Scenario 4 (Comfortable) Payoff Correlation = +0.50
This scenario lies halfway between Utopia and Neutral with a Payoff Correlation of +0.50. Agent payoffs within an encounter matrix cell are positively related, but not perfectly so. A cell with a positive payoff for Self-Agent is likely to have a positive payoff for Other-Agent. This is still an overly optimistic scenario, but it does allow us to explore more dimensions of ethical choices than do scenarios 2 & 3. A rational Self-Agent should be able to accumulate gain, and not be forced to do so at the expense of Other-Agent. This expectation was borne out in the actual simulation - all Agents, even those with dysfunctional strategies, were able to acquire substantial Self-Gain on the average.
Commonwealth was determined equally by Basic Strategy and Reciprocity. Basic Strategy was the dominating factor for Self-Gain. Reciprocity was the dominating factor for Other-Gain. As Commonwealth is the sum of these two Gains, Basic Strategy and Reciprocity jointly determined almost all Commonwealth.
Inherent Good/Bad Will had little effect on Self-Gain, Other-Gain, or Inequality. Because Self-Gain and Other-Gain were so strongly related, most Encounters yielded little Inequality.
The ranking of Basic Strategies for Self-Gain was:
- Best Row showed the most Self-Gain.
- Best Cell
- Minimize Loss
- Assume Selfish
- Assume Benevolence
- Assume Persecution
- Assume Death-Wish
- Most Surprise
- Least Surprise showed the least Self-Gain.
Because Self-Gain and Other-Gain were so strongly related, the rank order for Other-Gain was exactly the same as for Self-Gain. Consequently, the rank order for Commonwealth was identical to Self-Gain.
Reciprocity, however, contributed far more to Other-Gain than did Basic Strategy. And it did so for the reasons discussed in Scenario 1. In an environment where most encounters resulted in positive Self-Gain, the natural consequence was for Responsive Self-Agents to show Altruism toward Other-Agent.
As was mentioned earlier, most encounters resulted in nearly perfect Equality (near-zero Inequality). Yet, there was some variation among the Basic Strategies in Equality, their rank listed here:
- Least Surprise showed the most Equality.
- Minimize Loss
- Assume Persecution
- Assume Death-Wish
- Assume Selfish
- Best Row
- Assume Benevolence
- Best Cell
- Most Surprise showed the least Equality.
In the Comfortable environment, there was little variation in Equality, because Self-Agent and Other-Agent tended to gain or lose simultaneously. In contrast, there was much variation in Commonwealth, as any movement toward Self-Gain amplified Commonwealth by simultaneously increasing Other-Gain. Correspondingly, in determining Total Ethics, more emphasis was placed on Commonwealth than on Equality.
The rank of Basic Strategies in Total Ethics was:
- Best Row & Minimize Loss were tied as most ethical.
- Best Cell
- Assume Selfish
- Assume Persecution
- Assume Benevolence
- Assume Death-Wish
- Least Surprise
- Most Surprise was the least ethical.