|
(4) Except in special cases where the payoff is money and nothing else matters, the payoff has to be modeled as some number of abstract "points" (or "utils", in jargon) which one can't actually measure. This paradox or "logical trap" is usually illustrated by the Prisoner's Dilemma story. While the in-text accounts of scientific studies in the human social world or in biology are conversationally casual, the end-notes (comprising 1/5 of the book) provide citations to the scientific literature -- a definite improvement on most books at this level.All popularizers tend to exaggerate the scope of applicability of their subject, but this book less so than most. Some highlights are (1) Discussion of "7 deadly dilemmas" given cute names by theorists (Prisoner's Dilemma; Tragedy of the Commons; Free Rider; Chicken; Volunteer's Dilemma; Battle of the Sexes; Stag Hunt) -- models in which there is math theory.(2) A lengthy verbal discussion of strategies to promote trust and cooperation (e.g.
A good example of how to write at the "popular" end of the popular science spectrum. And then any observed behavior can be construed as optimal behavior in some game theoretic model. Let me just mention two ways in which the real world is more complicated than the book implies. Game theory in general deals with settings in which each player has to choose one of several strategies without knowing other players' choices, and gets a payoff depending on everyone's choices (note this is rather different from what we call games in everyday language).
making it costly to change your mind later; deliberately cutting off your escape routes).(3) Martin Nowak's 5 rules for the social evolution of cooperation. So game theory is more like a useful way of thinking about issues, and less like a traditional scientific theory which makes testable predictions(5) In complicated real world economic situations, trying to make everyone better off is both fiendishly complicated and involves some kind of tax and subsidy scheme; introducing such things creates its own moral hazard outside the context of the one particular game. Such games typically have a Nash equilibrium, which (roughly speaking) is the result when players behave selfishly; but there may be some different "cooperative" choices of strategies that would make everyone better off (a "social optimum"). Observing where this situation occurs and contemplating ways of getting around them by "self-enforcing strategies" -- how cooperation might be achieved in the face of temptations to cheat -- are the main themes of the book, which is well paced and engagingly easy to read.
As acknowledged in the book, much of this *is* common sense - it's, plain and simple, everyday life (per the sub-title), albeit a simplified version of it in order to keep the concepts simple. I expected a little more wit and humor from an author whose previous work was on dunking donuts (I didn't read it, but I like the title).Unfortunately, though, and the reason for my 2-star review, this introduction to game theory isn't terribly enlightening for anyone who has spent any moderate amount of time successfully interacting with actual human beings. As a work of popular science, this book should have had the goal of being fun to read as well as instructive on its topic. Rock, Paper, Scissors partially succeeds in that it introduces the concepts of Game Theory to the lay reader, but it's not a joy to read.
Definitely worth the read. Some of the information may seem like common sense, but there are insights that are valuable and fun to ponder. Great for anyone who is inquisitive about how people react and social situations. I really enjoyed this book. It had fun and interesting examples.
Author Len Fisher uses advances in game theory to takes us on a tour of the seven deadly traps that human beings fall into when they act solely in their self interest. It's also often possible to divide a resource (say a piece of cake) so that each participants gets 100% of what they want (say the icing or the cake) rather than half.Fisher also discusses ways to quantify even the most abstract and qualitative goods. A person who chooses a 4-util small slice that comes with 8 utils of politeness (total 12 utils) over a 5-util slice of cake that comes with only 4 utils of politeness (total 9 utils) cn be aid to have have made a rational and self-interested choice. Faced with trillion-dollar bailouts, unending warfare and intractable terrorism, it's an awfully good idea to take a step back once in a while to ask why we do what we do. Once introduced to the concept, you see it everywhere -- from the thrifty grandmother telling a tot that a desired toy is really "junk" (giving it negative "worthiness" points) to a pastor advising his flock that charity that will build wealth in heaven."Rock, Paper, Scissors" was a fun and breezy read, math free and mostly easy to understand. When divvying up a resource, the "you cut and I choose" method helps ensure fairness. Enjoyable and mind-opening.
Moving from a situation in which all benefit to one in which all lose everything may seems silly on paper. Given the choice of a small and large piece of cake, those who choose the small piece (because it's more polite to do so) can be said to have altered the relative value of the cake slices by adding more "utils" of politeness to the smaller piece. Fisher uses the concept of amorphous "utils" to calculate the value of politeness, for instance. But consider what we are seeing as China and India attempt to industrialize. Even virtues can be quantified.
A spate of recent books -- such as Farhad Manjoo's "True Enough" -- has made the point that the human mind relies on shortcuts and estimation rather than cold rationality to make decisions. If a teenager who ordinarily pays $10 for a t-shirt is suddenly willing to pay $15 for one with a band or sports logo, the price differential of $5 is the shirt's cachet value. But if they "get theirs," like we got ours, every nation on the planet will suffer climate change.Lest we despair, Fisher provides a survey of the solutions that can help us stay clear of the traps. Take the "Tragedy of the Commons." A balanced and harmonious sheep grazing operation can bring ruin to all its participants when each adds an "insignificant" extra sheep to their herds. They see the US as hypocritical for asking them to limit their carbon emissions.
Both me and my wife enjoyed it a great deal.Jerry This book was easy to read and understand and it has a great way to look at the decisions we have to make every day.
|
