11–19 of 19 posts
We've based an economy around a schizophrenics depraved game of chicken. That's what all this shit boils down to.
So is this the guy that's advised the Republicans in congress to ruin our country's credit rating as a bargaining maneuver with the stupid 'Debt Ceiling Debate'? "Alex Patton is a media & communications expert, Republican political consultant"
In fact I don't think there's a reason for the second player not to trust the "steal" guy. After all its a verbal contract with thousands of witnesses.
Why this is a master's lesson in strategy is two fold: 1) It cuts to the heart of the matter that all strategy is based on credibility. One would just need to look around at current events to see this play out. 2) It also illustrates that making the punishment guaranteed and removing all doubt of misunderstanding are essential.
Thanks all for the comments. As far as wavesounds, you jump to conclusions.
By telling his strategy (“100%, I’m going to steal”), the first player forced the endgame he wanted. The second player had no option other than choose split in the hope he gets something. If the first player had instead manifested his interest in splitting, the second player would have no rational reason to not choosing to steal. It's an interesting twist on the prisoner's dilemma, and the first player played it acco…
Now if the "guy who had no choice" can't help but label the other guy untrustworthy because he has amazingly good people skills he could very well consider stealing to take revenge.
btw: your video is interesting as well. I think the convo gave a pretty good clue as to who was the honest one. I couldn't sense any real emotions in her. He on the other hand came across almost desperate.
Deeply understanding prisoner's dilemma helps explain a lot of office politics. Why are people at software firms more willing to ruffle feathers than at insurance companies? Because their prisoners dilemma games are shorter. How do you make sure that someone doesn't reneg on a deal? Make sure they see the game is longer than just 1.
It's not the be-all end all of strategy, but it's very interesting.
Further reading on coopetition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coopetition
http://www.amazon.com/Co-Opetition-Adam-M-Brandenburger/dp/0...
I hate the word co-opetition, because it's a much deeper topic than "Why can't we all get along?" or "Why can't we manipulate each other into not competing?" That said, it's worth understanding.
By telling his strategy (“100%, I’m going to steal”), the first player forced the endgame he wanted. The second player had no option other than choose split in the hope he gets something. If the first player had instead manifested his interest in splitting, the second player would have no rational reason to not choosing to steal. It's an interesting twist on the prisoner's dilemma, and the first player played it acco…
if i was the second player, i would have chosen steal. if obama was the first player and the second player is putin/jinping, i can assure you they would also choose steal. the first player lucked out on that gambit.