I enjoyed that, thanks!
An interesting interactive game about trust & how it can evolve & disappear:
http://ncase.me/trust/
Given the gnat-like attention span of a substantial number of the forum members it won't suit everyone but one or two may enjoy it.
Scored 38 on the first game against Copycat, Always Cheat, Always Cooperate, Grudger and Detective.
For what it's worth, my strategy was to tends towards cooperation where feasible. I always started with cooperate. If at any time my opponent cheated me then I would cheat on the next round. However, I would then cooperate on the round after that. If my opponent cheated twice then I would stick to cheating until the end of the rounds with that opponent.
Onto the conclusion...
It reaches conclusions that I think concur with common sense and general observation, although it usefully finds them through demonstration. The authors of the site conclude that repeat interactions, win-wins, and clear and unambiguous communication are critical for trust and enhanced mutual success, and I agree with this.
I broadly agree with this:
Politically I am a libertarian, and the site authors' final lesson, "to live and let live" is exactly the overriding ethos of libertarianism. I.e. Leave people alone, don't interfere, don't meddle (but defend yourself as necessary if attacked, but do no more than defence). It is very nice to know that libertarianism's ethos is validated by game theory.So, do what you can do, to create the conditions necessary to evolve trust. Build relationships. Find win-wins. Communicate clearly. Maybe then, we can stop firing at each other, get out of our own trenches, cross No Man's Land to come together...
I was going to end here but there is one other point to note:-
It is very tempting to look at the live and let live or cooperation principle[1] and observe that there are situations where ruthlessly eliminating certain types of opponent as soon as possible is still desirable and beneficial with a view to continuing in general as in the cooperative or live and let live manner with those who are willing to do so. The reason for this is that it is easier to live and let live or cooperate when certain types of opponents cease interfering or disrupting (or have been eliminated entirely).
HOWEVER, even though this strategy of elimination of likely disruptors may pay off in some circumstances, it is very dangerous. By attacking first to eliminate likely opponents, one is (perhaps unwittingly) taking on the role of aggressor. It is a very common mistake. In general, strategically speaking, it is better to respond aggressively only in defence, i.e. only in response to someone else's unprovoked aggression or meddling. Don't provoke, don't go poking around in their affairs, only react with force if they attack first. In general, eliminating possible opponents is bot justifiable.
Footnote:-
1: It should also be noted that live and let live and cooperation are actually separate principles. They are mutually compatible (in that cooperation can be negotiation or agreed between entities generally choosing to live and let live) but they are not the same.