So what happens in the broken radio example if both the persons have already read schellings book? Nobody gets the prize? I mean how does such a situation is resolved? If everybody perfects the art of rationality, who wins? and who loses?
so rationality doesn’t always mean “win-win” ? In a chicken situation, the best thing for “both” the persons is to remain alive, which can be done by one of them (or both) “swerving”, right? There is a good chance that one of them is called chicken.
Indeed, the difference between Winning and “win-win” is important. Rationality wouldn’t be much of a martial art if we limited the acceptable results to those in which all parties win.
Hi! First post here. You might be interested in knowing that not only is the broken radio example isomorphic to “Chicken,” but there’s a real-life solution to the Chicken game that is very close to “destroying your receiver.” That is, you can set up a “committment” that you will, in fact, not swerve. Of course, standard game theory tells us that this is not a credible threat (since dying is bad). Thus, you must make your commitment binding, eg., by ripping out the steering wheel.
The example was just to make an illustration, and I wouldn’t read into it too much. It has a lot of assumptions like, “I would rather sit around doing absolutely nothing than take stroll in the wilderness,” and, “I have no possible landing position I can claim in order to make my preferred meeting point seem like a fair compromise, and therefore I must break my radio.”
I should’ve asked you to work it out for yourself, ’cause if you can’t do that you really have no business commenting here, but… okay.
If it’s common knowledge that both have read Schelling’s book, the game has a Nash equilibrium in mixed strategies#Mixed_strategy). You break your radio with a certain probability and your buddy does the same.
So what happens in the broken radio example if both the persons have already read schellings book? Nobody gets the prize? I mean how does such a situation is resolved? If everybody perfects the art of rationality, who wins? and who loses?
If it’s common knowledge that both have read Schelling’s book, the game is isomorphic to Chicken), which has been extensively studied.
so rationality doesn’t always mean “win-win” ? In a chicken situation, the best thing for “both” the persons is to remain alive, which can be done by one of them (or both) “swerving”, right? There is a good chance that one of them is called chicken.
Neither actual human rationality nor its best available game-theoretic formalizations (today) necessarily lead to win-win.
Indeed, the difference between Winning and “win-win” is important. Rationality wouldn’t be much of a martial art if we limited the acceptable results to those in which all parties win.
Hi! First post here. You might be interested in knowing that not only is the broken radio example isomorphic to “Chicken,” but there’s a real-life solution to the Chicken game that is very close to “destroying your receiver.” That is, you can set up a “committment” that you will, in fact, not swerve. Of course, standard game theory tells us that this is not a credible threat (since dying is bad). Thus, you must make your commitment binding, eg., by ripping out the steering wheel.
And it helps to do it first. Being the second player to rip out the steering wheel is a whole other matter.
The example was just to make an illustration, and I wouldn’t read into it too much. It has a lot of assumptions like, “I would rather sit around doing absolutely nothing than take stroll in the wilderness,” and, “I have no possible landing position I can claim in order to make my preferred meeting point seem like a fair compromise, and therefore I must break my radio.”
I should’ve asked you to work it out for yourself, ’cause if you can’t do that you really have no business commenting here, but… okay.
If it’s common knowledge that both have read Schelling’s book, the game has a Nash equilibrium in mixed strategies#Mixed_strategy). You break your radio with a certain probability and your buddy does the same.