Does game theory allow for the best possible world???!?!

I am a bear with a very small brain that's shrink-wrapped in latex, so I was hoping you guys could help me here.

If we are in a state of suckiness, can the contributors to that suckiness reasonably be expected to fix it through changing their behaviour one by one? Even if the first few steps towards the new behaviour risks putting them at a disadvantage? I mean, in evolution that would be death!

Eg. excessive advertising costs. Can't think of any other examples offa the top of my head.

Just curious :o

You can't think of anything else? Would changing factory methods to be more costly but reduce polution be what you mean?

If you mean the best possible world according to one set of subjective morals, then probably no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I am a bear with a very small brain that's shrink-wrapped in latex, so I was hoping you guys could help me here.

If we are in a state of suckiness, can the contributors to that suckiness reasonably be expected to fix it through changing their behaviour one by one? Even if the first few steps towards the new behaviour risks putting them at a disadvantage? I mean, in evolution that would be death!

Eg. excessive advertising costs. Can't think of any other examples offa the top of my head.

Just curious :o

---

Best possible world for whom? Game theory attempts to model optimal outcomes, but it attempts to model them for multiple subsets of agents. It can attempt to answer what is optimal in aggregate for a group of agents, what is optimal for each agent, and try and highlight solutions which aren't optimal for anyone. It's an analytical tool, nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I am a bear with a very small brain that's shrink-wrapped in latex, so I was hoping you guys could help me here.

If we are in a state of suckiness, can the contributors to that suckiness reasonably be expected to fix it through changing their behaviour one by one? Even if the first few steps towards the new behaviour risks putting them at a disadvantage? I mean, in evolution that would be death!

Eg. excessive advertising costs. Can't think of any other examples offa the top of my head.

Just curious :o

---

I'm not sure what you mean by "excessive advertising costs", but there are plenty of examples of people taking a risk but ultimately benefitting by being a first-mover or making a choice that has long-term benefits.

EG buying a fuel-efficient car. It usually costs more upfront, which puts you at a disadvantage in terms of cashflow. But the long term impact is good for the purchaser and those around him/her.

Each player will try to maximize their lot, in order to do so, they must consider the reactions/actions of their competitors. By going through the possibilities they can choose the safest and profitable course of action overall. When it comes to pollutions There is no incentive economically to consider it. That is why government is needed on this externality. The free market, while amazing, isn't perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I'm not sure what you mean by "excessive advertising costs"

---

I was thinking of the example of tobacco-companies and advertising costs, specifically the time when they could--and all had to--advertise like crazy on TV in order to survive in the dog-eat-dog world of cigarette selling because anyone who'd cut back on TV-advertising would perish. The only way they could cut down on the advertising was if ALL of them cut down, which was finally accomplished through legislation that ensured both freedom from tobacco-ads on TV as well as increased profits for tobacco companies.

MADNESS



I think some of you guys are assuming I'm taking some sort of moral/ethical stance here that focuses exclusively on eg. social good or on the safety of our children, but I'm not. Pick whomever you like as your protagonist :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I was thinking of the example of tobacco-companies and advertising costs, specifically the time when they could--and all had to--advertise like crazy on TV in order to survive in the dog-eat-dog world of cigarette selling because anyone who'd cut back on TV-advertising would perish. The only way they could cut down on the advertising was if ALL of them cut down, which was finally accomplished through legislation that ensured both freedom from tobacco-ads on TV as well as increased profits for tobacco companies.

MADNESS

I think some of you guys are assuming I'm taking some sort of moral/ethical stance here that focuses exclusively on eg. social good or on the safety of our children, but I'm not. Pick whomever you like as your protagonist :)

---

You've already acted as judge and jury. You've made up your mind about what's moral or ethical. You've provide a loaded and false set of options. It's all MADNESS to you, so why should we bother playing your game?

Because what purpose do you have left in life other than to provide me with increasingly mediocre entertainment in the wrong thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Because what purpose do you have left in life other than to provide me with increasingly mediocre entertainment in the wrong thread?

---

Quote:

---

I think some of you guys are assuming I'm taking some sort of moral/ethical stance here that focuses exclusively on eg. social good or on the safety of our children, but I'm not. Pick whomever you like as your protagonist

---

Oh yeah, you really stumped everyone. Gosh, think of all those struggling brains! :bored:

... look, I really don't understand what you're trying to say or where you're trying to go. If you're trying to drag me into your bubble of eroded personal boundaries, you're already doing that in another thread on this forum, called "@Tear Lurker".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I was thinking of the example of tobacco-companies and advertising costs, specifically the time when they could--and all had to--advertise like crazy on TV in order to survive in the dog-eat-dog world of cigarette selling because anyone who'd cut back on TV-advertising would perish. The only way they could cut down on the advertising was if ALL of them cut down, which was finally accomplished through legislation that ensured both freedom from tobacco-ads on TV as well as increased profits for tobacco companies.

MADNESS



I think some of you guys are assuming I'm taking some sort of moral/ethical stance here that focuses exclusively on eg. social good or on the safety of our children, but I'm not. Pick whomever you like as your protagonist :)

---

I'm not sure that's actually quite what happened, but more specifically I think the existence of cigarettes is more of a negative externality (I hate that phrase) than the advertising.

What I'm groggily saying is I don't think the dearth of cigarette advertising has really changed/improved anything. I think raising taxes on cigarettes and banning their use in certain places has had much more of an impact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I'm not sure that's actually quite what happened, but more specifically I think the existence of cigarettes is more of a negative externality (I hate that phrase) than the advertising.

What I'm groggily saying is I don't think the dearth of cigarette advertising has really changed/improved anything. I think raising taxes on cigarettes and banning their use in certain places has had much more of an impact.

---

Hmmm, that example is sometimes brought up as an example of a prisoner's dilemma or a stag hunt or whatever the hell it is. The profits of the cigarette companies improved significantly :-D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Hmmm, that example is sometimes brought up as an example of a prisoner's dilemma or a stag hunt or whatever the hell it is. The profits of the cigarette companies improved significantly :-D

---

It's not a stag hunt; there's only one equilibrium here (everyone advertises). That makes it a version of a prisoner's dilemma. And yes, in this scenario, rational choices lead to a jointly sub-optimal outcome. Not quite sure what your point is.

GGT, are you trying to replace Tear? Stop ruining other threads with your personal vendettas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

... What I'm groggily saying is I don't think the dearth of cigarette advertising has really changed/improved anything. I think raising taxes on cigarettes and banning their use in certain places has had much more of an impact.

---

Indeed, the ban on smoking in restaurants/bars in my state has had the impact of people not going to bars as frequently or in the same numbers. Those who could not afford the expense/didn't have the space to create outdooor areas went out-of-business rather quickly. But at least no one is smoking there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Hmmm, that example is sometimes brought up as an example of a prisoner's dilemma or a stag hunt or whatever the hell it is. The profits of the cigarette companies improved significantly :-D

---

In the short term or in the long term? I mean, if you basically prohibit them from competing then sure I can see how profits would increase but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing business-wise. EG maybe tobacco companies would be more aggressively rolling out and marketing smokeless cigarettes or something in the long term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumrunner

Indeed, the ban on smoking in restaurants/bars in my state has had the impact of people not going to bars as frequently or in the same numbers. Those who could not afford the expense/didn't have the space to create outdooor areas went out-of-business rather quickly. But at least no one is smoking there.

---

Source for a study on this? Everything I've seen on this suggests there is really no long-term impact. And bar smoking bans are popular over in these parts.

Personal experience is the only source I can quote att. All three of the small bars I used to frequent closed due losing business immediately after the ban. Those patrons that did return on occasion cited the lack of a smoking area as their reason for 'jumping ship'. With few exceptions, only those establishments that were able to create a smoking area, usually a patio, are still in business. I have not seen this in restaurants or more 'popular' bars, nor have I seen it happen to many bars that regularly have live entertainment. But many smaller, more personal establishments are no longer with us.

So in the wintertime to people sit outside and smoke? :confused:

In the wintertime I sometimes sit outside and not smoke. It's best with light snow or rain.

Nothing is best with snow. Nothin' at all. The fact that you'll sit outside in the rain might redeem you, though.

Snow that doesn't stick. Proper snow should melt the moment it touches the ground, or at least limit itself to less than a quarter of an inch and be sure to be melted and gone by morning.

Oh, I can agree to that. It's pretty when it's falling. If I don't have to go outside and be cold or anything.

:D

Game theory is just a quantitative model of how people and companies (and any other entity...) act. It's not really a theory, in my opinion... I'd call it a law.

It's a method for analyzing behavior. A law implies it's empirically accurate and provides an explanation for the accuracy. It's also not a theory; the only thing various game theoretical models have in common are some basic assumptions. Rational choice would be the theory that makes use of game theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

It's not a stag hunt; there's only one equilibrium here (everyone advertises). That makes it a version of a prisoner's dilemma. And yes, in this scenario, rational choices lead to a jointly sub-optimal outcome. Not quite sure what your point is.

GGT, are you trying to replace Tear? Stop ruining other threads with your personal vendettas.

---

:bored: I was saying the same thing you were----not quite sure what the point is. I'm not convinced that gaming "theory" involves any rational choice, but irrational exuberance. Even without advertising, there's a prisoner's dilemma. Think of gambling, lotteries, scratch tickets. People put one or five dollars down, year after year, or just occasionally as a random frivolity (when the jackpot gets really big, like it did recently).

The only "theory" behind that is human optimism (You, too, could win $500 million with just one chance!) or persistence in human optimism (The more you play, the better your odds, that you can win $500 million!) Another theory is certain people produce endorphins (pleasure hormones) by simply taking a chance with odds against their favor. That can lead to compulsive gambling, or addictive gaming, and indebtedness in one form or another. Including time debt---people wasting hour upon hour playing a game without the $500 million pay-out. Or paying for the "privilege" of playing, with no pot 'o gold at the end. But endorphins are endorphins, and thrills are thrills.

Game theory is a framework for analyzing complex relationships; it's not meant to be a theory. Gambling is usually explained by people having different risk propensities. To someone with a high risk propensity, a lottery whose expected return is $1 will pay $5 to play if the possible jackpot is high enough. Again, there's no theory here; simply assumptions that are somewhat consistent with the outcomes we see in the real world (i.e. people gambling in this case). To have a theory, you'd have to add that each player is trying to maximize something and rationally pursues that strategy.

I suppose a "framework" would do.