Re:Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted
by dnautics on Monday May 09, 2016 @10:28PM
(#11664802)
Isn't what you're doing the ipd equivalent of "retaliate"?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted
by crdb on Monday May 09, 2016 @11:11PM
(#11664922)
I guess so. Retaliation is the best strategy in iterative PD, no? (I'm rusty on this stuff).
Nash equilibrium in a regular PD would be DD, but it assumes that the other side will defect. I think from experience that the payoff grid is different in business in that instead of CC resulting in a lower payoff for C than for D in CD, it's a much higher payoff; and the D in CD is not getting much more than in DD (maybe 20% more).
Re:Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted
by hkhall on Tuesday May 10, 2016 @12:11AM
(#11665102)
You are thinking of tit for tat, right? I remember reading about generous T4T where in ~10% of the cases they were generous [CITATION NEEDED] it performed better that pure retaliation. Now there is a new paper in Nature[1] that I just stumbled onto in trying to answer your question. It seems like extortion is at least competitive with a generous strategy, though I need to give it a closer read.
[1] http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160412/ncomms11125/full/nc...