From: kumarv@blaze.rutgers.edu (kumar vadaparty)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: BOOKREVIEW: Prisoner's Dilemma.
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:31:16 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

As promised, I am posting the review of the following book:

	Prisoner's Dilemma , John Von Neumann, Game theory, 
				The puzzle of the bomb.
	by William Poundstone, Doubleday publ.
		

The review has two parts: Summary, and my comments. My comments will
involve a comparison of prisoner's dilemma with Ayn Rand's "Rational
objectivism" or "John Galtism" (or some variation of those
words/phrases) and see what happens if we take this "rational self
interest" to its logical conclusion. Also, read what von Neumann had
to say about pure mathematics. I really loved it. Any takers of
pure mathematics/purephysics?

SUMMARY:
--------

The author describes (i) Game theory (ii) von Neumann's life (iii) The
role played by Russell and von Neumann in the A-bomb, in the pre- and
post-war periods. It is a thickly weaved plot of these issues,
intertwined in a very interesting manner. I can not make my summary so
nicely intertwined. Instead, I describe these two separately.

	The game theory starts with defining what two person zero-sum
games are, and how to obtain a best solution in that case. An example
of a zero-sum game is dividing cake between two kids. Each kid will
complain she got the smaller part. Common sense and game theory agree
on the solution: Let one kid cut the cake and the second pick her
piece. Then the author goes ahead and states the minimax theorem.  No
proof is offered (references to proof are given). The book then goes
ahead and states non zero-sum games, which are of major interest.
Prisoner's dilemma is a non-zero-sum game: "There are two prisoners,
and they are interviewed separately by two policemen, and the
prisoners are required to either report on each other, or confess or
deny". In one possible world, they both get away with least punishment
and in another they both get penalized. In the remaining two possible
worlds, one gets penalized while the other goes away with least
punishment. Given that the players (i.e. the prisoners) are rational
human beings interested in optimizing one's own profit, we arrive at
the solution that they both report on each other, thus making the life
miserable for both. i.e. lack of trust leads to more miserable
situation. The book then goes ahead and describes a number of more
puzzles that we encounter in everyday life. One particular puzzle I
remember is "volunteer" puzzle. If the electricity fails in a
locality, who goes and reports to the fuse off call office? Any one
such report will do, but everyone may wait for the other one to
report. Another puzzle is called "chicken puzzle". Two cars approach
each other in opposite directions, and the one who swerves out first
is called a chicken.  How best one can come out of the situation with
least damage?  The book discusses these puzzles in a very detailed and
formal manner.

	Von Neumann (a Hungarian born german-lived, fled-to-US Jew) is
a mathematical genius with photographic memory. He was an atheist
until almost his dying days when he converted into christianity
(seriously); he tookup catholism once before (i.e. non seriously) just
for his second wife. His first wife and he got divorced "on amicable
basis" after having a daughter. He died of cancer. His dog's name is
"INVERSE". He worked in the notorious (famous?) Los Alamos bomb
project for producing the A-Bomb. Later, after the war, he strongly
advocated "a preventive nuclear attack" on USSR, stating that any
rational player should do that to maximize his profits. Russell also
supported this "preventive" attack. It did not happen however(you all
know that).  The book also discusses in detail about the cuban missile
prblem. US and USSR wer going in opposite directions about to hit each
other and blowup the world. Russell sent telegrams to Kruschev and JFK
asking Krushchev to show restraint, and telling him that he had the
right to erect nuclear warheads in cuba; the telegrams to JFK were
however not so polite -- he told JFK that he had no right to oppose
USSR in what it wants to do.  The telegrams of Russell provided the
opportunity to Kruschev to "swerve" from the path and yet not being
called chicken -- says the author, thus drawing a nice comparison to
the chicken puzzle.

The book has some nice photographs of John von Neumann, his wife,
Russell, Oppenheimer, etc.

My comments:
------------ 

Game theory provides a formal mathematical basis for countering this
oft praised "AYN-RAND-LIKE" claims "RATIONAL SELF INTEREST".  The
theory proves beyond doubt that rational self interest may sometimes
be bad for the entire society together. In other words, if EVERYBODY
follows this "rational self interest", then the society as a whole may
not really flourish as much as when EVERYBODY showed some restrain on
this rational self interest.  

We all encounter these dilemmas in everyday life:leave a tip, stop and
help someone, lie, conserve electricity, etc.  Rational self interest,
in these cases, can lead to an immediate personal gain, but not a long
term help to the society as a whole.

As the author says, most of our reallife situations are not one-time
prisoner's dilemmas. They are iterated dilemmas. We do go to the same
restaurant again and again, and a tip may help in getting proper
service, etc. Thus, acting in self interest also, the society may be
better off by cooperating rather than by always taking rational self
interest to its logical extreme.

However, I feel that even in non-iterated situations, a bit of
compromise is better although irrational. Like when you help a blind
man on the road, etc. Afterall it is this logical and rational
self-interest in one of its evilest incarnations that is visiting US in
the form of lawyers, gamblers on wall street and the other people
involved in "reconstruction of organizations". If in doubt, read
"AMERICA: WHAT WENT WRONG?" One day, I will post the summary of
this book also.

That's why we need SOME control and this can be in the form of "F**"
(Federal regulations of this or that).  Ofcourse, the controls
themselves need to be restrained else you get into communism. In fact,
 communism and capitalism can be looked up on as two different
strategies of solving the prisoner's dilemma. ONe opts for global good
and the other for local good.  I feel that either of the approaches in
their purest form are therefore not applicable but in some moderate
form are what we we want.

In other words, Ayn Rand is as wrong in "RATIONAL SELF INTEREST" as
was Marx in "RATIONAL GLOBAL GOOD", if followed in their purest forms.
At least, I think so.

Another aside is von Neumann's comments on pure mathematics, which I
think is equally applicable to pure physics (theoretical) and
theoretical computer science.

	"Pure mathematics becomes more and more purely aesteticizing,
more and more purely l'art pour l'art. This need not be bad, if the
field is surrounded by correlated subjects, which still have closer
empirical connections, or if the discipline is under the influence of
men with an exceptionally developed taste. But there is a grave danger
that the subject will develop along the line of least resistance, that
the stream, so far from its source, will separate into a multitude of
insignificant branches and that the discipline will become a
disorganized mass of details and complexities. In other words, at a
great distance for its empirical source, or after much "abstract"
inbreeding, a mathematical subject is in danger of degeneration. At
the inception the style is usually classical; when it shows the signs
of becoming baroque, then the danger signal is up. It would be easy to
give examples, to trace specific evolutions into baroque and the very
high baroque...."
-- 
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA