"I might be wrong but would love some feedback. It’s an exceedingly complicated topic which has been researched for hundreds of years so it might be that this observation has been made before."
... so there's to be NO discussion on the Internet of complicated topics. Got it!
I think you're attacking a straw-man here. That's not what I said at all. I also write blog posts on complicated topics, but they are thoroughly researched and generally, though not always, within my purview of expertise. You literally only read the Wikipedia page.
Can you please not do that? We all have a bias to dismiss others as idiots on the internet, and it's necessary to consciously discount that in order to have any chance of being fair. Otherwise you end up posting a shallow dismissal while criticizing someone else for being shallow, which improves nothing.
If you know more, that's awesome, and in that case you could write a much better comment by teaching the rest of us some of what you know, so we can learn something.
Doesn't seem like he attacked a straw-man. You literally doubled down saying (to sum it up): "There's to be NO discussion on the Internet of complicated topics [unless you're an expert of them, like I'm on the topics I write on the internet about]".
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have NO idea of my background. You don't know what I've read.
Do you speak to people like this in person? Common decency goes a long way to further academic discussion.
> Being that my background is in CompSci I tend to think about thinks in terms of probabilities, statistics, game theory, and distributed systems.
Well. OK.
But then a bunch of:
> This would need to be validated experimentally but I suspect that the probability of cooperation (the opposite of defection) would be inversely proportional to the size of the group.
:-|
And the whole post is of about that quality. Fine as a "dear diary" I guess but it's very low-value even as an amateur effort.