Competition vs Cooperation

Some look at this as merely a game strategy. I think it is more than that. A strategy is something that is chosen to give an advantage to a side in a conflict. But who wrote the story that one is in conflict? So, no conflict, no stragagy necessary ... yet one can sill cooperate ... maybe because it just feels better all around ... right?

video

Comments

Seth says

...... 2015-08-12 10:20:00 18374

Wikipedia: ... Game theory is the study of strategic decision making. Specifically, it is "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers."[1] An alternative term suggested "as a more descriptive name for the discipline" is interactive decision theory.[2] Game theory is mainly used in economics, political science, and psychology, as well as logic, computer science, and biology. The subject first addressed zero-sum games, such that one person's gains exactly equal net losses of the other participant or participants. Today, however, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations, and has developed into an umbrella term for the logical side of decision science, including both humans and non-humans (e.g. computers, animals).

... the polarity you speak of is not necessarily essential for intelligent decisions & behaviors. Cooperation can be a strategy in making intelligent decisions.

well sure, i totally agree

. Both cooperation and competition are strategies that can be employed to make things better (or more intelligent) relative to some frame of reference.

Mark de LA says

seth 2015-08-12 15:02:36 18672

not caring can be a symptom of Solipsism

which shares many behaviors with Sociopathy

Seth says

...... 2015-08-12 13:45:15 18374

seth 2015-08-12 13:21:33 18374

you bring up an interesting question, however ... is everything the ultimate frame of reference? Actualy i would go there with you, but for the impossibility of being aware of every specific thing. That is one reason i think this no-limits-meme needs to be debunked. Note, just waving at it's representation in your being is not the same thing as being there. Maybe that is the distinction that must be realized here.

Practically speaking, as long as you hold your selfie the way you do & protect it with what you want to believe you can have your limits & limitations. Ontologically speaking, however, why do that? Not knowing what limits you or others & waiting or pressing for something to show up as another choice seems more enjoyable. Certainly, I don't accept anything you say as limiting me & I am sure the sentiment is visa-versa. Also, I don't blame humanity, society, concensus or any other abstract collection as having that affect on me either.

Well assuming that one makes all of their own reality; then yes, it follows if one believes in a limitation then one's own selfie has created it. That hangs together well just as long as you accept the premise that one makes all there own reality. Kind of a circular way of thinking, though.

Ontological speaking my assertion is based upon the logical fact that a part of something is not the same thing as the whole thing. If you accept that assumption ... if that is a feature of the ontology that you have created .... then it is clear that an single individual does have limits, specifically the limit that they are not aware of all specifics of the whole universe.

Seth says

source: ...
Yep, when you focus or study something you need a context!

... yes you need the context

and it is impossible not to have a frame of reference.

The better studies are the ones that have the larger context and the larger frame of reference ... this has been discussed here.

Seth says

...... 2015-08-12 13:46:31 18374

seth 2015-08-12 12:52:32 18374

...... 2015-08-12 12:39:15 18374

seth 2015-08-12 12:15:57 18374

outside of your normal personal "everything is shit" kind of feelings ... why did you tag this item infinite zero ?

It is the ultimate context.

yeah i guess in the sense that everything and nothing can be seen as the same thing

.

but, i don't know, to me that as "ultimate context" feels like ... and sounds like ... the "ultimate mung" ... the ultimate generalization ... a story told by an idiot full of sound and fury to make himself feel insignificant. Sorry, not my thingy

. I dance to a different beat ... i love

love specifics ... examples ... tangeabilities ... consequences ... especially those that i can share with others.

You seem more often to munge into abstractions. Just my observation, though, could be another infinite nothing.

and i guess you are not going to be surprised that i observe that you more often generalize and use that generalization where it is not warranted. Strangely enough, were you want to take a specific scientific attitude on the matter, we could start a item counting the number where we violate some mutually agreeded upon rule of "munging".

Seth says

ENOUGHNESS: Restoring Balance to the Economy in the Most Awesome Way Ever

toread in this context

Competition vs Cooperation

Tags

Comments

See Also