Kasz216 said:
Aielyn said:
Kasz216 said:
See many game theory expeirments where a subject is told they have the ability to accept a deal and they and the person splitting it will both get money... or reject it... and they will both get nothing. When told the person has decided to give them 30% of the wealth. Most people in spite will veto the deal insuring both people get nothing. Intentionally harming themself, just to intentionally harm someone else. |
If you don't actually know what you're talking about, please don't try to make it sound like you do.
The game theory thing you're referring to is the Prisoner's Dilemma. Here's what it says:
Suppose that you have two prisoners. The two of them are to be charged with a crime that they committed, and they are separated and each is interrogated. If both choose to stay quiet and say nothing, both of them will get 1 year in prison. If one of them rats on the other one, the one that rats will go free while the other one will get 10 years in prison. If both rat on the other, they will both get 9 years.
The result is that the most beneficial thing for each one to do (not knowing what the other one will do) is to rat on the other one, and as a result, they both get 9 years, even though both staying quiet will benefit both of them much better. It's not about intentionally harming themselves in order to harm someone else, it's about getting the best for themselves when they don't know what the other one will do.
Suppose you're prisoner 1. If prisoner 2 stays quiet, then if you rat on them, you go free, whereas if you stay quiet you get a year in jail - better to rat. If prisoner 2 rats, then if you stay quiet you get 10 years, whereas if you rat you only get 9 years - better to rat. Either way, ratting is the better action for the individual, but collectively staying quiet is the better action.
And this is precisely the idea behind government - to act collectively to get the better overall result, a result that, with regards to game theory, is unlikely to happen because people are inherently selfish (and nothing wrong with that - but it does mean that things end up being much worse when people act exclusively as individuals).
|
No....
it's the Ultimtum Game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
So uh. Right back at you I guess?
There are actually quite a number of games like that, including the prisoners dilema you mentioned and the dictator game.
|
It looks like they are both connected somehow. Funny, I was just discussing the prisoner's dilemma. In order to tip it one way, organized crime ends up killing off informants that squeal to keep them quiet. When they did that, then the law set up witness protection to get them to tell.
In regards to games, I remember one game done corporately where they broke up groups into teams, then the teams would end up sending a rep to vote X or Y. If they all voted X, then they would all get a gain. If one or more voted Y while some voted X, then the ones voting X would lose, and the ones voting Y would get gains (less voting Y, the larger the gains). As the game went on, with surprise multipliers being introduced, the groups would dig themselves in deeper and deeper holes. The goal of the game was stated to be: "Score the most points". This got interpreted as "Score more points than everyone else" rather than "Score the most points collectively". I found the game to be very interesting. I wish I could recall where that was from that they ran it. Bonus points for finding more info on that.
