front cover of Fights, Games, and Debates
Fights, Games, and Debates
Anatol Rapoport
University of Michigan Press, 1974
A scientifically grounded method by which we can understand human conflict in all its forms
[more]

front cover of Peace
Peace
Anatol Rapoport
University of Michigan Press, 1992
In Peace: An Idea Whose Time Has Come, noted mathematician and peace researcher Anatol Rapoport explores the evolution of the idea of peace and explains why it is displacing war as a viable institution. Professor Rapoport ventures into uncharted philosophical territory by drawing on both the natural and the social sciences to trace the development of the ideas of war and peace. He argues that the theory of evolution and processes analogous to natural selection can explain not only biological events, but also the development of the institution of war. Thus the clashes of armed hordes at the dawn of history were the “ancestors” of our present battles using automated weapons, while Isaiah’s prophecy of total disarmament—“And they shall beat their swords into ploughshares”—anticipates the resolutions of the United Nations. Rapoport explains that although the institution of war enjoys a long history and continues to be a policy option today, it may soon fall into disuse, either by losing its relevance to modern life or by destroying the civilizations that practice it. He then calls attention to ideas that lie dormant until people’s “ideational environment” becomes receptive to their germination: peace, Anatol Rapoport believes, is one such idea. Peace continues in the interdisciplinary tradition that has taken root in inquiries at the nexus of science and philosophy. No specific technical knowledge is expected of the reader, only a willingness to venture into little-charted areas of thought.
[more]

front cover of Prisoner's Dilemma
Prisoner's Dilemma
Anatol Rapoport and Albert M. Chammah
University of Michigan Press, 1965
The term "Prisoner's Dilemma" comes from the original anecdote used to illustrate this game of strategy. Two prisoners, held incommunicado, are charged with the same crime. They can be convicted only if either confesses. If both prisoners confess, their payoff is minus one. If neither confesses, it is plus one. If only one confesses, he is set free for having turned state's evidence and is given a reward of plus two to boot. The prisoner who holds out is convicted on the strength of the other's testimony and is given a more severe sentence than if he had confessed. His payoff is minus two. It is in the interest of each to confess no matter what the other does, but it is in their collective interest to hold out.
There is no satisfactory solution to the paradox of this game. Its simplicity is misleading. What seems rational from your own point of view, turns out to be detrimental in the end.
This book is an account of many experiments in which Prisoner's Dilemma was played. Analyzing the results, one can learn how people are motivated to trust or distrust their partners, to keep faith or to betray, to be guided by joint or selfish interest. The method represents an important step toward building a bridge between psychology which is based on hard data and reproducible experiments and psychology which is concerned with internal conflict.
[more]


Send via email Share on Facebook Share on Twitter