What is Digg?53 Comments
- Ajnag, on 07/10/2008, -3/+14This is a tribute to two things I love - Mathematics and playing video/board games. Huge nerds like me really can save the world.
- bosssmiley, on 07/11/2008, -2/+13To paraphrase:
"Enlightened self-interest; it works bitches!
(and we can prove it mathematically)" - johneffort, on 07/11/2008, -2/+12Yup, that "***** you buddy" documentairy gives interesting insights in game theory and why you should be critical about it. John Nash himself acknowledges that his theory was based on a wrong view of human intentions.
A short excerpt of the series summary on wikipedia:
"The programme traces the development of game theory with particular reference to the work of John Nash, who believed that all humans were inherently suspicious and selfish creatures that strategised constantly. Using this as his first premise, Nash constructed logically consistent and mathematically verifiable models, for which he won the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences, commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics. He invented system games reflecting his beliefs about human behaviour, including one called "So Long Sucker---***** Your Buddy", in which the only way to win was to betray your playing partner, and it is from this game that the episode's title is taken. These games were internally coherent and worked correctly as long as the players obeyed the ground rules that they should behave selfishly and try to outwit their opponents, but when RAND's analysts tried the games on their own secretaries, they instead chose not to betray each other, but to cooperate every time. This did not, in the eyes of the analysts, discredit the models, but instead proved that the secretaries were unfit subjects.
What was not known at the time was that Nash was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, and, as a result, was deeply suspicious of everyone around him—including his colleagues—and was convinced that many were involved in conspiracies against him. It was this mistaken belief that led to his view of people as a whole that formed the basis for his theories. Footage of an older and wiser Nash was shown in which he acknowledges that his paranoid views of other people at the time were false." - meruru, on 07/11/2008, -0/+8In terms of game theory that is a valid "game"
- LucasVB, on 07/11/2008, -0/+8"I am accustomed, as a professional mathematician, to living in a sort of vacuum, surrounded by people who declare with an odd sort of pride that they are mathematically illiterate." - David Mumford
- staeiou, on 07/11/2008, -1/+8Game theory has very little similarity to video/board games. Play some game theory "games" - they are the most boring games you'll ever play unless they are put into a real life situation. I'm not saying that game theory is bad, but it sure isn't fun in the way that video and board games are fun.
Don't believe me? Let's go: You and a buddy have been arrested for a crime you committed together. Do you confess and rat out your partner for a lesser punishment? Make your choice now. Okay, here are the results: If only you squealed, you get off with a very light sentence; if only your buddy squealed, you get 20 years in prison; if both of you squealed, you both get 20 years; if neither of you squealed, neither of you get a sentence because they didn't actually have enough evidence to convict you.
Wow, some "game," eh? - inactive, on 07/11/2008, -0/+5This reminds me of the quote: "Knowledge is the gathering of information, Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge, not all Knowledgeable people are Wise" gb
- gatorfreak, on 07/11/2008, -3/+6Didn't simple game theory of tic-tac-toe already save the world? Oh, wait, that was just a movie.
- Phyltre, on 07/11/2008, -1/+4I was with you until I read the article. In this instance, isn't the title wholly incorrect? Game theory had nothing to do with the behaviors, it was just able to describe them. It didn't actually change anything, and it certainly won't help make society more diverse.
- versualize, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3It contains a set of players, a set of moves, and a set of payoffs. This is a game in game theory. Good use of big words though imacoder. You sound intelligent.
- Dragonfond, on 07/11/2008, -2/+5A very interesting topic. I posted a video about this recently that focuses on game theory and conservation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azxEIG5TZyw
A few other resources:
A quick intro to some of these concepts (taught by a ninja, because I know how much you diggers enjoy ninjas): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdWmVbX6jok
Using game theory to help solve steroid-doping in sports: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-doping-dil ...
Russell Crowe in "A Beautiful Mind": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAJDD1_Oexo
Stories of groups that couldn't get game theory to work before it was too late: http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fa ... - IPublius, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3I would actually have to say that it is not having enough diversity that is the biggest problem. It is getting the group to agree that the problem exists.
Diversity certainly will impact this, but agreement is the most fundamental thing. there is not a lot of movement on extreme global warming because many (myself included) have yet to be convinced that it is real, man-made, and that we should do something about it. - JosephTHogan, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2The author is confused. This is referred to the Tragedy of the Commons and is entirely different than Game Theory. TotC is a "self interest ruins a finite source" issue and thus the source must be regulated. Game Theory deals with one's best choice given the self interest involved with others' choices. An example here would be an arms race. Given that if i produce no weapons, you will then produce weapons to be the superior power, i too have to produce weapons to keep us neutral, and we are only as well off as when neither of us produced weapons - but with less money. Thus, game theory would tell us that the best option, or nash equilibrium, is for neither of us to produce weapons. So, in fact, an arms race is contrary to the suggested solution of game theory - game theory should help to eliminate such practices as arms races, not create them.
- bshock, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2That's good news, considering that all Game Theory has done so far is to take us to the brink of nuclear disaster and leave us teetering there for decades. Never mind that the foundations for this work were laid by a certified paranoid schizophrenic (don't let the pretty story in "A Beautiful Mind" mislead you), who just happened to come up with a way of dealing with the world that mirrored his own twisted thinking. Recent work has chipped away at the tenets of Game Theory enough to suggest that it's only a very limited sandbox, while suggesting that the reality of human interaction provides far richer options.
- TimDigg, on 07/11/2008, -2/+4No it really can't... Just watch "***** you buddy" by Adam Curtis, it's a documentary on the application of game theory by Adam Curtis, or just ask John Nash himself about this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trap_(television_ ... - BotchaMcCoola, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2It is one helpful tool in the kit bag. But human nature, psychology, history and some others may percolate to the top on occasion.
- citydragon, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Buried for climate change propaganda.
- JosephTHogan, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Also, though I'm sure ill get dugg down for spreading useful information, many here are confused and believe that game theory relies on people doing what is best for everyone. It is actually the exact opposite, game theory takes into account that people are self interested and we don't care about others. Without this premise, the theory would fail.
- mozisbored, on 07/11/2008, -4/+6No, it really couldn't.
- Tanath, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1Learn a little history. It already has.
- shadowspawn, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2I thought instantly of starship troopers, "Games and Theory"
- wolferz, on 07/11/2008, -4/+5FTA: “preserving the global climate is the biggest public good dilemma ever, the one we cannot afford to lose."
... really...
Ok even assuming that humans are the cause of global warming... and assuming we actually takes steps that should eliminate us from involvement in global warming... that still doesn't ensure that global warming will stop. In all likely hood it will... but there is the possibility of snow ball effect... started by man but continues going because of other forces (gravity being one).
Also assuming we DO stop the current global warming what do we do about it when it starts to happen naturally? Which btw it will and we are over due. - mozisbored, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Care to expand?
- rwald, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1imacoder: Since that game is pretty much the first game anyone studying game theory looks at, saying it's not a game shows that perhaps it is you who has never studied the subject in question.
- wexmajor, on 07/11/2008, -2/+3Hey look I can pull ***** numbers out of my ass and say they somehow represent the human psyche in a realistic and life-applicable way too. And I'm not even a bull.
- jobney76, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2Didn't game theory almost get the US and the Soviet Union nuked during the cold war? First move wins. Nuke the other side first and you will end up with slightly less destruction then your enemy.
- inactive, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Game theory did save the world it was called the Cold War.
- Ajnag, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I should have said "Huge nerds like me really can save the world...or at least describe the solutions." Whether it really happens or not is out of our hands. I'm gonna go back to playing rock band now.
- johlin, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Where does that picture come from? I want higher res.
(the one you see in your RSS viewer) - scantly, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2Using their over grazing example. That farmer overgrazes his land and he'll have nothing for the future and he'll be out of business. He has an incentive to not overgraze. Just like the rich don't donate out of compassion, they donate for the tax break incentives. Yes people act within their own self interest, there is no such thing as altruistic acts, but game theory is too cut and dry. It reduces people to suckers and calculating cheaters and forces you to out manipulate others.
The last part about Rich people donating and being role models was really lame. - Versh, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2And here I thought Objectivism was going to save the world....
- thecwin, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1It might frighten you, but both socialism (in this context) and capitalism are economic systems. Economics is a branch of social science. Game theory is a branch of mathematics which plays a significant role in economics and other social sciences.
Therefore, game theory is being used as a mathematical approach to working out the relative merits of various economic systems, taking into account social science to try to analyse the behavior of humans.
When done properly, the economics of socialism and capitalism *is* a science. - MrSidnet, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Last semester, in an Animal Behaviour class I took, we studied Game Theory. Pretty interesting stuff when you get into it. It has everything to do with behaviours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory#Cooperati ...
The good parts are with the diagrams, you'll see how good decisions are made using game theory. - iamcitiz3n, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1correction: game theory has ruined this world.
- allothersnsused, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Long Version: I took a seminar on game theory last semester, and if anything it taught me to lose faith in humanity. The example of the cows grazing that the article gives is good, and is applicable in many other situations, almost any situation with scare resources and many competitors. For example, if the supply of fossil fuels is limited then what good do we do by cutting our consumption if that just means another country will consume more? It almost becomes a race to use as much as you can instead of cutting back to make it last. The incentive to cheat is way too high. This research looks to correct that problem, but the issue is that its very difficult to fix a problem such as this using mathematical models when, in reality, people are so diverse and often irrational that they cant be described using simple mathematical models.
Short Version: We're screwed. Dugg. - Noods, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2Summary: The wealthy need to sacrifice more to take care of the non-wealthy. Specifically in regard to global warming.
If you believe in socialism, please don't mask it as some kind of science. - inactive, on 07/11/2008, -3/+3Extreme diversity destroys nationalistic tendencies. destroying conflict on the macro-social scale. This is why diverse democracies where power is held by the citizenry with equal rights (no matter who they are ethnically) never go to war with one another, unless that democracy happens to be populated by majority religious jerks who share too much in common (USA).
- edwinjose, on 07/11/2008, -1/+1Beautiful minds..
- green21821, on 07/11/2008, -0/+0hmm I thought it was called psychohistory.
- nero4, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0Game theory did save the world it was called the Cold War.
Thanks - jedibob388, on 07/12/2008, -0/+0I'm glad I found this article in the Gaming section of Digg.
- Lateralis1, on 07/11/2008, -2/+1I learnt game theory in Economics... Hooray!
- archlich, on 07/11/2008, -2/+1So if anyone is interested, this problem stated problem is called Tragedy of the Commons. obligatory wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_common ...
- simondelliott, on 07/11/2008, -2/+1According to game theory, this may be opposite of the actual outcome. The economic situation is closer to the prisoners dilema than commons there is an advantage in not putting your cows in one filed.
http://simonelliott.blogspot.com/2008/03/green-it- ... - ivosilva, on 07/11/2008, -5/+4God damn it! I just posted a comment on the Harmony/Melody thread, saying I don't know ***** about math.
- mrrealtime, on 07/11/2008, -2/+0no individual can be an expert at everything. That is why the borg, in reality, would always win, because they can function as a collective without having to assert independance from one another, rather always complimenting each others strength. A "nation of individuals" is a fun concept, but not a permanent one. Egypt lasted for thousands of years. The American experiment has likely a few more hundred years if that, but no doubt its necessary and powerful influence will be felt for thousands.
- metaphyze, on 07/11/2008, -3/+1What this pseudoscience neglects to consider is the massive affect that even ONE big cheater can have on society. Take for instance, oh, shoddy construction of a nuclear power plant, i.e., Chernobyl. Don't get your hopes up. Humanity is vermin, and we're doomed.
- ivosilva, on 07/11/2008, -3/+1I'm not proud of it, I just pursued other things. I don't need complex math to do what I do...
-
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is