Monday, December 17, 2012
In Aperiomics it is also not necessary to have a strategy at all, Oy-R and Iv-B interactions are tactics versus tactics where participants chaotically do whatever works best on the margin. For example an Oy fox doesn't need a strategy to hunt for R rodents, it just needs to catch them when it sees them. Some animals have a strategy in breeding, for example Ro herds of buffalo might have a planned or ritualistic system for which males get to breed. Other animals such as R rodents might just mate with whatever rodent of their species they come across.
Each system develops different kinds of animals, the Ro herd by planning its system of breeding reinforces cooperative genes. Those that try to push in or break up this ritual are forced out by the team, otherwise the ritual might collapse and the Ro herd becomes R competitors. In this case it is not in most of the male's interest to cooperate and instead they each try to mate when they can, even deceptively and secretly. For example Oy hyena females or R meerkats might mate with an outside male secretly. The genes then become more chaotic in what they produce in offspring, this can lead to R revolutionary or Oy counter revolutionary changes in these animals. For example in a Ro herd the planned system of males that win a ritual contest leads to them mating and more males willing to submit to this contest.
With chaotic R breeding any instinct for ritualistic mating gets broken up by competing instincts from other genes. This is also seen in humans, some societies have a highly structured contest where male suitors try to win females, others have males deceptively cuckolding married women. A Ro or Bi planned mating system leads to cooperative behaviour and better defences against Y or V adversaries. In a V part of society the talented elite also have these cooperative rituals such as prom dances, dating, marriage, etc. They also have some Oy competition breaking up these rituals such as marrying out of wedlock, polygamy, and affairs.
The payoff for these competitions is to win on the margin, this need not mean they are more fit but they can also be better at swindling their opponent. For example R gazelles might be weak and unfit but can survive by hiding and using camouflage. Often less fit animals can breed by stumbling on a mate without a strategy, they are available and then offspring come from that rather than from fitness. This fitness implies normality as a standard, however chaotic competition has no normality and revolutionary abilities can lead to more offspring.
In chaotic Oy-R and Iv-B there is no strategy, offspring however can use different tactics. For example R gazelles might have offspring with mutated camouflage markings, this dictates their tactics of running or hiding when there are predators nearby.
The game structure of Aperiomics is explained in the Game Theory chapter of my book Micraperiomics at aperomics.org. While this refers to people the interactions are the same as for animals and plants, how the colors refer to these is also explained in the book.
In this game the hawk can be like Y or Oy, it might share food with a Y cooperative strategy or try to compete as Oy. The dove might be in a flock with others, when faced with aggression it might stay together and defend such as with a small hawk. If the hawk is too big they might split up with an R chaotic strategy to run and hide.
This stable strategy only happens when the Y hawks and Ro doves each act like rival teams, then probability can predict when each might eat. This is a cooperative strategy and leads to ritual fighting behaviours rather than because of selfish genes. Instead the genes themselves act altruistically because they survive better as do some animals.
For example the genes in a Ro herd of buffalo survive because they tend to be more normal, those more deviant genes get culled out of the herd by Y and Oy predators taking animals on the edge of the herd. A buffalo that takes too long to grow up and walk with the herd then is abnormal and its genes are culled by predators. Competitive or selfish genes move between booms and busts in innovations, because they are selfish they are in effect trying to replicate at the expense of other genes in the Ro herd.
This selfishness then makes the Ro herd more diverse and opens up more chaotic cracks in their defences that predators can exploit, this is like a Ro army where differences in the strength or fighting ability of soldiers can indicate a weakness to exploit. Once this weakness is defeated it is then like a wedge into the Ro position allowing it to be split or shattered.
There are then in Aperiomics competitive and cooperative genes, or selfish and altruistic genes. For example a Ro herd of Ibex might have some that are smaller and faster while others are slower and stronger. If their genes are competitive then they might scatter and hide as R from predators, the more chance of another Ibex getting eaten the better the outcome for a selfish gene. So a faster Ibex might evolve if the Oy predators are faster than the slow Ibex, however a stronger Ibex might evolve is the Oy predators are only strong enough to bring down the fast Ibex. For example there might be wild dogs in Africa not strong enough to bring down the slower Ibex.
Instead of competing as R these genes might cooperate as Ro to minimize their losses form predators so there end up being more of these genes in circulation in more Ibex. Instead of splitting up when attacked by Oy single predators the Ibex stand together as a Ro team driving Oy away, two Ibex might always win as a team like a prisoner's dilemma but one might die is they scatter. As some Ibex try this Ro cooperative strategy then they mate with each other more, this is instead of genes being selfish and only mating with those like it so the inferior prey are eaten instead. The result is a more normal Ro Ibex that is an average speed and strength whose genes survive better because they defend each other. These genes however might have to become R chaotic again later if Y predators are too strong for the Ibex, the cooperative gene strategy would then fail and the Ibex would split up and hide. This is then why there are R prey such as gazelles and Ro prey such as buffalo or Wildebeest.
Being Roy costs need to be minimized to survive, there is no equilibrium because the lose is far worse off because the conflict cost them energy and got them nothing. Whichever reaches a tipping point then loses.
The difference is in Aperiomics a war of attrition occurs between Y-Ro or V-Bi teams rather than chaotic fighting with bluffs, instead these wars are more open and honest. For example trench warfare in WW1 between teams of soldiers with little deception and bluffing. Sometimes single animals can use Y-Ro strategies, for example a lone Ro buffalo might confront a lone Y lion. Both cannot hide from or bluff each other, the survivor is likely to be whichever lasts the longest before becoming exhausted.
This can also occur in human games like chess or boxing where a war of attrition is open and honest, each can see what reserves of strength and endurance the other has. Sometimes though becoming weak can cause a chaotic collapse like a city at the end of a long siege. A boxer might become tired and then suddenly collapse chaotically, this happened for example with the Germans in WW1.
Below this are the Ro herds that use cooperative behaviour against Oy loners and O hybrid predator/prey animals. Then below them are where the Ro herd strategy fails, this is R competitive prey.
This is like Y-Ro and V-Bi except they need the opposing team to reinforce the need to cooperate.
In Roy situations this can be to minimize costs, for example soldiers in an army might be willing to die for each other so more survive overall.
Spite can be about the need for an opposing team to inspire cooperation.
These are Iv-B and Oy-R interactions. There are also other interactions outlines in Aperiomics, for example the role of police and a justice system as I-O.
This is an example of males being more R as loners while the females are more Ro cooperating with each other.
They are a combination of R and Ro, also to some degree like the B roots and Bi upper root system of plants. Their journeys look like the roots of a plant with some cooperation at levels representing a normal curve.
Ants have evolved this strategy because it works the best against Oy and Y predators, those that tried other strategies survived less often. For example more selfish ant behaviour prevented them working as a Ro team using their combined strength against isolated Oy predators.
This acts as the O middle of the food chain in Roy systems and I in Biv systems.
They in effect evolve a primitive I-O justice system, instead of fighting there is a negotiation. O animals assess whether they are more likely to be prey or predator when they encounter other animals.
This can lead to where I and O are biased more to the left as prey or right as predator making the system more unstable.
This can create virtuous and vicious cycles in Iv-B and Oy-R.
This also occurs in economies where Biv companies might form virtuous circles where each profits from this nontransivity. However when the economy turns to Roy as in the GFC they can become vicious circles where in minimizing losses they drag each other down. In the example above when the environment became poor enough as Roy they would each tend to attack the next one in the circle causing it to collapse chaotically.
This is chaotic Oy-R where each R innovation of creating poison leads to a counter innovation in Oy of tolerating it. This is like R victims of crimes innovating new ways of protecting themselves and Oy thieves counter innovating to overcome these.
V parts of plant cooperate with each other and R prey such as the moths are chaotic, however sometimes random cooperation can be stronger than chaotic competition. The R moths get more food by not chaotically damaging the flowers, this is like R gazelles evolving to not damage the grass they eat and so having a larger food supply.