Sample of a post and responses

This was from a reading on game theory. The 100 word min is just to force you to say something that contains a thought or two (since this is obviously a bit longer). The comments are solid and one has a relevant Youtube video link. It's representative of what people tended to do the last time we taught this course.

Title: Game Theory

Being completely unfamiliar with game theory, I found these readings very intriguing. Looking at the multiple examples of games given for the Cuban missile crisis, it seems that a recognition of the delicacy of this process is needed before going as far as making decisions based on the results. An example of this is seen as Theodore Sorensen claimed to have used a process similar to the theory of moves to predict the Soviet's responses to American strategies, and so on. As John referred to already, there are more moves the Soviets might have besides either withdraw or maintain, so lack of information is certainly a problem, without even getting into lack of correct information. Next, the way that the game is set up is also a very important factor. In the Chicken game, where honor is not included, America has the greatest payoff if they bomb in an air strike the Soviets, who are withdrawing. Certainly more thought and complexity put into the game should eliminate this situation where an obviously wrong move is preferred, but with limited knowledge of game theory this is a question that arises for me. Setting these questions aside and assuming a little bit more trust for the methods of game theory for my point here, I thought a very good example of a positive possible product of game theory analysis was in the the paper at the bottom of the What is game theory? article. In it they attempt to show that being altruistic at times inversely effects public goods provision. Namely, that punishment sought after by those individuals "motivated by reciprocal preferences" against those not contributing in society is sometimes a more positive function than altruism in motivating individuals to participate in the society. They show in the derived equations, and it seems to make sense, that the level of a certain individual's contribution declines with increasing altruism. Interesting to think about! So even though the initial readings didn't get into the specifics, and I still had a few doubts, it was still an interesting introduction into game theory and its branches. Even in the bare-boned examples it is evident that certain reactions have a higher tendency to occur than others, and can predict on some level things like prisoner behavior, or behavior of a community on the whole, which can be useful. Posted by ********** at 10:56 AM


2 comments:

Comment March 24, 2010 12:21 AM Good post! I think the point that you made about altruism versus doing things out of duty/fear is interesting. As you discuss, we need to ask whether or not instilling fear within someone is the most effective way to get them to act. I believe this can be a very complicated answer. Since many of us have at least some knowledge about traditional religious beliefs, let me use Catholicism as an example to expand on this point. As someone who is Catholic, I have noticed that the fear tactic is sometimes used to get people to do stuff, for instance go to mass or something like this.. While this fear may be "effective" because it can get people to attend, is it REALLY effective? It is from my experience that if you feel that you HAVE to go do something (out of fear/duty), you will get less out of it.. So while some people do things (b/c they feel they have to), and this may seem effective, is it REALLY effective? I suppose it depends on your definition of "effective".. It seems that the fear/duty tactic also stints personal growth.. If you do things because you feel that you need to, what happens one day if that obligation suddenly disappears.. You see that, in the long run, it was only obligation that kept you doing something.. In my opinion, it is by doing things without reward that benefits us in the long run.. In other words, we grow so much more and excel as individuals if we do things out of desire, not obligation. ReplyDelete

Comment March 24, 2010 6:49 AM That's really good. I can definitely see what Andrew is saying where he talks about not enough information being involved in game theory. It seems that sometimes there are a multitude of options and possible outcomes and true probabilities of each outcome are unknown. This is one simple example that is interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3Uos2fzIJ0 I'd like to think that people are generally not greedy at heart and willing to sacrifice their image/reputation for money, but that doesn't appear to be true in the above clip.