Titania22 Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Hey Guys, I have been watching a lecture series about Game Theory (Games people play in life, business, etc). And the lecturer introduced the concept of "the prisoners dilemma", and I got to thinking about dating. Specifically the old one, what is the best course of action for a girl to take on a date, when the guy 'wants to move it back to his place' (i.e. have sex). To make it more of a dilemma, I will add, it's a great date, the 2 have really hit it off enough that the girl not only thinks she really likes the guy, and could want a relationship with him, but is also really attracted to him. (If this were me, then obviously i wouldn't have had sex in a long time and really miss it.) Also, although she really likes the guy, she can't tell what type of guy he is, in terms of, a player, a genuine good sort of guy (who is likewise considering her for a relationship), a guy who has already decided he doesn't want a relationship with her and figures he may as well try to get laid, a guy who is testing her to see if she is an 'easy ho', or something else i haven't thought of. Anyway I puzzled over how to solve the dilemma, and I came up with the only way she can make the decision is to forget about thinking about what the guys motives are, and do whatever she thinks will make her happiest at the time. If she does anything but that she will be playing a game, and the genuine good type of guy wouldn't judge her worthiness for a relationship based on this one decision whether or not she rejects or accepts his offer of sex. That's my thoughts, feel free to discuss if you wish, I just thought it was interesting.
betterdeal Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Yep, the only thing you can be certain of is your own desires.
jobaba Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Since prisoners game is usually a two party model, and taught to me last in microeconomics and the theory of competition, the perfect example would be men and women fighting to take initiative to contact or approach/flirt. Neither gender wants to take the initiative and risk rejection and a broken heart, and secondarily they don't want to lose a potential relationship. In the mind of a woman, it is better to let the man contact. If he does, then she gets the highest reward of having the upper hand in the relationship (analogous to prisoner's freedom). The man shares the same philosophy. If neither contacts each other, then a potential relationship is lost, however, each avoids the hurt and humiliation of rejection. So, both will choose not to contact, since it offers the greatest reward of having the other gender contacting and giving them the upper hand. And even if they don't, they still don't have to face rejection. And in the end, the potential for a relationship will dissolve. What both don't know, is that if they were able to cooperate, i.e. knew what the other was thinking, both would contact each other simultaneously (in a theoretical sense) since they both like each other and the greatest reward would be an equal relationship. That's the prisoner's game. It's a paradox because both will ALWAYS choose to rat out the other even though the greatest reward lies in cooperation. Edited January 12, 2012 by jobaba
carhill Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Wasn't that part of the stuff that schizophrenic guy thought up?
Author Titania22 Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 Wasn't that part of the stuff that schizophrenic guy thought up? Yes, but the Professor who is lecturing said that they made a mistake in the movie.
carhill Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 About Nash equilibrium or the insulin shock therapy?
Author Titania22 Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 About Nash equilibrium or the insulin shock therapy? About none of the guys going for the blonde. Though I can't remember what he said( the professor not nash), and I am looking in the attached booklets to see if he mentioned it there.
Author Titania22 Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 I couldn't find it, but I think it was that the example was not a Nash equilibrium, because once a guy knew none of the other guys were going to go after the blonde, then it would be in his best interests to go after her. A Nash equilibrium is when you wouldn't choose you action after you found out what everyone else is doing.
Author Titania22 Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 Jobaba, What you described most likely is the true prisoners dilemma. I probably chose the wrong name. But what I described reminded me of the flow chart examples in the game theory. Step1:He chooses whether or not to go for 1st date sex Step2: she has to choose whether to go for it Step3: he chooses whether to pursue a relationship with her Basically if she knew the values the guy had for the 4 options:- he has sex, and pursues relationship he has sex and doesn't pursue relationship he doesn't have sex and pursues relationship he doesn't get sex and doesn't pursue relationship Then she could easily choose what her best course of action to get a relationship would be. But often the girl does not know the value the man has placed on the 4 outcomes, she only knows that he has chosen to make a play for 1st date sex.
Dust Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 I don't know anything about game theory or the prisoners dilema. I just watched a video though. So now I understand! No choosing to have sex with a guy is not at all the Prisoners Dilemma... I mean the guy is like me he's going to want to have sex with you as soon as possible whether you say yes or no... I mean thats one of the main reasons he's going out with you. Sex. The prisoners dilema is so simplistic. First off it assumes a persons only motive is to get as little time as possible. It also assumes that the person can accuratly predict the outcome. The fact is if both prisoners don't rat on each other they might both walk free. They wouldn't have a clear 4 choice option with clear points. Plus if one guy rats on the other guy and gets zero jail time while the other goes away for serious time he may find himself killed.
Sanman Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Ahh game theory, much fun... Classic prisoners dilemma assumes that the two individuals do not know each others strategy. Thus, the question would be whether to not say anything and each receive a 5 year sentence or squeal on the other man and get him a 10 year sentence while you get off with no prison time. However, you do not know if he will take the same deal and squeal on you. In the movie clip example, each man could go for the blonde knowing that there is more competition. He may walk away with her, but if he loses he gets no girl. If he chooses one of the other women, he does not get the hottest girl, but he does get a girl. Nash equilibrium works on the premise that each of the players knows the other players' goals and formulates the best strategy within that framework. Your professor is right. Had the best looking guy (or the one with the best chance) been the only one to take a shot at the blonde, he may have gotten her and the other guys could have picked their women, thus leaving one of the unattractive friends alone. That would have been the best strategy using game theory. You see this in sports all the time. Many teams realize that they do not have the payroll to compete for the top player in a given position. Thus, they go after the second best recognizing that another team with more money will likely take the best pick.
Emilia Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 I couldn't find it, but I think it was that the example was not a Nash equilibrium, because once a guy knew none of the other guys were going to go after the blonde, then it would be in his best interests to go after her. A Nash equilibrium is when you wouldn't choose you action after you found out what everyone else is doing. I've seen the film and I studied game theory In the film the guys are making their choices simultaneously ie they don't know what the others are doing, they don't have that information yet. This is why they go for the brunettes - ie the less hot girls - than the blonde.
Dafa Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) I've seen the film and I studied game theory In the film the guys are making their choices simultaneously ie they don't know what the others are doing, they don't have that information yet. This is why they go for the brunettes - ie the less hot girls - than the blonde. Hi all, First time poster! From what i read about both Nash equilibrium and game theory, it is exactly the opposite of what you say... In a simplistic way, from what i understand, you arrive at a Nash equilibrium when all parties, even when knowledgeable of the other parties' strategies, do not change their "decision". Having said this, i'm not graduated in economics so i may well be wrong. The last phrase in the third post pretty much sums up the "moral story" of the prisoner's dillemma, from what i understand. Edit: Added last phrase. Edited January 12, 2012 by Dafa
Dust Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Ahh game theory, much fun... Classic prisoners dilemma assumes that the two individuals do not know each others strategy. Thus, the question would be whether to not say anything and each receive a 5 year sentence or squeal on the other man and get him a 10 year sentence while you get off with no prison time. However, you do not know if he will take the same deal and squeal on you. In the movie clip example, each man could go for the blonde knowing that there is more competition. He may walk away with her, but if he loses he gets no girl. If he chooses one of the other women, he does not get the hottest girl, but he does get a girl. Nash equilibrium works on the premise that each of the players knows the other players' goals and formulates the best strategy within that framework. Your professor is right. Had the best looking guy (or the one with the best chance) been the only one to take a shot at the blonde, he may have gotten her and the other guys could have picked their women, thus leaving one of the unattractive friends alone. That would have been the best strategy using game theory. You see this in sports all the time. Many teams realize that they do not have the payroll to compete for the top player in a given position. Thus, they go after the second best recognizing that another team with more money will likely take the best pick. Once again game theory assumes that every girl a) wants to hook up right then and there b) that all the guys want to hook up right then and there c) it ignores that group dynamic is a very curious thing with irational unpredictable behavior... sometimes predictably irational... but not always. So what I'm saying is Gametheory is to simple. Sounds fun. Is catchy and has some use. But all in all economy it is not.
Untouchable_Fire Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Basically if she knew the values the guy had for the 4 options:- he has sex, and pursues relationship he has sex and doesn't pursue relationship he doesn't have sex and pursues relationship he doesn't get sex and doesn't pursue relationship Then she could easily choose what her best course of action to get a relationship would be. I like this, it's intelligent, rational, and nonbiased. The model you are presenting it a touch too simple. You need to put in a value system for how negative or positive each outcome will be in the woman's perspective, then assign probabilities to each. Example: he has sex, and pursues relationship - +5 outcome. 25% probability he has sex and doesn't pursue relationship - -5 outcome. 25% probability he doesn't have sex and pursues relationship - +3 outcome 25% probability he doesn't get sex and doesn't pursue relationship - -3 outcome 25% probability. Now tweek this to the individual situation you can start to really evaluate these options.
Jynxx Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Once again game theory assumes that every girl a) wants to hook up right then and there b) that all the guys want to hook up right then and there c) it ignores that group dynamic is a very curious thing with irational unpredictable behavior... sometimes predictably irational... but not always. So what I'm saying is Gametheory is to simple. Sounds fun. Is catchy and has some use. But all in all economy it is not. Sigh... You sound like that kid in high school who claims math is not useful in real life applications. And you're both kind of right, proving Pythagoras' theorem isn't useful in everyday life for most people, and neither are game theory calculations in every day relationship or attraction situations. But both can describe some patterns and dynamics pretty accurately that are overlooked by most people, and they both can teach you how to think about other situations that you couldn't figure out on your own.
Jynxx Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 You need to put in a value system for how negative or positive each outcome will be in the woman's perspective, then assign probabilities to each. Example: he has sex, and pursues relationship - +5 outcome. 25% probability he has sex and doesn't pursue relationship - -5 outcome. 25% probability he doesn't have sex and pursues relationship - +3 outcome 25% probability he doesn't get sex and doesn't pursue relationship - -3 outcome 25% probability. Now tweek this to the individual situation you can start to really evaluate these options. And thank you for this post, it saves me from typing out a long post explaining that game theory models are GIGO (garbage in, garbage out)
dasein Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Hmm, I always thought the "prisoner's dilemma" was whether to bend over and pick up the soap or not. Agree with others, navigating "micro" life situations mathematically usually breaks down when trying to assign value precisely in light of many different existential motivators involved in choices. That said, holding off on sex a bit longer is usually the best bet IME. Chases off some bad ones, won't bother good ones.. EDIT: BTW if you find this type of decision evaluation interesting, be sure to look into heuristics theory also. Much more applicable to day to day decisions on an individual level than game theory IMO. Edited January 12, 2012 by dasein
Recommended Posts