Twenty years ago, a political science professor at the University of Michigan came out with a seminal book titled the Evolution of Cooperation.

In it, he described how cooperative strategies could have evolutionary-beneficial consequences, and thus be selected for. In particular, via a series of computer game tournaments in which algorithms were submitted to play an extended iterated prisoner's dilemma, he identified a strategy that was the most successful called "Tit for Tat" (TFT). (Read the link for information as to how the game works.)

In this strategy, you retain a memory of past interactions with other entities, and you treat them exactly as they treated you the last time you dealt with them. If they cooperated the last time, you cooperate. If they defected on you the last time, you defect on them the next. If it's your first interaction, you cooperate.

The strategy has four characteristics that made it successful. It's simple and can be clearly and easily recognized after a brief period of time, it's forgiving, it's provocable and retributive (so that you can't get away with screwing it), and it's nice (that is, it never screws anyone for no reason--its default is to cooperate). In essence, it is cooperative, and is rewarded for being that way.

One of the interesting things about it is that the more similar algorithms it has to deal with, the better it does. Put in an environment of non-cooperators, it has a much harder time, but it can still be more successful than them, and if it has a few others to cooperate with, it can survive even in a sea of non-cooperators.

Non-cooperators, on the other hand, don't do well in a cooperative society. A non-nice strategy (one that always, or occasionally, or randomly defects unprovoked) won't do well in a world of TFTs, because after the first time they get screwed by it, they will not cooperate with it again, at least until it changes its ways. So while it gets a big payoff the first time, it gets a much smaller one in subsequent exhanges, whereas the TFTs interacting with each other always get the medium benefit.

Thus, it's possible for a small group of cooperators to "colonize" a larger group of non-cooperators, and eventually take it over, whereas a group of non-cooperators invading a larger group of cooperators will not thrive, and will eventually die out. This is the basis for Axelrod's (and others') claim that there is evolutionary pressure for cooperation to evolve.

This may hold the key to fixing Iraq, and ultimately the Middle East. While there's a lot of bad news coming from that country right now, the fact remains that much of it is calm and at peace--that part doesn't make the news. It may be that nationwide elections won't be possible in January, but certainly it should be for some regions (particularly the Kurdish region).

The Jihadists and ex-Ba'athists are determined to prevent a democracy from forming there, but if such can be established in large areas, it will provide an unnurturing environment for them there. Then we can gradually expand them, and tighten the noose around the Fallujahs over time. What we have to pay attention to is not the level of violence, but over how widespread a region it is. As more and more of the country becomes not only pacified, but wealthier, with a stake in continued peace and freedom, we can continue to shrink the territory in which the terrorists, the ultimate non-cooperators, can survive, and eventually kill them or starve them out.

Rand,

You're probably sick of 'Rathergate' by now, but this post sounds to me to be very much like the role that the bloggers played in arriving at the fundamental decision that the documents in question were forgeries.

There was also some discussion on Belmont Club about Hayek's (sp?) theories, which sounds rather similar in concept.

I do hope that your thesis about Iraq is valid. I have seen a number of somewhat similar ideas expressed in other contexts which would tend to support this application. One must also ask, however, whether the situation in Iraq is too complex to admit to that level of analysis. Perhaps it would be necessary to conflate chaos theory and cooperator theory?

John F.

The problem with the Kurdish area is the existence of a giant hand grenade - Kirkuk - in the middle of it. The split is about 55%-45% Sunni Kurds to Shia Turkomans and Arabs, with many Arabs fleeing south and more Kurds flooding in. The Shia minority there will not accept an accelerated Kurdish schedual for elections (they have memories of the Kurdish ethnic cleansing of the Turkomens in the '50s, as well as the possibility of revenge for the Anafal campaign) while the Kurds need Kirkut to guarentee economic independence. You get a refugee crisis or a civil war if you push through elections up there now. Turkey also gets antsy if it looks like a Kurdish entity is forming.

The only parts of Iraq that are partially stable that I can think of are the Kurdish mountain provinces and Basra (although Barsa was unsafe enough to justify the removal of the New Zealand contingent there). I would be interested in which parts of Iraq are considered at peace (U. S casualties have been concentrated in various regions because that is where most of the U. S. troops happen to be, and not necessarily because these regions are pacified),

The problem with the Kurdish area is the existence of a giant hand grenade - Kirkuk - in the middle of it. The split is about 55%-45% Sunni Kurds to Shia Turkomans and Arabs, with many Arabs fleeing south and more Kurds flooding in. The Shia minority there will not accept an accelerated Kurdish schedual for elections (they have memories of the Kurdish ethnic cleansing of the Turkomens in the '50s, as well as the possibility of revenge for the Anafal campaign) while the Kurds need Kirkut to guarentee economic independence. You get a refugee crisis or a civil war if you push through elections up there now. Turkey also gets antsy if it looks like a Kurdish entity is forming.

The only parts of Iraq that are partially stable that I can think of are the Kurdish mountain provinces and Basra (although Barsa was unsafe enough to justify the removal of the New Zealand contingent there). I would be interested in which parts of Iraq are considered at peace (U. S casualties have been concentrated in various regions because that is where most of the U. S. troops happen to be, and not necessarily because these regions are pacified),

I'm more interested in what's going on in the United States than in Iraq.

Disclaimer: I actually did grad work in social psychology in the program run by Morton Deutsch at Teachers College, Columbia University. He was a leading expert on conflict resolution. I must also note that, during those studies, I decided against working in academia. I am quite critical of the increasingly authoritarian nature of modern academia.

OK, let's start with a real world example. Back in the 60s and early 70s there was an organization in northern California known as the Midpeninsula Free University. It was started by pacifists, hippies and others dissatisfied with modern bureaucratic education. Like many such endeavors it had its good and bad points. As someone who was briefly involved, I think it likely that Rand and others of his views (that counts me partly) would have been welcomed -- even as people disagreed with some of the views expressed.

MFU could be described as loosely cooperative and loosely democratic. People could work together when needed. They also went their own separate ways a lot. This isn't much different from normal American society. OK, much of the thrust of this loose organization was not in the same direction as the larger society. Still, though, it was recognizably American.

Into this mix came a small group one could describe as tightly cooperative with each other but uncooperative with others -- Stalinist Communists. They thought they could turn MFU into a vanguard of their own kind of revolution. They failed utterly -- but did manage to destroy MFU.

Now let's fast forward to the present day. Today we have in our larger society some tightly cooperative groups that are trying to force the rest of us to choose sides -- and essentially cut off connections with people on the other side. This is not healthy. Political conflicts within groups unrelated to politics are taking a real toll.

I think we need to examine quite carefully the impacts of tightly cooperative groups are having on the larger society where such tight cooperation is effectively impossible.

And Iraq? I do hope they get their act together and form a more modern democratic society. It will benefit them and the whole world.

This is the right way. Incidentally, why is it only America where the world expects ethnic groups to get along?

It's no coincidence that the worst sectarian violence comes from decentralized authoritarian societies or abridged democracies. The key to preventing internecine friction is to lay down the rule of law, open the floodgates of economic self-interest and relieve normal citizens of a reason to beat up the neighbor who looks, talks and acts a little bit differently from them. Needless to say, that's not how the intelligentsia and diplomosaurs do it (see: UNMIK, the real example for Andrew Sullivan's "incompetence."). So it's up to the U.S. to steer Baghdad towards it.

Ever notice how the nay sayers are just ever so educated and informed? And yet in the end they accomplish nothing except maybe tenure at their insulated enclaves.
The point of Tit for Tat is that it works over time, even in a hostile environment, given just a few other cooperating nodes.
If it works in prison, then maybe it will also work in the Middle East.
And as usual, the critics offer no solutions, only carping.

Chuck,

Has it occurred to you that the group you describe..."Into this mix came a small group one could describe as tightly cooperative with each other but uncooperative with others -- Stalinist Communists." ...could be related, perhaps strongly, to the groups you mention as attempting to polarize modern society. The affirmative action/class warfare meme is a standard one in communist ideology, as is the idea that capitalists are evil, or that income should be redistributed to the less fortunate.

Could it be that communism is not dead, just underground? Where is 'underground'? For starters look at liberal arts academia, the MSM, the motion picture industry and the Democratic Party. This is very much in line with a list of objectives of the Communist Party USA as read into the Congressional Record in the early 50's. Look it up!

John F

I think the above commenters are missing Rand's point. A functioning system of cooperation in Iraq will work. And the more complex the factions, the better. The real question is whether our military/diplomatic regime, working with Alawi, has the smarts and ruthlessness to implement it. Namely, holding elections and allowing representation in cooperative regions but not in non-cooperators. Being willing to deliver a good thrashing to the Fallujah like regions as well as reward cooperating regions with electricity, development projects, etc. This takes a level of hardheadedness our diplomatic corps has yet to show. See Brenner failing to call the bluff of the Sunnis in Fallujah. Also, see the need for military commanders to have some street $ to distribute.

TFT assumes that "defection" is non-lethal for the "defectee". It also assumes that the interaction between A and B has nothing to do with the the interaction between A and C.

A more sophisticated "TFT-like" strategy that meets these objections can be devised, of course. But it comes out sounding an awful lot like the real world.

It's going to take an awful long time to settle Iraq down.

They've had depravations by UN/America for a decade or more, lots of children and adults have died. That kind of thing does not get forgotten real quick.

Plus, there's the fairly accurate assumption in the entire region that this is actually an invasion by America of a Moslem state with the intention of securing oil supply. That too, is not going to be forgotten.

Basically, if Iraq is to settle, America should withdraw, and the UN should take it over. That wouldn't be quick or easy either, but it would work.

Yeah, right, like America would give up the oil it spent $100 billion to secure.

"Basically, if Iraq is to settle, America should withdraw, and the UN should take it over."

That would be the same UN which as an institution (together with the individual efforts of some of its major members) actively conspired with Hussein to divert money intended to provide food and medicine for Iraqis to luxuries and weapons programs for Hussein?

If you are of the opinion that Iraqis will long remember American efforts to uphold the sanctions, why do you suppose that they will so little note the actions of those who treated them so cynically and corruptly?

That would be the same UN which as an institution (together with the individual efforts of some of its major members) actively conspired with Hussein to divert money intended to provide food and medicine for Iraqis to luxuries and weapons programs for Hussein?

Not only that, but it's starting to look like some of that money was diverted to Al Qaeda as well. The UN has little credibility left as a useful institution.

It's about time that the US applies even simple reward/punishment mechanisms in the Middle East to encourage cooperation. Maybe we could apply these lessons to a number of disfunctional business, academic, legal, and government entities in the US.

Rand, great point on long term cooperation.
The US could help by immediately giving/ loaning money to Iraqi cities that DO have successful elections, thereby increasing the money/ power available to the local winning Iraqi politicians.

Were registered voters the only ones eligible to receive monthly payments of an Iraqi National Oil Trust Fund -- there would be a lot more Iraqis trying to be eligible. And of course, if elections couldn't be held, the money would naturually be divereted to security instead of to citizens.

Yeah, it's a great point Rand! America needs some trustworthiness at this juncture. If it is nice to the Iraqis, they will soon forget the tens of thousands of dead; the non existent stated pretext (WMDs) for going into Iraq, the rapid withdrawal of troops once Saddam has been deposed (6 weeks wasn't it?) and the prompt and amazingly fast resumption of services like electricity and water. And the iron-fisted control of violence. And then the violent backlash to the invasion will all be all over real soon. Honest. Yup time to buy some credibility and trustworthiness indeed. That's the ticket.

Yeah, it's a great point Rand!

Which point is that?

America needs some trustworthiness at this juncture. If it is nice to the Iraqis, they will soon forget the tens of thousands of dead

As opposed to the tens of thousands that Saddam was killing every year?

the non existent stated pretext (WMDs) for going into Iraq

That wasn't the only reason for going in. You apparently have a short memory.

the rapid withdrawal of troops once Saddam has been deposed (6 weeks wasn't it?)

??

and the prompt and amazingly fast resumption of services like electricity and water.

Faster than Germany and Japan.

And the iron-fisted control of violence.

What's your recommended means of preventing car and roadside bombings, and kidnaping/murders?

It's an interesting fantasy world in which you reside, Ian.

John F.,

I think you twisted what I said to fit your preexisting biases. Tarring others with accusations of being Communist or Communist influenced is straight out of Joe McCarthy's handbook. There are other groups -- both on the left and right -- that engage in similar behaviors.

I recommend that you listen to what people actually say and why they say things that they do. You could have asked questions. Instead you took a point of mine that used some real history and fit it into your worldview.

Don't these strawmen get boring Rand?

As opposed to the tens of thousands that Saddam was killing every year?

If you remove the Iran/Iraq war dead, it works out, based on the figures on the Operation Iraqi Freedom website to be around 13,000 a year which is a pretty disgusting number, especially given that there was a lot of support for him while he was culling his own people. However, in comparison to the stuff we're putting up with from various regimes and despots around the world this is pretty second story. Hell, he didn't even manage a Ruwanda in 21 years of trying!

What's your recommended means of preventing car and roadside bombings, and kidnaping/murders?

As you are so fond of saying... have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Why don't you start suggesting some real ideas rather than repeating the same old stuff you've been trotting out for 2 years now?