"Game theory studies interactive decision-making, where the outcome for each participant or "player" depends on the actions of all. If you are a player in such a game, when choosing your course of action or "strategy" you must take into account the choices of others. But in thinking about their choices, you must recognize that they are thinking about yours, and in turn trying to take into account your thinking about their thinking, and so on."
You may have heard of Nash Equilibrium (A Beautiful Mind) where the two players establish the actions that will be in both of their best interests. This is usually explained using the Prisoners Dilemma (see below)
Say Ben and Alice have both been arrested for the same crime and are being held in separate cells. They are questioned by the police and have the following options; confess or stay silent. What should each do?
If both confess they each get 1 year in prison, if both stay silent they get 3 years apiece. If one confesses and the other stays silent, the confessor gets 5 years and the other one goes free. Game theory explains what strategy each player should select to minimize their time in jail.
Click on the link below, watch the video from the British game show "Golden Balls" and answer the 3 questions in your response.
http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2012/04/20/golden-balls-game-theory-the-prisoners-dilemma-and-the-cold-rationality-of-human-behavior/
43 comments:
1. What in the world is going on here? Why did Sarah choose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000?
Sarah had one of two options. Her first option would be to choose share, which has a negative and a positive side. Either Steve will choose share and she will get 50%of the prize, or Steve will choose steal and she will go home with nothing, plus feelings of manipulation. However, the steal option has two positives. Either Sarah will go home with 100% of the prize, or she will go home with the feeling that she kept Steve from deceiving her. Any rational human being would choose the second option, because their profits will be maximized or they will leave with nothing more or less than they came with, except a piece of mind of course.
2. Was Steve totally wrong to choose split? What would you have done in his situation?
Steve lost control early on in the situation because he started off by pleading with Sarah split the money. This is a horrible strategy because it gave Sarah the lead in the negotiations. The decision is up to her and Steve lost all control. I would not be in this situation because pleading would not be my strategy. I would have taken control early on and gone down a path similar to that of the first video. However, if I did make the mistake, I would have done exactly what Steve did.
3. How do the choices faced by Steve and Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolitic markets? Now that you’ve seen this video, can you explain why collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart? Why do cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders?
The game and oligopolitic markets are very similar in that both have the main goal of trying to maximize rewards while not being deceived. It is human nature to have greed and to do everything you can to maximize rewards, so often times mistrust and broken loyalty ruins agreements.
1. Sarah steals the money because she did not trust that Steve would split the money with her. She even said that she was not going to put herself “through that again” if he would have stole after promising that he would split. She used the emotion of the group before team who, I’m assuming they both tried to steal and both went home with nothing, because she said that they both went home crying and that is the only way they would both be crying. But I don’t think she was going to steal the whole time. I believe she though he was going to steal and she was thinking that if he was going to steal she was going to make sure that they both went home empty handed before she was going to let him try to get over on her.
2. No, Steve wasn’t wrong for what he did. He promised that he was going to do something and he did it. I don’t think he could of done anything to stop her from stealing the money. Because Sarah was convinced that he was going to mess her over so even though she wanted to split the money she went with the best choice for her. Either she was talking it all or nothing but she would know that Steve wasn’t going get it all. If I was Steve I would of done the same thing. I don’t believe there was a way to undo the damage of her being lied to the first go around there was no trust so he was kind of stuck. I would try to force her to split by lying and saying he was going to steal but really pick split to ensure she would pick what he wanted but it wouldn’t have work.
3. Oligopoly markets would be hard because it is human nature to want to be greedy. If there are two markets controlling a large market they have to be able to trust each other if not they will bring the whole company down. The controlling markets will have to be able to evaluate what is better for both sides and plan for the best and the worse. The best offense is a great defense kind of deal.
Jessica Sheely
Period 7
1. Sarah chose to steal because she claims that she was stabbed in the back in the past, and she was not going to let that happen again. Instead of being manipulated this time around, Sarah took the dominant role and used her innocent demeanor to trick Steve.
2. I don't think he was totally wrong for choosing split because he trusted that Sarah would also split with him. Steve seemed like a decent guy, and he wanted to do the right thing and believe the best of people. Sarah took advantage of his obvious trust. In his position, I think I also would've believed Sarah because I have a tendency to be gullible and her tears would've convinced me.
3. I can see why oligopolitic markets have difficulties because of human nature to be greedy and self-centered. However, they have to balance that greed with the realization that supporting both sides can bring you more benefit in the long run. I can also see why agreements fall apart because we are unable to trust that the other party will not screw us over. Making ourselves vulnerable is not an ideal position.
1. Sarah steals the money because she has been tricked in the past and is not willing to let that happen again. But I feel like a part of her hoped Steve would choose to steal too, because she did not look too happy even though she won the money.
2. I don't think Steve was wrong to choose split. He seemed very genuine in the way he talked, and he carried through on his promise like any honorable person should do.
I wouldn't have pleaded to Sarah because I wouldn't want to feel like someone else was in control of my decision/outcome. But if I was in that situation, I would have believed Steve.
3. It essentially portrays human nature as self centered and greedy. Agreements fall apart because both sides don't wholly trust the other, and act against each other in order to protect themselves. This in turn brings them-as a whole- down.
Malavika Chander
Period 4
4th period
1. What in the world is going on here? Why did Sarah choose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000?
-I am not happy with Sarah at all. I understand that she was deceived in the past and did not want to risk it again, but Steve actually looked sincere. He looked like an honest man who would rather take half then nothing at all. Although the deception of her game last time took a toll on her, I think she had a motive. She knew Steve would not steal so she tricked him. I feel as if she wanted him to know that he shouldn't trust anyone.
2.Was Steve totally wrong to choose split? What would you have done in his situation?
-Although I want to say yes to the first question, even if he had chosen steal, there's no telling what would have happened. I think that since Sarah would have still chose steal, that Steve would have still lost either way. In this situation I wouldn't have trusted Sarah at all. First of all I don't even know her, so why should I trust her in what she says? There are a lot of people in the world who lie to get to where they are. If I knew the person on a personal level, then maybe I would have chosen steal, but Sarah really looked sketchy when Steve had told her he would choose split no matter what. She looked hesitant when she told him he would do the same.
3.How do the choices faced by Steve and Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolitic markets? Now that you’ve seen this video, can you explain why collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart? Why do cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders?
-It essentially portrays human nature as deceptive and unwilling. Many proposals have fallen through because of the lack of trust. What Sarah did, proved how many companies work. In order to have an agreement companies must trust each other, but when there is deception, it is very hard to comply with them again. That is why their leaders can never make up their minds. It takes much persuasion to have trust.
1. What in the world is going on here? Why did Sarah choose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000?
Sarah choose to steal the money because she believes that she has every right to, that she was betrayed in the past and that she must ensure that does not happen again.
2. 2. Was Steve totally wrong to choose split? What would you have done in his situation?
I don't think Steve was totally wrong for choosing the split because I think he believed that Sarah was going to split with him. He made a deal and executed it the way he promised.
3. How do the choices faced by Steve and Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolitic markets? Now that you’ve seen this video, can you explain why collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart? Why do cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders?
The game is similar to oligopolitic markets in that there is a main focus on maximizing awards and ensuring that one does not get decieved. Oligopolitic markets are difficult to manage because the central problem concerns the fact that it is human nature to be greedy.
1. Well what I got from the viedo was that Sarah stole, based on her past experience. Watching to the end of the clip they interview each contestant. Sarah explains how she was tricked like that before. So I understand where she s coming from when she did that, but I still find that extremely demoning.
2. I have an isuue with being too naive at times, and trying to see the best of people. Sarah's emotions looked real, so if I was Steve I would have been naive and choosen slipt, especially, not knowing about her past on the game show.
3.They are similar ing the way that they are both trying to get as much money as they can, without being beytraed.
1. Sarah chose to steal because she didn't want to be betrayed like her past experience. I think she also chose to steal because if Steve really did choose split she would go home with more money. I don't think she was proud of what she did though.
2. The strategy Steve took was not effective. In the first video, Nick had all the power because he said he was going to steal, so if Abraham also chose to steal they both would go home with no money. Therefore, the best choice Abraham could take is to trust Nick that he would split the money afterwards. Steve basically pleaded to Sarah for her to split the money with him. In conclusion, I don't think it was wrong for Steve to choose split but the way he collaborated with Sarah was not effective.
3.The game and oligopolitic markets are similar because both have the intention of trying to gain the maximum amount of profits while trying to avoid being conned. Agreements often fall apart mainly because of the lack of trust.
What in the world is going on here? Why did Sarah choose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000?
-Sarah chose to steal because she was too afraid of being betrayed like she said she had been in past games. While she will be happier later that she won 100 instead of 50, she chose to steal because being betrayed was worse than the possibility of loosing everything.
Was Steve totally wrong to choose split? What would you have done in his situation?
- Steve did what his heart told him to do, not his brain. He forgot to realize that they were on a game show where the point is to win as much money as possible. I would probably have done the same thing. Sarah seemed like such a sweet girl. I didn't suspect her until it was too late.
How do the choices faced by Steve and Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolitic markets? Now that you’ve seen this video, can you explain why collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart? Why do cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders?
-Firms in oligopolitic markets play the same games with each other that Sarah played with Steve. They use the assurance that they want to help another firm as a strategy to be able to profit more. Once the firm believe it has another firms trust that second firm is no longer a threat to the first firm. When leaders of this type meet, they act like they wish to peruse methods to ensure profit for everyone at the table, but of course once they leave the table that idea stays at the table.
Karly Brightwell
4th Period
1. Sarah choses to steal because it is the best outcome for her. She claims that she has been manipuulated before and refuses to let that happen again. In chosing to steal she either gains or goes home empty handed, had she split and Steve stole then she would have again been the sucker in a situation.
2. Steve was never the person leading the conversation to steal or split, and therefore that was the best desicion he could make. He kept his word, and in my opinion he made the correct desicion based on what he was previously saying. If I had committed to something I would have stuck with it as well, however in the discussion I would have took over and convinced the other person to do what I wanted to do.
3. It shows that greed often makes the failures. Trust is needed to depend on the other in order to increase profit all around. When there is no trust agreements and pacts do not get followed and everyone loses something.
As stated in the video, Sarah took the steal because she had been tricked previously and couldn't risk that happenig again.
Steve did what e thought was right, he's obviously a trusting person but as he said in his commentary: you never know who you can trust and greed can take over any decent person.
The two share similarities in thy they both try or te best that they can.
By each confessing, the two people minimize the overall jail time, though each will probably think ahead of each other and stay silent. Moving on to the questions...
1. She could see he would pick split based off of emotions. Also, it was her dominant strategy and she did not want to lose the money again as she had said.
2. Split defines sincerity rather than steal. If I knew she was going to choose steal, I probably would pick steal too just so she would not receive the money.
3. If one person goes against the strategy, everyone will suffer for it but them. In an OPEC agreement, if there is an established high price, than just by lowering one person's price a little bit, they receive large profit due to a larger demand. Agreements based on trust are sometimes the hardest to pull through with.
Will Ripley
Period 7
Period 7
1. What in the world is going on here? Why did Sarah choose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000?
Greed. Pure and simple. Because of Steve's petty, begging attitude, she knew he was going to chose split and saw the opportunity to take all the money for herself. It was stupid on Steve's part to play the game that way and then actually chose split.
Was Steve totally wrong to choose split? What would you have done in his situation?
Because of the way the game is played, and my own cynical distrust of other people. I would have chosen steal. I think steve was wrong to blatantly assume Sarah was willing to split the money. If there are no consequences afterward, why wouldn't she chose to steal? Either she goes home much more wealthy, or she returns to her life as normal.
How do the choices faced by Steve and Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolitic markets? Now that you’ve seen this video, can you explain why collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart? Why do cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders?
Game Theory can also extended to the scaled up markets of oligopolies, where multiple companies vie for control of a market. The basic purpose of a business is to make money, and while it is true that collaboration can make everyone more wealthy, if a set price is agreed upon, there's the opportunity for a business to dip below that price and make much more money than they would have. It's all about greed...
1. What in the world is going on here? Why did Sarah choose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000?
There are many factors that influence this outcome. The biggest factors are the jackpot is over 100 pounds and that she was stabbed in the back apparently. The other factors are, if she chooses split and he lies and chooses steal then she loses everything. And if he chooses steal when she knew she was going to pick steal then they would lose everything. The most rational thing to do is split the jackpot; however, the 2nd most rational thing to do is convince the other person that both will split to give an illusion of trust and that is what she did.
2. Was Steve totally wrong to choose split? What would you have done in his situation?
Steve was not wrong to split. Both of them would still get a hefty sum; however, by begging her to split, he loses control of the negotiations and ultimately her outcome. I would have kept calm and strengthen my position to steal to see what the other person is really up to.
3. How do the choices faced by Steve and Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolitic markets? Now that you’ve seen this video, can you explain why collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart? Why do cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders?
Each firm wants to maximize profits without being schemed or deceived. The failure to keep integrity and the abundance of greed leads to the agreements to fall apart because one firm wants to not only maximize its profits but also become larger and more illustrious than the other firm. It's all about the money.
1. What in the world is going on here? Why did Sarah choose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000?
Sarah said that she did not want to lose the money again, so she had obviously lost before. She didn't want to lose this time, and she knew she could convince Steve to choose split.
2. Was Steve totally wrong to choose split? What would you have done in his situation?
I think Steve made the right choice to choose split because he thought Sarah was going to choose split as well. I would have picked split because I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I had taken all that money for myself when I had the opportunity to share.
3. How do the choices faced by Steve and Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolitic markets? Now that you’ve seen this video, can you explain why collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart? Why do cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders?
People are always going to be greedy. If someone can benefit themselves, they will do it, even if it is at the expense of others. Firms that try to work together in price markets often make promises but then fall back on them. They only care about benefiting themselves.
1. Sarah chose to steal because she is greedy and revengeful. By stealing, she could take the full 100,000 pounds instead of just 50,000, which was especially appealing considering the fact that she was is Steve's shoes not long ago.
2. Steve was right to split because, Sarah looked genuinely concerned and scared that he would not split. I, however, would of stolen.
3. Their choices mirror each others, because the players in both instances are keenly aware of the consequences of other player's actions. agreements between oligopolists fall apart because members betray agreements in hopes of personal advancement. This is why cartels fail at their high price targets. Some leaders can make a killing by lowering their prices when everyone agrees to keep their prices high, so the agreements never work and leaders greedily fight.
1. Sarah said herself that she had been "stabbed in the back before." In her eyes, she could not stand to be made a fool of again. She could not afford to trust Steve and be made a fool of again. It was understandable given her previous situation, but it was still very self- centered of her.
2. No I think it is good that he chose split. He was very sincere and it shows that he fully intended to split the money because as he said 50,000 was more than enough for each of them. He trusted in Sarah and sadly, this time around, it was her greediness and concern that made it worse for him. From an economic viewpoint however, it would have been a win-win situation for him to pick "steal." He could've stopped her from thwarting him, or at least got the money and split it with her later.
3. This game show made me understand how difficult it is for markets because of the selfishness of a few people. If we all looked out (sincerely) for the interest of others, than we could all guarantee being satisfied. However some people can't be content with being even with everyone and they ruin it with the rest of us. People representing million-dollar (or more) business corporations cannot afford the benefit of a doubt because it is not their money to lose in the first place. So, everyone there works in their own self-interest. The main reason I could never work in the business world, people are to selfish!
Jay Baath, 4th
What in the world is going on here? Why did Sarah choose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000?
A: She could see he would pick split based off of emotions. Also, it was her dominant strategy and she did not want to lose the money again as she had said.
Was Steve totally wrong to choose split? What would you have done in his situation?
A: Steve was right to split because, Sarah looked genuinely concerned and scared that he would not split. I, however, would of stolen
How do the choices faced by Steve and Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolitic markets? Now that you’ve seen this video, can you explain why collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart? Why do cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders?
A: The game and oligopolitic markets are similar because both have the intention of trying to gain the maximum amount of profits while trying to avoid being conned. Agreements often fall apart mainly because of the lack of trust.
1. Sarah said that she had been stabbed in the back before and she didn't want to take the chance of being lied to and been taken advantage of again. Unfortunetaly, what appears to be a decent man suffered for it.
2. Steve was not wrong because he made a decision that reflected his character. I would have chosen split I could never take money from another person like that. If they chose steal and took the money away from me so be it, I'd rather have no money and a clean conscience.
3. These companies are driven by maximizing rewards and benefits while at the same time trusting eachother and not being lied to. Because a lot of people that run these companies are greedy, they do what is only good for their interests and cheat others.
Christian Camera 4th Period
1.- I think that was really going on here is a total sense of selfishness from Sarah's part. It really defines her as a fake and inhuman person, is sad that people like this exist in this world. She didn't want to share the money because she thought Steve would trick her.
2.-Steve wasn't wrong by choosing split. In his conscience he knows he did the right thing and that's what really matters. Sarah will walk out with 100,000$ but deep inside she knows that she betrayed Steve and that's something she will be living with for the rest of her life.
3.- These huge companies are interested in having maximizing rewards and benefits, they dont care if its by lying to each other or not. Because a lot of people that are in charge and run these companies are greedy and selfish, they betray others and only care about themselves as long as they get the most amount of money.
1. Sarah chose steal because she could see that Steve was really sincere in choosing the split, therefore she took advantage of him.
2. Steve was not wrong because he genuinely believed that she was going to split. If i was him I would have said i was going to steal and its better that both of us go home with no money rather than my opponent go with it all.
3. they are all similar because in the end it all comes down to trust.
collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart since they are all run by human beings and since human beings are cold rational creatures, they would risk too much
Kenneth George
4th
What in the world is going on here? Why did Sarah choose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000?
Answer: Well, Steve being the logical human being decided that he would be able to bargain with Sarah and get the money evenly. However, when Sarah pulled out the steal option itself, Steve knew that he had been cheated by putting all his chance on the will of Sarah.
Was Steve totally wrong to choose split? What would you have done in his situation?
No, he was not wrong in choosing split, however Steve did not think through the entire thought process that Sarah was going through. If I had been in Steve's position, I would not have bet my luck on trusting a complete stranger whom I have never met before. Steve should have thought smarter than Sarah and tried to outwit her, so he would gain the upper hand on Sarah through their conversation.
How do the choices faced by Steve and Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolitic markets? Now that you’ve seen this video, can you explain why collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart? Why do cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders?
In both the game show and relations between firms, one side wants to maximize profit, if not both. They try to create alliances or agreements with each other, so they will not be schemed or deceived. Collusive agreements between oligopolists do not work because the nature of human greed works very strongly on both sides. As it grows, one side tries to gain more benefits or profit than the other leading to distrust and often competition between firms. Cartels such as OPEC fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in their meetings due to the difference of the views each leader has for the company itself. The leaders may agreed upon something in the meeting itself, but for it to be put into effect requires that the inborn greed be put aside. This is not the case ever in society as we know it.
Phillip Thai
4th
1.What in the world is going on here? Why did Sarah choose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000?
A: She didn't want to be betrayed and backstabed like she has been in the pass, so she took the dominant position and took her chance when Steve looked concern and seemed like he was willing to make a deal with her.
2. Was Steve totally wrong to choose split? What would you have done in his situation?
A: I don't think Steve was wrong to choose split, he was serious about what he meant but the woman took advantage of the moment. If i were in this situation i would have taken the dominant position like the guy did in the above video.
3. How do the choices faced by Steve and Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolitic markets? Now that you’ve seen this video, can you explain why collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart? Why do cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders?
A: The game is very similar to the oligopolitic markets where the attention is on a big reward and trying to make sure one does not get deceived.
7th period
1. Sarah said she had been used before and didn’t want that to occur again. The possibility of Steve stealing and leaving her duped outweighed the option of splitting, so she decided that stealing would be best for her.
2. Since he never led the discourse of stealing or splitting, Steve chose the best option he could. Based on what he previously said, I believe Steve made the right choice and stayed true to his word.
3. The lack of trust and greed of these situations show the nature of humans and how we’re prone to make mistakes. People become so paranoid about someone wanting to out-do the other that the person decides to be the one who comes out on top, further feeding to the cycle of paranoia around the table. Without trust to ensure equal benefit, agreements fall apart and everyone loses.
1. What in the world is going on here? Why did Sarah choose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000?
Sarah was just greedy and saw an opportunity to get what she wanted rather than possibly allow someone else to steal it away from her, leaving her with nothing, just as. she said has happened before.
2. Was Steve totally wrong to choose split? What would you have done in his situation?
Steve made the better choice in choosing to split, but it wasn’t what I would've done. Sarah would’ve left him with nothing, so why should he have shown her mercy? His choice makes him the better person, even though he had no idea of Sarah and truly thought she would’ve split too.
3. How do the choices faced by Steve and Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolitic markets? Now that you’ve seen this video, can you explain why collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart? Why do cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders?
The only goal in mind for these firms is to expand their rewards and benefits to the max. After playing business with people for ages, these heads of companies know how to not get screwed over or manipulated. The overall greed of the people making agreements causes the firms to lose sight of what’s good for others, cheat them, and do their best to stick to only their interests so that nobody loses anything.
1) Anyone would pick 100,000 dollars over 50,000. Sarah got greedy and luckily for her it paid off.
2) Steve was not totally wrong for choosing split because he trusted her. He was morally correct, however, in terms of the game show he was stupid. If I were him i would have threatened to steal and then split.
3) People get greedy all the time. Often times when people feel that they have power or don't have to cooperate with rules they abuse their privileges.
1. What in the world is going on here? Why did Sarah choose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000?
Sarah was thinking about what would benefit her the most as opposed to what would be fair and also benefit Steve. Sarah is greedy and does not want to risk losing the money so she chooses steal.
2. Was Steve totally wrong to choose split? What would you have done in his situation?
No, he chose what he thought was his best option. The more dominant answer in this game depends on the person and how selfish they are. I would say I was going to steal, similar to the guy from the other game. But I would actually have stolen.
3. How do the choices faced by Steve and Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolitic markets? Now that you’ve seen this video, can you explain why collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart? Why do cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders?
The contestants and the firms are both striving for the best strategy that will result in the highest payout. They both have to make a decision on which strategy will do this for them. Agreements tend to fall apart because human nature is for us to do what will ultimately be best for us, not anyone else. We tend to put ourselves above the betterment of the rest.
Tia Wettman
Period 4
4th period
1. Sarah chose to steal because she didn't want to be betrayed like her past experience. Watching to the end of the clip they interview each contestant. Sarah explains how she was tricked like that before. She didn't want to lose this time, and she knew she could convince Steve to choose split.
2. No, Steve wasn’t wrong for what he did. Steve lost control early on in the situation because he started off by pleading with Sarah split the money. This is a horrible strategy because it gave Sarah the lead in the negotiations. It was her greediness and concern that made it worse for him. From an economic viewpoint however, it would have been a win-win situation for him to pick "steal."
3. The game is similar to oligopolitic markets in that there is a main focus on maximizing awards and ensuring that one does not get decieved. The game and oligopolitic markets are also similar because both have the intention of trying to gain the maximum amount of profits while trying to avoid being conned. Agreements often fall apart mainly because of the lack of trust.
1.What in the world is going on here? Why did Sarah choose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000?
Sarah steals the money because she is one of the people who does not easily trust strangers and acts more cautiously by being secretive of their inner motive. Obviously, she knew that if she trusted a stranger and she lost the opportunity to win the money, she would somewhat feel stupid for trusting someone she doesn't know. In the end, it's just in human nature.
2.Was Steve totally wrong to choose split? What would you have done in his situation?
No, it was wise of him to choose split and actually give the stranger a chance to prove him/herself if he/she really is a trustworthy individual. But then again, it is a bit foolish to trust strangers easily but those kinds of people are what the society really needs right now. If I was Steve, I would have done the same thing.
3.How do the choices faced by Steve and Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolitic markets? Now that you’ve seen this video, can you explain why collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart? Why do cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders?
Because people are really selfish in nature which they try to maximize whatever they can get out of something. Greed has been always in Humans since the beginning of time which works for everyone in oligopolitic markets.
7th period
1. Obviously, she knew that if she trusted a stranger and she lost the opportunity to win the money, she would somewhat feel stupid for trusting someone she doesn't know.
2. No, he chose what he thought was his best option. The more dominant answer in this game depends on the person and how selfish they are.
3. Collusive agreements between oligopolists do not work because the nature of human greed works very strongly on both sides. As it grows, one side tries to gain more benefits or profit than the other leading to distrust and often competition between firms.
KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)
Game Theory, heavily condensed: Self-preservation inherently supersedes altruism, even fundamental human compassion. Strong genetic diversity necessitates acting accordingly with what's "necessary & proper;" ergo, the ends justify the means.
Steve's decision, disgustingly incongruous with individualistic preservation instincts, demonstrably proves that, with his abundantly clear level of submission, exemplified by requesting understandably equitable asset distribution, human beings lacking aforementioned preservationist instincts ought not receive any means allowing their continued genetic pollution.
Furthermore, human greed usurps even the ultimate "need" previously placed atop Maslow's Hierarchy, self-actualization. Impact: personal fulfillment and perfection of innate talents seldomn yields societal influence or power. Consequently, the modern Golden Rule (For you unexposed readers: "He who has the gold, makes the rules") explains why mutual agreements between oligopolies fail: mob-rule and equitable asset distribution mitigate a given nation's capacity for exerting influence. All things equal, to exercise power, that nation must surrender assets, thereby making it inherently weaker and increasingly susceptible to hostilities.
Fortunately, inflation and capitalism prevent such scenarios; closed mechanical systems shrink, since energy escapes as heat. (Same basic iteration, just simplified.)
KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)
Game Theory, heavily condensed: Self-preservation inherently supersedes altruism, even fundamental human compassion. Strong genetic diversity necessitates acting accordingly with what's "necessary & proper;" ergo, the ends justify the means.
Steve's decision, disgustingly incongruous with individualistic preservation instincts, demonstrably proves that, with his abundantly clear level of submission, exemplified by requesting understandably equitable asset distribution, human beings lacking aforementioned preservationist instincts ought not receive any means allowing their continued genetic pollution.
Furthermore, human greed usurps even the ultimate "need" previously placed atop Maslow's Hierarchy, self-actualization. Impact: personal fulfillment and perfection of innate talents seldomn yields societal influence or power. Consequently, the modern Golden Rule (For you unexposed readers: "He who has the gold, makes the rules") explains why mutual agreements between oligopolies fail: mob-rule and equitable asset distribution mitigate a given nation's capacity for exerting influence. All things equal, to exercise power, that nation must surrender assets, thereby making it inherently weaker and increasingly susceptible to hostilities.
Fortunately, inflation and capitalism prevent such scenarios; closed mechanical systems shrink, since energy escapes as heat. (Same basic iteration, just simplified.)
TROLL IN THE DUNGEON
KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)
Game Theory, heavily condensed: Self-preservation inherently supersedes altruism, even fundamental human compassion. Strong genetic diversity necessitates acting accordingly with what's "necessary & proper;" ergo, the ends justify the means.
Steve's decision, disgustingly incongruous with individualistic preservation instincts, demonstrably proves that, with his abundantly clear level of submission, exemplified by requesting understandably equitable asset distribution, human beings lacking aforementioned preservationist instincts ought not receive any means allowing their continued genetic pollution.
Furthermore, human greed usurps even the ultimate "need" previously placed atop Maslow's Hierarchy, self-actualization. Impact: personal fulfillment and perfection of innate talents seldomn yields societal influence or power. Consequently, the modern Golden Rule (For you unexposed readers: "He who has the gold, makes the rules") explains why mutual agreements between oligopolies fail: mob-rule and equitable asset distribution mitigate a given nation's capacity for exerting influence. All things equal, to exercise power, that nation must surrender assets, thereby making it inherently weaker and increasingly susceptible to hostilities.
Fortunately, inflation and capitalism prevent such scenarios; closed mechanical systems shrink, since energy escapes as heat. (Same basic iteration, just simplified.)
So, it is advisable to purchase the house as early as you can so as to reap the maximum benefits out of your investment. 1710 vpn
Avoid food rich in fats and too much of starch. vpn client software definition
This in turn allows more accurate information of demand and availability of inventory, thus ensuring improved customer service. vpnprivacy com
The producers of the less successful advertisement crafted their message to be educational. A common ailment due to the cockroach menace is asthma in people affected by the menace. sql server sample code. What if locks, grills, safes, and other security items are not so strong, or can be easily broken or demanding high maintenance cost. Does your erection not last long enough to enjoy sex?, w network mono laser printer. Students should learn and revise as much they can before their final papers and perform some simple stressbusting activities to keep their anxiety levels under control. groupwise .. client
A business directory gives you lists of movie theaters, restaurants, night clubs bowling alleys etc. Durability, waterresistant, moisture control and thermal properties; these brands provide it all. network event log. Competencies normally form the foundation of ensuring effective performance in any position in an organization. Consequently, any kind of undue pressure or sensitive exposures can lead to issues like irritability, inflammation, severe pain, swelling or bleeding., mwr vpn. Apart from the considerable savings you make, you are also involved in recycling to reduce carbon footprint. unable to load dynamic library php domxml dll
Beaches are the awesome place to stay in and to enjoy the vacation. A professional solar panel installer will have the experience to avoid this type of accident and will also have insurance in place for those times when accidents do happen. how to do a network boot. The civil law lawyers specialize across various verticals of civil law like tax law, business and corporate law, personal injury law, family law etc. Internal waterproofing involves installing a drainage system and sump pumps, sealing wall cracks and windows and insulating walls to make sure the complete safety of your basement internally., uzbek server. However, it may also be due to being out of shape, bad posture, overextension, sitting or lying in the same or odd position for extended amounts of time, these problems are curbed by a good massage. 444 server
For a puppy that is growing up and needs to develop the bones, the diet should consist of milk to enable him build up a much stronger bones. Online work is also available for talented writers, artists, graphic designers, and every conceivable field of interest., 2096 windows server. Computer warranties are one of the most obscure and confusing parts of your computer buying process. sql server 2005 error 5123
But if you try to give as many options as you can then a flowchart can be better option to use it as campaign planning tools. axis 2100 network camera 2.40
From a role perspective, the proficiency levels have to indicate the complexity level. You get a set of extender rods as well. the police and the private lyrics. Una vez establecido el contacto por medio de la interacción en el grupo envÃale la solicitud de anexión a tu red y explÃcale en el mensaje de solicitud el por qué es interesante (para él o ella) que estéis conectados. It is more important to have a good website that has a lot of great content for your readers than it is to have flash and other graphic elements., down load freeware deamon tool. This is done all over various organizations that are found in the nation. mod proxy timeout
Post a Comment