Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Next revision | Previous revision | ||
game_theory [2023/02/04 08:06] – created andrewtaustin | game_theory [2024/04/12 09:41] (current) – [The Prisoner's Dilemma] tom | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | {{tag> | ||
======Game Theory====== | ======Game Theory====== | ||
- | Game theory is a mathematical framework for modeling | + | The [[iemt_wiki|IEMT]] model is developed around the model of Zero-Sum Game Theory, particularly with regard to the [[iemt# |
- | =====Zero Sum Game Theory===== | ||
- | Zero-sum game theory is a branch of game theory where the total benefit or gain of all players in the game is equal to zero. In other words, in a zero-sum game, one player' | + | ====Nash Equilibrium==== |
+ | The Nash Equilibrium[(Nash_equilibrium> | ||
+ | |||
+ | Formally, a Nash Equilibrium is a set of strategies, one for each player, such that no player has an incentive to deviate from their strategy given the strategies of the other players. This means that if all players follow their Nash Equilibrium strategies, the outcome is stable and cannot be improved upon by any single player changing their strategy. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Nash Equilibrium is a key concept in game theory and is widely used to analyse and understand the behaviour of individuals in strategic situations, such as in economics, political science, and psychology. | ||
+ | |||
+ | In real-world situations, Nash Equilibria may not always reflect the socially optimal outcome, as the individual incentives may not align with the social good. In such cases, alternative solution concepts, such as the Pareto efficiency or the Correlated Equilibrium, | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP CENTER 50%> | ||
+ | {{youtube> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====The Pareto Efficiency==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Pareto Efficiency[(Pareto_efficiency> | ||
+ | |||
+ | The concept of Pareto Efficiency is used to assess the efficiency of economic systems and is often used as a benchmark for determining whether a proposed change will lead to a more efficient outcome. A change that makes one person better off and no one worse off is considered to be a Pareto improvement, | ||
+ | |||
+ | In practical terms, Pareto Efficiency is often used to evaluate the distribution of resources in a society and determine whether there is room for improvement. For example, if a society is Pareto Efficient, it means that no one can be made better off without making someone else worse off, and thus, any further improvements must involve trade-offs and compromises. | ||
+ | |||
+ | It is important to note that while Pareto Efficiency is a useful benchmark, it does not account for fairness or justice and may not reflect the most desirable outcome from a social or ethical perspective. In such cases, other solution concepts, such as the Rawlsian fairness criterion or the Kaldor-Hicks efficiency, may provide a more appropriate representation of the situation. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Correlated Equilibrium==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Correlated Equilibrium[(Correlated_equilibrium> | ||
+ | |||
+ | The concept of Correlated Equilibrium allows for the possibility of coordination and cooperation between players, as their strategies can be correlated in a way that benefits all players. This makes Correlated Equilibrium a more realistic solution concept in situations where coordination and cooperation are important. | ||
+ | |||
+ | For example, consider a situation in which two players are playing a coordination game, such as the classic coordination game known as " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Correlated Equilibrium is an important concept in game theory and is widely used in the analysis of multi-player games, particularly in situations where coordination and cooperation are important. However, it is important to note that Correlated Equilibrium is not always guaranteed to exist and may not always reflect the most desirable outcome from a social or ethical perspective. In such cases, alternative solution concepts, such as the Pareto efficiency or the Rawlsian fairness criterion, may provide a more appropriate representation of the situation. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Rawlsian Fairness Criterion==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Rawlsian[(Justice_as_Fairness> | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Rawlsian fairness criterion is based on two principles of justice: the first, the principle of equal basic liberties, states that everyone is entitled to a set of basic liberties and rights that cannot be taken away; the second, | ||
+ | |||
+ | If a society is arranged according to the Rawlsian fairness criterion, it means that the basic liberties and rights of everyone are protected and that social and economic inequalities are arranged so that they benefit the least advantaged members of society. | ||
+ | |||
+ | It is important to note that the Rawlsian fairness criterion is a normative concept, meaning that it represents a desirable ideal rather than a description of the way things are. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | =====Zero-Sum Game Theory===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP 300 RIGHT> | ||
+ | {{youtube> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | Zero-sum game[(Zero-sum_game> | ||
+ | | ||
Examples of zero-sum games include chess, poker, and rock-paper-scissors. In these games, one player' | Examples of zero-sum games include chess, poker, and rock-paper-scissors. In these games, one player' | ||
In contrast, non-zero-sum games, such as many real-world economic and political interactions, | In contrast, non-zero-sum games, such as many real-world economic and political interactions, | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | The more participants viewed social hierarchies as zero-sum, the more they were willing to use dominance tactics...zero-sum beliefs about hierarchies increase the preference for dominance-oriented, | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | </ | ||
In zero-sum games, the concept of the Nash Equilibrium is often used to analyze and predict the outcome of the game. The Nash Equilibrium is a state in which each player' | In zero-sum games, the concept of the Nash Equilibrium is often used to analyze and predict the outcome of the game. The Nash Equilibrium is a state in which each player' | ||
- | =====Positive Sum Game Theory===== | + | =====Positive-Sum Game Theory===== |
- | A positive-sum game is one in which the total benefit or gain of all players in the game is greater than zero. In other words, in a positive-sum game, the collective benefit of all players is increased as a result of their interaction. | + | A positive-sum game[(win_game> |
+ | is one in which the total benefit or gain of all players in the game is greater than zero. In other words, in a positive-sum game, the collective benefit of all players is increased as a result of their interaction. | ||
Positive-sum games are often characterized by cooperation and mutual benefit, where the actions of one player can lead to increased benefits for all players. For example, trade between countries can be seen as a positive-sum game, where both countries benefit from the exchange of goods and services. Another example is a cooperative game, where players work together to achieve a common goal, and each player' | Positive-sum games are often characterized by cooperation and mutual benefit, where the actions of one player can lead to increased benefits for all players. For example, trade between countries can be seen as a positive-sum game, where both countries benefit from the exchange of goods and services. Another example is a cooperative game, where players work together to achieve a common goal, and each player' | ||
Line 21: | Line 78: | ||
In contrast to zero-sum games, positive-sum games have the potential to create mutual benefits and create a more prosperous outcome for all players involved. However, they also present challenges in terms of finding solutions that are fair and equitable to all players, and in overcoming obstacles such as mistrust, self-interest, | In contrast to zero-sum games, positive-sum games have the potential to create mutual benefits and create a more prosperous outcome for all players involved. However, they also present challenges in terms of finding solutions that are fair and equitable to all players, and in overcoming obstacles such as mistrust, self-interest, | ||
- | =====Negative Sum Game Theory===== | + | =====Negative-Sum Game Theory===== |
Negative-sum game theory is a branch of game theory where the total benefit or gain of all players in the game is less than zero. In other words, in a negative-sum game, the collective losses of all players are greater than their collective gains. | Negative-sum game theory is a branch of game theory where the total benefit or gain of all players in the game is less than zero. In other words, in a negative-sum game, the collective losses of all players are greater than their collective gains. | ||
Line 31: | Line 88: | ||
=====The Prisoner' | =====The Prisoner' | ||
- | The prisoner' | + | The prisoner' |
+ | is a classic example of a non-cooperative game in game theory, used to illustrate the conflicts that can arise from rational self-interest. It is a two-player game that models a situation in which two individuals are accused of a crime and are held in separate cells, unable to communicate with each other. | ||
In the game, each player must decide whether to confess or remain silent. If both players confess, they both receive a severe punishment. If both players remain silent, they receive a lesser punishment. If one player confesses and the other remains silent, the player who confesses receives a reduced punishment while the other player receives a severe punishment. | In the game, each player must decide whether to confess or remain silent. If both players confess, they both receive a severe punishment. If both players remain silent, they receive a lesser punishment. If one player confesses and the other remains silent, the player who confesses receives a reduced punishment while the other player receives a severe punishment. | ||
Line 41: | Line 99: | ||
The prisoner' | The prisoner' | ||
+ | <WRAP CENTER 50%> | ||
+ | {{youtube> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | \\ | ||
+ | \\ | ||
+ | <WRAP CENTER 50%> | ||
+ | {{youtube> | ||
+ | </ | ||
=====Other Common Examples of Game Theory===== | =====Other Common Examples of Game Theory===== | ||
There are many other examples of game theory, some of which are: | There are many other examples of game theory, some of which are: | ||
- | * **Chicken**: | + | * **Chicken**[(chucken> |
+ | |||
+ | * **Tragedy of the Commons**[(Tragedy_of_the_commons> | ||
+ | |||
+ | * **Stag Hunt**[(Staghunt> | ||
+ | |||
+ | * **Battle of the Sexes**[(Battle_of_the_sexes_> | ||
+ | |||
+ | * **Ultimatum Game**[(Ultimatum> | ||
+ | |||
+ | These games illustrate different aspects of game theory and decision-making and are used to study various aspects of human behavior, including cooperation, | ||
+ | |||
+ | A Game Theory course from Stanford University is available for free by Stanford Online [[https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | =====Tragedy of The Commons===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Tragedy of the Commons[(Tragedy_of_the_commons)] is a concept in game theory that describes a situation in which multiple individuals share a common resource, such as a fishery or a forest, and must decide how much of the resource to extract. In this game, each individual acts in their own self-interest and tries to maximize their extraction of the resource. However, if all individuals extract as much as they can, the resource becomes depleted and everyone is worse off. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP CENTER 50%> | ||
+ | {{youtube> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Tragedy of the Commons is often referred to as a " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Examples of the Tragedy of the Commons can be seen in many real-world situations, such as overfishing, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Another example is air pollution, where each individual or company has the incentive to emit as much pollution as possible though maximum production at a minimal cost, but if everyone does this, the air quality decreases and everyone' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Tragedy of the Commons highlights the importance of considering the long-term consequences of individual actions and the need for collective action to address common problems. It also highlights the importance of finding mechanisms to manage common resources, such as regulations, | ||
+ | |||
+ | This game theory can be also applied to emotions and human relationships. In the context of emotions and relationships, | ||
- | * **Tragedy | + | For example, consider a group of friends who frequently spend time together. Each friend has the incentive to prioritize their own needs and desires, such as pursuing individual interests |
- | * **Stag Hunt**: This is a game in which two individuals must decide whether to hunt a stag or a hare. Hunting a stag requires cooperation, while hunting a hare can be done individually. If one person hunts a stag and the other hunts a hare, the person who hunted the stag will be left empty-handed. | + | In romantic relationships, the Tragedy of the Commons |
- | * **Battle of the Sexes**: This is a game in which a couple must decide whether to attend a ballet or a football game. If they both attend the same event, they are both happy. If they attend different events, they will both be unhappy. | ||
- | * **Ultimatum Game**: This is a game in which one player must make a proposal for how to divide a sum of money between the two players. | + | ====Tragedy |
- | These games illustrate different aspects | + | The relationship between narcissism and the Tragedy |
+ | can be seen in the sense that individuals with narcissistic tendencies may prioritise their own needs and desires and act in their own self-interest at the expense of the group or relationship as a whole. This behaviour can be seen as a form of " | ||
+ | In situations where a narcissistic individual is part of a group or relationship, | ||
+ | For example, a narcissistic individual in a romantic relationship may prioritise their own needs and desires and neglect the needs and desires of their partner, leading to a breakdown in the relationship. In a group setting, a narcissistic individual may prioritise their own goals and ambitions and not consider the goals and ambitions of the group, leading to a decrease in group cohesion and cooperation. | ||
+ | It is important to note that not all individuals with narcissistic tendencies engage in behaviours that cause a " | ||
+ |