Dopamine pathways in the 'Prisoner's dilemma'

[mark!]

Do dopamine pathways in ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ light up the most when both sides are cooperating?

Not only in living organisms it is shown that working together is advantageous, but also scientifically proven in game theory. Prisoner's dilemma has been computer tested. When the game is simulated for thousands of sequential rounds, it turns out that the most effective basic strategy is to work together, an approach that is known as "tit for tat'. Bat mothers sometimes nurture infants of other bat mothers, but if another mother isn’t doing the same thing for her, then this altruistic behaviour stops immediately. Cooperating turns out to be the best thing to do, but when cheated or provoked, then there are appropriate consequences, or even revenge. 


In prisoner's dilemma, dopamine pleasure pathway seem to light up most when both are cooperating. It’s economically irrational to do, because if you're thinking egoistically and short-term, then you would choose to cheat, which is economically better for you, but our brain seem to be socially wired.

My question is regarding the dopamine pathway. Is this actually true? I couldn't find any paper on this research.

 

[BillTre]

Your post seems to answer your own question:

Do dopamine pathways in ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ light up the most when both sides are cooperating?

vs.

In prisoner's dilemma, dopamine pleasure pathway seem to light up most when both are cooperating.

Got a reference for this? You state it as a fact.
How was it measured? I suspect it is not trivial to do.

 

[jim mcnamara]

@mark! - Please provide a real link to research e.g., NIH - I unable find one to help you. The reason why was already stated by @BillTre - I think.

 

[mark!]

I came to this forum because I couldn't find any paper about this on the web myself. When I've heard about this finding (during a university level lecture about neuroeconomics, but one from many years ago) I wanted to verify whether this is actually true or not, but Google didn't help much .

I don't know how it was measured @BillTre because the lecture didn't elaborate any further on that. I do have a picture of the results of this research. 6 (3+3) is of course more than 5, therefore the most effective basic strategy is to work together. If the results are actually reliable of course.

It was stated as a fact from research by a professor in neurology, but if nobody is able to find any research in neurology or neuroeconomics regarding this statement to back it up, it's hard to believe that this is actually how the brain works. Perhaps it has been disproven somewhere in the past years? It would be very interesting conclusion though, which is why I've created this topic in the frist place, because I'd like to know if this is indeed true or not. So if anybody is able to find more information about this (the dopamine pathway during cooperation), please share!

 

[BillTre]

That picture looks like it is part of some cooperativity study, but I don't see anything about dopamine there.

It doesn't mean it was dis-proven just because you can't find it.
It could have been not done as described, or in some obscure journal and not easily accessible, or not yet replicated, or some other explanation.

 

[jim mcnamara]

You don't disprove things, for the reason that complete disproof means you disprove all possible instances. If nothing else than in practical terms this means you cannot disprove, you find a better hypothesis. Maybe, for instance, someone used PET scan technology. Plus, there are a lot of "obscure" journals that fall outside acceptability, in many fields. Example: So-called vanity press or self publishing has major drawbacks as far as research goes.
This is not the right forum for that kind of discussion.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Do you remember the lecturer's name? To be fair, I'm much better in other areas at finding research than in this one. Hmm. Let me see if @DiracPool can help.

 

[mark!]

Do you remember the lecturer's name? To be fair, I'm much better in other areas at finding research than in this one. Hmm. Let me see if @DiracPool can help.

The lecturer isn't connected to the research. But if there has been only one research with these results, with only one test group that has never been repeated elsewhere, then I'm not going to take these results very seriously. How about you?

 

[jim mcnamara]

The scientific "worth" of a research article is often measured by how much credence subsequent researchers and reviewers assigned to the study - this is usually measured by number of citations of the original. Google scholar will give us that if we can find the original research.

 

[jim mcnamara]

We seem to be at an end point. No gold at the end of the rainbow, so let's call off the search.