Life, Morality & Game Theory

[August1991]

[Riverwind]

Morality only plays a role when there are consequences to dishonesty. In this case, the woman would face no consequences for her decision to steal so it really makes no sense to do anything else.

In fact, I think the best position in this artificial game is to assert that you will steal but if the opponent splits you will share half the prize anyways.

The opponent would then be faced with a choice of a guaranteed nothing or a chance at 1/2 half the prize.

In that case, the opponent would be best off splitting.

[August1991]

In fact, I think the best position in this artificial game is to assert that you will steal but if the opponent splits you will share half the prize anyways.

In fact, the best position in this game (a game that is not artificial at all) is to steal. The man should have chosen to steal too.

[Riverwind, your suggestion amounts to hiring another lawyer to negotiate the deal - you want a contingent contract that solves some problems but doesn't solve this particular problem.]

Does anyone understand how this concerns society, life and morality? Adam Smith?

Edited April 11, 2009 by August1991

[Riverwind]

In fact, the best position in this game (a game that is not artificial at all) is to steal. The man should have chosen to steal too.

This example is completely artificial because there are no consequences for lying. In any other situation the woman would be liable for breach of contract.

The choice is also more complicated than you present. It is not simply a choice between stealing and splitting. It is really a choice between lying and telling the truth. Any of the players could have told the truth and said they would steal.

This problem is also different from the usual prisoners dilemma because in that problem there are consequences for the 'snitch' option (i.e. you both end up jail). This makes the 'keep silent' option a more viable strategy than in this game where stealing leaves both players with no gains but no losses either.

Edited April 11, 2009 by Riverwind

[August1991]

This example is completely artificial because there are no consequences for lying. In any other situation the woman would be liable for breach of contract.

Really? Breach of contract? Can you sue Stephen Harper because he lied?

Riverwind, I think you miss the point because you get it.

Edited April 11, 2009 by August1991

[Riverwind]

Really?

Yes. Verbal contracts are enforceable in some juristitions but even if they are not two parties negotiating a $200,000 deal would most likely agree to something in writing. The game rules prevented the parties from creating an enforcable contract which means the rules are artifical. Edited April 11, 2009 by Riverwind

[August1991]

Riverwind, you fundamentally miss the point. It has nothing to do with verbal/oral contracts.

Adam Smith, admirably, understood this problem.

[Riverwind]

Adam Smith, admirably, understood this problem.

The free market system depends on enforcable contracts. Without enforcable contracts there can be no negotiation for the trade of goods. I doubt Adam Smith said anything different.

If your real point is how men are suckers for a woman with a pretty face then I would be inclined to agree but that is a different discussion.

Edited April 11, 2009 by Riverwind

[August1991]

The free market system depends on enforcable contracts.

IMV, the free market system depends on a price.

[Peter F]

In fact, the best position in this game (a game that is not artificial at all) is to steal. The man should have chosen to steal too.

And what would the man have gained had he chosen to steal? Nothing. He made the right choice.

This game isn't really about money, its about being willing to look like a putz. She was unwilling to do that - so she stole.

Does anyone understand how this concerns society, life and morality? Adam Smith?

Adam smith? Whats this rat race game got to do with adam smith? Make people trust you so's you can get it all? Was that Mr Smiths point?

as for game theory...This is the generalized form of the 'prisoners dilema' with money offered instead of jail time. In a one shot event, such as the linked game, stealing may be a fine option, but over the long term (multiple playing of the game), splitting is the smart option.

Prisoners Dilemma

Edited April 11, 2009 by Peter F

[Riverwind]

IMV, the free market system depends on a price.

A price is not an abstract concept - it is the outcome of a process. Without a system of enforcable contracts there can be no negotiation on price.

[benny]

Steven is luckier than Sarah here because he understands better than her the (very very deep) reason why games where players are allowed to speak together before choosing their strategy are simply called cooperative games.

[eyeball]

Does anyone understand how this concerns society, life and morality? Adam Smith?

That's an easy one. Life is not a game.

[benny]

Riverwind, you fundamentally miss the point. It has nothing to do with verbal/oral contracts.

Adam Smith, admirably, understood this problem.

I think no one really understand Smith if he doesn't understand that for him, The Theory of Moral Sentiments was a much more important book than The Wealth of Nations.

[Riverwind]

I think no one really understand Smith if he doesn't understand that for him

Anyone who quotes Adam Smith as an authority on morals without providing a reference to the lesser know works does not understand the basics of communication on the Internet. Edited April 11, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

Anyone who quotes Adam Smith as an authority on morals without providing a reference to the lesser know works does not understand the basics of communication on the Internet.

I guess anyone who lectures someone about not providing a reference to something on the Internet does not understand the basics of using the copy and past function of a mouse or a google search bar. Go get it your self.

[benny]

Anyone who quotes Adam Smith as an authority on morals without providing a reference to the lesser know works does not understand the basics of communication on the Internet.

Like eyeball knows, the basics of communication on the Internet is clicking.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displ...1&aid=99585

[Riverwind]

I guess anyone who lectures someone about not providing a reference to something on the Internet does not understand the basics of using the copy and past function of a mouse or a google search bar.

Adam Smith is a well known authority on economics. No reader is going to waste their time looking for texts that Adam Smith might have written on other topics unless the poster makes it clear they are not refering to Adam Smith's opinions on economics. No link is required - just proper context. Posters who fail to provide the proper context communicate poorly.

That said, I don't believe that August was referring to Smith's opinions on morality.

[benny]

Adam Smith is a well known authority on economics. No reader is going to waste their time looking for texts that Adam Smith might have written on other topics unless the poster makes it clear they are not refering to Adam Smith's opinions on economics. No link is required - just proper context. Posters who fail to provide the proper context communicate poorly.

That said, I don't believe that August was referring to Smith's opinions on morality.

Adam Smith is a well known authority on classical (liberal) political economy.

[Riverwind]

Adam Smith is a well known authority on classical (liberal) political economy.

Just like Biily Bob is a well known (sic) singer in addition to be being an actor. If you expect people to read your mind in order to understand your words then don't be surprised if people think you are babbling nonsense.

[eyeball]

Adam Smith is a well known authority on economics. No reader is going to waste their time looking for texts that Adam Smith might have written on other topics unless the poster makes it clear they are not refering to Adam Smith's opinions on economics. No link is required - just proper context. Posters who fail to provide the proper context communicate poorly.

That said, I don't believe that August was referring to Smith's opinions on morality.

I can't believe a game on TV has much if anything to do with morality or economics for that matter. Leaving morality out of real life however clearly has consequences. Leaving morality outside of economics is as misguided as leaving out things like the environment. In a lot of ways inquiring into any ideas that our most influential economists had or have about morality and the environment should take precedence over inquiring into their prescriptions for economics.

There's more to life than self-interest assuming that's what August was skirting the discussion with.

Edited April 11, 2009 by eyeball

[benny]

I can't believe a game on TV has much if anything to do with morality or economics for that matter. Leaving morality out of real life however clearly has consequences. Leaving morality outside of economics is as misguided as leaving out things like the environment. In a lot of ways inquiring into any ideas that our most influential economists had or have about morality and the environment should take precedence over inquiring into their prescriptions for economics.

There's more to life than self-interest assuming that's what August was skirting the discussion with.

TV is big business though.

[JerrySeinfeld]

This video is a microcosm of marriage.

[benny]

I see Jesus in Steven and Judah in Sarah.

[cybercoma]

There's more to life than self-interest assuming that's what August was skirting the discussion with.

Ayn Rand, John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes, as well as numerous other thinkers, wholly disagree with you.