorable to cooperation. Backed by such simple, rational theory, his advice appear much sounder than most of what can be found in all the business-success-self-help-mumbo-jumbo literature... ( )

You've seen The Dark Knight and you're marvelling over the outcome of the scenario with the two ferries wired with explosives and each ferry given a control that will blow the other ferry out of the water. You watched as the tension grew with each passing second. Would someone push the button to blow the other guy out of the water or was there a way out of this?

It's a scenario referred to as the prisoner's dilemma.

This book explores that game scenario, how it came to be, how it became a winning strategy in computer gaming, and most importantly how this game is played out every day in myriad ways you never dreamed possible - especially in your own life, if you are willing to take a long, hard, honest look.

The book contains the most cogent argument for co-operation over ruthless competition as a strategy for survival and success. The might-is-right arguments of those who wield and abuse power for short-term gain are countered by proof that co-operation wins in the end and mercy triumphs over might.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is more than a platitude; it's a winning strategy - the ONLY winning strategy.

This book ought to be compulsory reading in every school, family, business, place of worship, and legislature. ( )

This is everything a popularized account of science should be. It is clear, deep, practical as well as theoretical, and very relevant. I knew of the Prisoner's Dilemma, and I knew of Axelrod's computer tournament, so I thought I wouldn't get much out of this book. I was wrong: the discussion goes far beyond the game itself and into a grounded exposition of the growth of cooperation in a selfish environment. Fantastic. ( )

Explores how cooperation can emerge in a world ruled by selfishness with no central authority or rule. Axelrod demonstrates that enlightened self interest can lead to effective cooperation in any situation where the participants believe that they will need to interact with each other in the future. These lessons can, and should be applied to personal, corporate, national, and international interactions. After reading this book I noticed that I was much less likely to take an all or nothing approach when dealing with others, and was more more likely to look for win-win options. ( )