[Derek] When Watts dug deeper, he realized that the network structure did matter. In the more clustered networks, people were more likely
30:27 to copy each other. So if by chance someone started out cooperating, then everyone would cooperate.
30:34 But it was equally likely that someone would start out by defecting, in which case everyone else would defect.
30:40 And over all the games they played, these two effects canceled each other out, which is why it seemed like
30:46 the network structure didn’t matter. - [Duncan] It’s sort of on a knife edge, right? Where like one person does something selfish
30:54 and everything goes south. In another world, everybody kind of holds it together
31:00 and everything goes well. It’s crazy that the world could be like on a knife edge like that, you know,
31:06 could tip one way or the other, kind of just depends on how someone gets out of bed that day.
31:11 But then Watts realized something. See, in real life, you can choose who you hang out with.
31:17 So he reran the experiment allowing players to change who they were playing with. And this time he used the prisoner’s dilemma
31:23 so that players could easily identify the defectors. - [Derek] And the finding was clear, the more you allowed players
31:30 to choose who they were playing with, the more likely they were to cooperate
Could federated social media networks enhance cooperative behavior between everyone, relative to both insular and massively popular services?
Submitted 1 week ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to fediverse@lemmy.world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYlon2tvywA