"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/
64 comments:
1) I believe that Sarah chose steal because she believed it was her best option. She either believed that her partner was going to put steal and would rather they both go home with nothing, or she decided that she could trust her partner enough to put split and then she could walk away with all of the money. It depends on whether she was driven by greed (which I believe she was) or simply just didn't trust her partner enough (can you blame her?).
2) It is very difficult for me to decide whether or not Steve was wrong. It would seem that it is the typical strategy for both players to pick split because it is the only way that both people will get money. However, I would have to trust my partner a lot for me to do that, which would mean they needed one crazy good argument in favor of both of us. Overall, I would have to face Sarah and do my best to decide if she was lying and if I trusted her.
3) The choices are all very similar because one choice from one member of an oligopolistic member can majorly set back the rest of the group. It would be very easy for a member to say one thing, and then turn around and change their mind so that they can further themselves even if it steps on the other members in the process. Arguments between them are bound to fall apart because there is very little trust in groups like this. The environment is so high stakes that it is nearly impossible to actually accomplish things out of fear and distrust of other peoples actions.
1.I think Sarah saw the steal as the best strategy since this game is really an all-or-nothing situation. There are only two extremes to choose from with a rare chance of hitting middle ground due to the fickleness of human nature.
2.In his place,I would of chosen steal because then nobody would win.
3.The choices are essentially the same because it only takes one action to have several consequences. Self-interest,or sometimes nationalism for OPEC, often gets in the way as political pressures become a great factor.
Tyler Morris
1)Sarah chose to steal because she had Steve exactly where she wanted him, but still with no way to tell. She chose steal because it was all for her, or nothing for anybody, which was her safest choice.
2)In this situation you have a 50/50 chance with the split, and a 50/50 chance with the steal, however, it is generally safer to choose the split ball because then at least one person gets the money. That is strictly from a logic standpoint.
3)These cartels and corporations often fail because offering a cheaper price lets them have the most money. People will always choose what is best for them. The reason these things fall apart is because of sheer greed. Nothing else. It is ingrained in our human nature.
1) She chose steal because she would be able to take all of the money home. She would be willing to rather have both of them walk away with nothing than just for her to leave with nothing. She could have decided to trust her partner where they both choose to split. It is a trust game and there's not many people that are willing to trust others with money.
2) Split would be the most humane thing to do because they would both leave with more than they came with. Although if one were to choose steal then they would leave with all of the money. Just decide if they are trustworthy.
3) This is very similar to what we see in the markets everyday. They all agree on one price and would have to hope that everyone keeps their word. This could hurt a lot of business and make them lose money.
Jennifer Shen- 1st period
1. Here comes the questions: whether we should trust people or not, and whether we should deceive people to get benefits. When they were talking with each other, I guessed Sarah would choose steal since she took the advantages of a woman with innocent expression. Steve protested too much.It was such a good chance for Sarah to get $100,000 instead of only $50,000. Why not?
2.He's not totally wrong because if he chooses steal after he protested a lot that he would choose split, they would both leave with nothing. I would tell Sarah that I may choose steal however lovely she looks and then split the money with her after the game. I would persuade her to choose split.
3.The choices faced by Steve and Sarah are similar with the choices faced by firms in oligopolitic markets because people all want to get as many benefits as they can. Collusive oligopoly tries to raise prices up and get much more money from customers. However, if one company sets prices cheaper than the prices that it promised to other companies to set, customers would rather buy more from this company. That's why collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart and cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders.
1). Sarah realized that since Steve was going to choose split, she could choose steal and take all the money rather than half of it. She was taking a risk that Steve wasn't going to also choose steal, because she would leave with nothing, but the risk paid off well.
2). I don't think Steve is wrong at all. He trusted Sarah thinking she would also pick split but in the end greed overcame her. In my opinion, I would have chosen split because I made a promise to the other person and betraying someone's trust is just morally wrong.
3). The choices are similar because you make your decisions based on what you think the others will do. Collusive agreements often fall through because one firm will undercut the others for their own gain. The collusive agreement is the same as the split ball.
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!
1) I believe Sarah chose to steal because she did not wish to be betrayed again in the game. I think she would rather take the risk to pick steal to earn more money rather than placing her faith in her partner to pick split, since she already got tricked into picking split.
2) I believe that Steve did the "right" thing by picking split. However Sarah gave off no intentions of picking split, and Steve should have realized that.
3) The choices quite similar because people often have selfish motives for their actions. Becuase of this,it is difficult to set prices for OPEC since the other competitors are unsure that other companies will raise the price with them, thus causing the company that raised its prices to lose out on much money because no one seeks to buy an overpriced good compared to its competitors.
1) Sarah is cutthroat and is willing to screw over Steve in order to get money. She would rather risk Steve also picking steal and them both leaving with nothing than be tricked and have him steal from her.
2)Never choose split. Choosing split shows weakness and displays fear. Acting dominant in the situation is vital and Steve made the mistake to get a win-win scenario.
3)While oligopolitical organization work together on the surface value, each individual is trying to betray one another in order to get higher prices for themselves, ruining the whole purpose of the organization. Man's greed ruins man's aspirations.
Cortney Corley
4th period
1. I think that Sarah chose steal because she knew that it would be beneficial to the overall situation. Since this is, in fact, a big mind game, she needed to evaluate the situation based on her own personal views. Steal proved to be the best choice for her, because according to past experiences, she had not been very lucky. Also, people can be selfish with money according to human nature.
2. No, I do not think that Steve was wrong to choose to split the money. He was trying to be a good person because they were both in that game together. Also, if he had chosen steal, neither of them would have gotten the money. He was trying to do what was best overall. If he had known what Sarah was going to do, I assume the situation would have been different.
3. These agreements can fail to work and fall apart because of the different opinions and morals each party has. Self interest and beliefs play hugely into games such as this, and people, by human nature, want as much money as possible so they act in ways most beneficial to themselves.
1. At first I thought that Sarah was just being greedy, by choosing the steal ball. However, at the end of the clip we learn that Sarah was betrayed on this game before, and was afraid of it happening again. Therefore, although she may be justified in choosing the steal ball, she feels remorse for what she has done and has to live with her revenge on an innocent man.
2. Steve was not wrong in choosing split, because he obviously has a trusting personality. He had complete confidence in Sarah, a confidence that she did not return. Therefore, he too has to live with the consequences of his decisions. This experience may change they way he looks at people. I would have chosen steal, because both people were too trusting to quickly.
3. Firms in an oligopolistic market, have to make choices based on trust of the other members of that group. Just like Sarah and Steve, they must trust each other, or they can stab each other in the back to better their earnings. Collusive agreements fall apart in an oligopolistic market because one member can agree with another, but then turn around and make a completely different decision. Cartels do not achieve high market targets because of their inability to stay unified. They are very unstable.
1. Sarah did what she thought was best for her. Not only did she not trust her partner, but also, she was motivated by greed.
2. For me, Steve made the right decision. He chose to have faith in his partner. His option to split also speaks volume of his good kindhearted nature to share rather than be controlled by greed and money. I would have done the same as Steve.
3. It relates greatly to the oligopolistic markets because self-interest or even national interest can cloud ones judgment for the greater good and one greedy decision can come with a whole bunch of negative consequences.
Kristal Pinto
4 Period
1) I think Sarah took her chance to steal because she as a female makes her a little easily believable to the male. She saw this as an opportunity as a all or nothing.
2) I think he was absolutely right in choosing split because Sarah made it so believable that she was going to split. For him he would have liked to walk away with some money than no money. If i was in his place I would have chosen split as well.
3)They are very much alike because Oligo-politic markets are complete independent from each other but however if they work together on specific products, they can either increase or decrease their profits.Agreements usually fall apart because usually these markets try to look to benefit themselves only. Cartels such as OPEC fail because they are not able to reach the high prices, which does not give them the high profit. This causes them to share profit.
1. Apparently in the games previous to the 'Golden Balls', Steve had betrayed Sarah. Then he constantly assures her with sincere language and body expression that he will choose the split ball. Sarah saw an opportunity to get revenge and take the full pot to herself and did just that.
2. Based purely on game theory, choosing split is definitely the wrong choice. As the article states, the three Nash equilibria point towards a dominant strategy of stealing in order to maximize the potential payoff. However taking human nature and morality into account, splitting becomes a plausible choice. Looking from a third-person perspective, it seems obvious that Sarah was going to do something, but at the time, Steve was probably blinded by his guilt and the nerves from the money. I probably would've chosen split while trying to get her to do the same.
3. Oligopolitic markets rely heavily on each other's decisions since it's a combined effort to control the market. One firm could try to maximize profits by not following previous agreements at the expense of the demand of the competitors. Trying to create high prices at OPEC provides opportunities for each firm to increase demand for their oil by selling at a lower price.
Period 4
1) With Sarah having Steve's trust for both to have $50,0000, she took the risk of obtaining the full $100,000 in order to avoid not obtaining anything if Steve betrayed her.
2)In Steve's place I wouldn't of betrayed Sarah in the first place to lose her trust. Then over time until the very end she would most likely have some trust in me for a split.
3)In oligopolitic competitions, there should be some decisions that involve some important risks to get the highest profit as in Sarah's and Steve's situation, but there always should be a backup plan if the risk always fails as when Steve lost.
Gabriel Camera
4th Period
1- I believe this was not Sarah's first time playing the game. It appears that last time she played,she went home with nothing because of a trust issue from the partner she was playing with.
2- I think Steve felt like a split was satisfying enough. I think that 50,000 each would be a great day for both players. I guess Sarah wasn't going to be satisfied with 50. She just wanted everything or nothing.
3- Being honest is crucial in businesses and trusting your partner too. I believe that people get better at lying day by day. People are selfish and that is not appropriate for any kind of businesses. Another important thing that people need to take into account is that keeping your word is more important than what you think.
1. What is going on here? What's going on is a game of trust versus greed, of course that would be the simple answer. The complexities between these two forces lay within Sarah's closing statement about being backstabbed "again". Obviously, this means she has been a contestant before and was stolen from. Therefore, I believe Sarah's choice eventually became less about money, and more about revenge. She has no personal vendetta with Steve, but she does have a bad history with the game and believed that placing herself on top with the steal ball will right her past. As the evidence shows, this was not the case, as most people with a history of revenge can confirm.
2. This is not a game about right or wrong. If anything, those words can only be measured by the morals or each contestant alongside their ultimate decisions. Past that, Golden Balls is a mere measure of the humanity of people. Thus, Steve's choice was not "wrong", it merely demonstrates how much faith he chooses to place in others when the time calls for it. And because of this reason, I would have done the same every single time. Naturally, I hold a lot of faith in humanity and hope for the best of people, and because of this I tend to place my trust in others rather easily.
3. When faced with decisions such as this, it become imperative to remember where their priorities lies. For some, they may try to consider what is best for the overall growth of the nation, product, etc. But for others, it could mean that they only choose to take what they can get even if it means cutting the competition here and there.
Nicolas Alba
Period 3
1) She most likely did not trust Steve so she decided that she would not let Steve take the money away from her if she chose share and Steve chose Steal.
2)I don't think you can ever be "totally wrong" in the decisions that you make in this game. It all comes down to a lot of luck and hoping that you actually will understand what the other person is thinking.
3)The agreements are the same thing as the "split" in the game. The reason they fail is because two parties may be making money off of a "share." But as soon as the other party seeks the opportunity, they may "steal" in their agreement, making more money out of greed, and consequently leaving the other business broke.
While I'm hesitant in saying this Sarah's choice to steal the money rather than split the money was very wise. It seems as if she'd been stabbed in the back by someone else then she proceeded in seeking revenge thus causing her to "fake it till you make it." I admire her for being bold enough to face him and speak to the camera thereafter she'd stolen the money.
Steve was very honest and humble in his decision to split. I felt very sorry for him after what he'd faced with Sarah after she'd stolen the money. Sarah pulled the wool over his eyes and he failed to realize it. If I were in this situation I would have probably chosen the same "split ball" as Steve because I generally attempt to seek out the good in people. It's unfortunate that I would've lost but if I were in the place of Steve I probably would've done the exact same thing.
Each oligopolist must be aware of the actions of others in order to reduce competition and increase prices. Often collusive agreements fall apart between oligopolist because they're deceptive and are cunning in their actions towards one another in order to obtain the upper hand. The leaders tend to say they will increase prices in order to benefit the populace as a whole but in actuality they end up keeping the money for themselves.
Thank you,
Caleb Bledsoe
1.Because when Sarah chose steal, she may maximize her profit rather than sharing profit but she is taking risk because Steve may also choose steal so both may lose money. By choosing steal Sarah may profit 100k if Steve wants to have profit so this strategy is better for Sarah.
2.Steve wasn't totally wrong while he chose split because it is a more humanistic choice in that deal because if Sarah also chose split they would the share profit equally. But there is risk on choosing split because Sarah may not want to share profit and she can choose steal to maximize her profit.
3.In oligopolistic markets, firms should also have strategies while they are deciding on prices because it may affect them badly or they can maximize their profits so it is same as oligopolistic markets. And we can see hear that oligopolists often fall apart because they cannot maximize their profits. Cartels may also fail markets because again they cannot reach maximum price to maximize their profits by sharing their profits.
Tori Daniels
3rd Period
1. Sarah chose to steal because she couldn't trust Steve enough to choose split. She was looking to getting money either way. She kind of deceived him, and made him trust her by talking about how her family would be ashamed if she chose to steal. I feel that her strategy was to show Steve she was "trustworthy" and that she would choose split, and that she would trust him. Then, in the end, after making him trust her she came back and chose steal.
2. I don't feel that he was wrong. Either way, it would have been better for someone to walk home with money. And if they had both chosen steal, no one would have gotten anything. As hard as it seems, choosing split is the best option. You have a better chance to obtain money if you go with split considering that if both choose to steal no one wins money.
3. The circumstances are similar in the situation Steve and Sarah were in are exactly like in an oligopolistic market in the fact that the actions of one business can have sever consequences on other businesses. The agreements often fall apart because both businesses may claim to agree to one idea, and then one business might be deceptive in order to better their chances. They may fall apart because of the deceitfulness of companies.
1) Theres an expression out there that I really like: Go big or go home. This is what Sarah was probably thinking when she made her decision. She probably thought that the option to steal and get all of the money was worth the risk of stealing and losing all of the money. If she chose split, she ran the risk of gaining either half the money of none at all.
2) Steve was too trusting in this scenario but I'm not sure it was his worst decision. I think he was too confident that Sarah would split that he made his decision too quickly to realize the possibility that she may steal all of the money. I probably would have done something similar to what Jason Welker and Nick on the previoud episode of Golden Balls would have done. I would have convinced my partner that I would choose steal and split the pot with him or her. If they were still unsure of their decision or if they were questioning whether i would split or not, I would threaten my partner by telling them that if they were to choose steal to stop me from taking home the money, they would destroy any chance of receiving the money. My goal would be to convince my partner to choose split and then choose split myself.
3) Some choices are like a butterfly effect. That one choice can affect many things at the same time. Choices of self-interest that usually follow firms affect many firms around the world. Agreements usuallly fall apart because people only look out for themselves. If an agreement doesn't appear to benefit that person in anyway, that person will usually cancel or change it until they benefit in some way. i would say cartel's such as OPEC don't reach their targets because they are afraid of losing profits. Rather than bump the price up and lose customers, OPEC would prefer to ignore their leaders and keep what secure profits they have now.
With Sarah choosing steal, she gets the most if her profits. She gets all of the euros they both have earned. Although her tactic is predominantly greed and selfishness, If i were her i would do the same thing. Even though it seems like she did the wrong and unethical thing, she inst the one walking away with nothing.
2. Steve was just being honest and reasonabl. He wasnt being greedy or selfish like Sarah. I would have stole. I rather walk away with nothing equally with my partner then walk away with nothing and that my partner got everything. Its a pretty simple tactic.
3. Risk is the key factor. The choices are basically the same especially in relation to the nash equilibrium theory. If one firm has better qualities and better in everything, then obviously that firm will win everything. Collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart because firms just want the best for themselves. Cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders because fo the same reasons. Since others will just be selfish, then they won't achieve anything.
Period 1
1) Sarah chose to steal because for her, it was all or nothing. She had no trust in Steve and did not want to risk losing her $100,000 to someone she could not trust. In addition, greed is usually associated with money by nature, so Sarah most likely chose to steal because she wanted the money, plain and simple.
2) I don't think Steve was wrong in choosing to split. Naturally, most of us would prefer to be kind-hearted and generous, so Steve was just trying to be nice. However, based on the Game Theory, splitting would not have been the smartest thing to do because your potential playoff decreases. I probably would have split just because I would have felt bad otherwise.
3) Agreements between oligopolitic markets most likely fall apart because they strongly depend on each other's decisions. Controlling the market with this system is not a one man job; it's a combined effort. If one firm tries to increase its profits and does not stay true to the agreements made between the other firms and itself, the other firms are slighted at the cost of this one firm's decision. In regards to OPEC, making high prices allows for other firms to increase peoples' demand for their oil by selling their oil at a lower price. Thus, each firm will try to avoid setting high prices so that more people will want their oil.
3th period
1) She didn't trust him. She wanted all the money to herself.
2) He was trying to be a nice guy. I would have choose to split.
3) They fall apart easily because one does not trust the other, but still strongly depend on each other. They lower their prices to be more competitive then their rival, so then they both drop the agreement in order to compete better.
Seth Jokinen
4th period
1.) Sarah chose steal because Steve was too convincing that he was going with split. Thus, it was too easy to read him and pick steal and thus take all the money away.
2.) Steve was wrong in that he was too convincing when he said he was going to go with split. It would have been much better to convince her you were going with steal, and advocate splitting the money later, thus she has a choice between maybe getting money or getting nothing at all.
3.) Its like a oligopoly market in that different competing forces will always try and gain the upper-hand in their respective market. Thus, they collaborate trying to maximize their profits by agreeing to set prices at a certain point only for one of them to cut their prices lower to steal away all their customers
1st
1.) During this part of the game the players have the opportunity to either split, steal, or gain nothing by choosing a split or steal ball. In Sarah's situation, you never know who to trust especially when it comes to a situation such as this. Sarah had to decide whether she would split the money or take it all. Since this man appeared to keep to his word to split the money, it was a way for Sarah to take all of the money, so she did just that.
2.) Steve was not wrong, unlike Sarah he was thinking about the both of them and having them both gain the money rather than only one of them just having it all. I understand his sympathy, I probably would have done the same because I need the money for my own reasons, and my opponent needs the money for their own reasons, so why not just collaborate with one another and share?
3.) This game exhibits the firms in the oligopolistic markets by demonstrating their interdependence from one another. Arguments usually fall apart because one does not agree with the other or because firms just want the best for themselves. Cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders because fo the same reasons. Since others will just be selfish, then they will not achieve anything.
1) I believe she picked steal because she knew he was going to pick split and she wanted the money for herself. People just greedy like that and you can't trust everyone.
2) I don't believe he was wrong for choosing split. He wanted to help her out and make sure she goes home with some money to. Honestly, I would have done the same thing.
3) they fail becuase one might get greed just like Sarah and choose to raise their prices higher then what was agreed upon. This easily demonstrates one trying to gain more than others by greed.
Kaylah Moore
Per:1
1. Sarah chose to steal because she was convinced that Steve would choose split.
2. Steve was wrong to choose split. In that situation, if I felt that if I had my opponent convinced that I would choose split, I would have went for the steal, knowing that she would most likely choose split.
3. In negotiating, the choices are made based off of what others do and what you think they will do. When everyone is in it all for themselves they will fail, like when both choses the split ball. Meanwhile, in careful decision making and convincing by one party one party may succeed, like when one choses split and the other choses steal.
Akshay Thakor
1) i think she chose steal cause then she can have all the money and doesnt have to share it with someone. she was being very greedy to steal it. she stole it also probably because she thought the other man was going to steal.
2)in his place i woulda stayed at split. but if knowing sarah, i woulda stole so she doesnt get any money at all.
3)This is ultimately because of equilibrium standpoint. iys like the input output scenario. but everything is trying to achieve stability. another reason y is because everything has a limit to it. like drinking to much water is bad for u, there a limit to everything that can be done.
Matt Louis
3rd
1. Sarah lied straight to this guys face, and was greedy but she did what she thought was the best thing for her.
2. Steve wasn't totally wrong. he did what he thought to be the smartest but got stabbed in the back. Being the nice guy I am, I would have chosen split and hoped it turned out the way I wanted.
3. Oligopolistic negotiations tend to fail because they both believe they are being lied to and try to mess each other up.
Aman Gupte
Period 1
1) In my opinion Sarah picked steal because she knew he was going to pick split. This is an "all or nothing" game and she recognized it. I also think that she had a common mentality of not letting someone else have something because she can't get it.
2) I think that he thought he did the right thing by choosing split. He was more of a team player than Sarah in my opinion. Some money is better than no money and I would've done the same thing.
3) They were not successful becuase one might turn out to be selfish just like Sarah and choose to raise their prices higher than what was agreed upon.
1. I think she stole because she wanted the money. She wasn't sure if her partner would take all the money so she decided to steal just in case. She is a risk taker that ultimately ended up short this time.
2. It isn't right for us to judge who was wrong. You must either cheat your partner so they do not cheat you or compromise. I would make my decision based on instinct because the person across from you isn't a friend but a fellow contestant.
3. Corporations often have set lower prices however people usually dictate their choices on what will help them. These situations aren't successful because of human desire.
1) Sarah, who unfortunately chose steal, she believed it was her best option, though I honestly believed she could do better. She thought that her devious co-worker-in-crime was going to enter the steal ball and would rather they both go home with nothing, or she decided that she could trust her partner enough to put split and then she could walk away with all of the money. Was she truly driven by the simple human emotion of greed, or did charity not beat the mischievous distrust which weaved around her heart?.
2)Based on game theory, split is definitely the wrong choice. As the article states, the three Nash equilibria aimtowards a dominant strategy of stealing which would maximize the potential payoff one can earn. However human nature and morality play a role in the negotiations, splitting then becomes a plausible choice due to one's weakness and pity. Steve was nervous so the is why SArah believed that steal would be a better choice. I probably would've chosen steal because yeah.
3. Oligopolistic markets rely heavily on each other's decisions because the market is created of multiple people worked towards a more profitable future. One firm will maximize profits by not following previous agreements even if it hurts competitors (a minor plus). Trying to create high prices at OPEC provides opportunities for each firm to increase demand for their oil by selling at a lower price."The environment is so high stakes that it is nearly impossible to actually accomplish things out of fear and distrust of other peoples actions." is a highly improbable due to the necessity for innovations and profit drive these people together and apart.
Prerna Kamnani
Period 1
1. Sarah decided to steal because she did not trust Steve. Clearly, she did not want to risk losing $100,000 by trusting Steve. Additionally, Sarah most probably just wanted the money which is why she chose to stole it. I mean I think I would want $100,000 and not want another person to mess that up for me. It is human nature to be selfish. Therefore, Sarah just followed her instinct.
2. According to the Game Theory, splitting causes the potential play off to decrease. Therefore, it is not the smartest decision. However, Steve decided to split. Although the Game Theory is against the idea of splitting, I do not actually believe it was a bad decision for Steve choosing to split. I think Steve was just trying to be diplomatic and a nice guy. Honestly, I think I would have split too because I would just feel really guilty otherwise.
3. The situation depicts the oligopoly because it is effects by other peoples decisions. The market cannot be by just one person. It requires the effort of others as well. Others decisions influences the markets which in turn affects other individuals and firms. Therefore, the innate instinct of greediness and selfishness creates a downfall. OPEC increases the demand for oil by selling their oil at a low price. Each firm wants to avoid setting really high prices because then people will not want their oil. Again, it just manipulating and putting themselves before others concerning economic needs.
Prerna Kamnani
Period 1
1. Sarah decided to steal because she did not trust Steve. Clearly, she did not want to risk losing $100,000 by trusting Steve. Additionally, Sarah most probably just wanted the money which is why she chose to stole it. I mean I think I would want $100,000 and not want another person to mess that up for me. It is human nature to be selfish. Therefore, Sarah just followed her instinct.
2. According to the Game Theory, splitting causes the potential play off to decrease. Therefore, it is not the smartest decision. However, Steve decided to split. Although the Game Theory is against the idea of splitting, I do not actually believe it was a bad decision for Steve choosing to split. I think Steve was just trying to be diplomatic and a nice guy. Honestly, I think I would have split too because I would just feel really guilty otherwise.
3. The situation depicts the oligopoly because it is effects by other peoples decisions. The market cannot be by just one person. It requires the effort of others as well. Others decisions influences the markets which in turn affects other individuals and firms. Therefore, the innate instinct of greediness and selfishness creates a downfall. OPEC increases the demand for oil by selling their oil at a low price. Each firm wants to avoid setting really high prices because then people will not want their oil. Again, it just manipulating and putting themselves before others concerning economic needs.
1. As Sarah said at the end, she didn't really trust him after being "betrayed" the last time so that's why she thought it was fair to just take steal.
2. i dont think he was wrong because he was being honest trying to play fair. But then again, in game shows things don't always go the way they want it to.
3. Things usually fall apart because of greed and people choose whats best for them and in the business world people say one thing but do another, hurting companies
1. I think Sarah chose steal because she was only thinking about what she wanted which to get the most amount of money she could to go home with her.
2.I don't think Steve was wrong for choosing split because he was just doing what was best for them both, which was to go home with more money than they came with.
3. The choices faced by oligopolitic markets are similar because in these markets people are often worried about just them and do things according to what they want. I think they often fall apart because they cant get on the same page.
Allen Jose
1st period
1). Sarah saw the steal as the best strategy since this game is about having the guts to trust the other player or an all-or-nothing situation. Sarah had to either trust her opponent or go with her greed and in this case greed prevailed.
2).He's not totally wrong because if he chooses steal after he protested a lot that he would choose split, they would both leave with nothing. I would tell Sarah that I may choose steal however lovely she looks and then split the money with her after the game. I would persuade her to choose split.
3).The choices are similar because you make your decisions based on what you think the others will do. Collusive agreements often fall through because greed will undercut the others for their own gain. In this case the collusive agreement is the same as the split ball.
1. Sarah was being opportunistic in her choice to steal. Her choice portrays that she would rather go home with nothing than watch the other person go home with something. It is clever on her part because this way she ensures that she is not at comparative loss. But if she chooses split, she takes the chance of losing while Steve takes the money home.
2. Steve on the other hand takes the approach of a more genuine player. He shows signs of his morality with his choice to split. This is a wrong move according to the game theory and in my opinion as well. Steve puts himself at risk not only of walking away with nothing, but watching the other player walk away with everything. Split is not the best choice.
3. Any actions taken have some sort of risk associated in such organizations. However, people tend to do things out of self-interest which is why we see organizations like OPEC have other political involvement.
1. Sarah chose steal because she didn't want to risk being cheated out of the money. She'd rather take the chance of going home with nothing than open herself to the possibility of looking like a sucker on television.
2. Steve shouldn't have chosen split in this case because Sarah was obviously bluffing. I would have told Sarah that I was going to steal and explained to her that she would have to choose between giving me all the money by choosing split or letting the television network keep the money by choosing steal. That way she feels like she has the power and I get a chance at winning some money.
3. In an oligopolitic market, setting your firm's prices at the value agreed upon by the cartel would be equivalent to choosing split, and setting lower prices is like choosing steal. If each firm in the cartel sets prices at the agreed-upon value, then everybody wins. If your firm lowers prices and the rest of the cartel does not, your firm wins by getting a larger market share. If every firm in the industry "chooses steal" by lowering prices, than everybody loses because each firm is forced to be efficient and competitive.
Mohammad Abdel-Aziz
Period 3
1.) Sarah chose steal because she didn't want to take the chances of her opponent doing a steal and walking out with all the money. So, she took the risk of stealing and ended up scoring big. Good for her, but I feel bad for the other guy.
2.) Steve took the road of a more honest and friendly person by playing split. This obviously did not pay off for him in the end as Sarah took home all the money. If I were him I would have explained how I was going to go with steal no matter what and that her only choice was to hit split and that I would give her half at the end of the show like the guy from the first video did. But then go with split anyways and be nice and split the money.
3.) Reasons organizations like OPEC fail sometimes is because most members tend to do stuff out of self-interest like Sarah did. Very rarely do you find people willing to work solely for the better of all the parties involved. And often times people who do things in the interest of all are often cheated and have to resort to tactics of solely self-interest.
1)Sarah chose to steal because she didn't want to risk letting her opponent get all of the money. to her, she would much rather live with no money, than know her opponent walked out with all of her money.
2)Steve however, would rather split the money and be guaranteed at least 50k. I would have chosen split in my situation too just because you have a better chance of getting money.
3)Many people would rather have everything and risk it, than playing it save and be guarenteed some money. When companies and firms like OPEC risk situation where mass amounts of money are involved, they sometimes run the chance of losing lots of money because they would rather neither themselves or their competitors have money, than splitting some of the money with their competitor.
Saimol Edaparampil
4th Period
1. I think Sarah didn't trust Steve enough to risk losing the money. If he said he was going to split it and then picked the ball that said steal, Sarah would be the one who was deceived. Therefore, to protect herself, she made sure to pick steal(although she seems to have done it more out of greed than anything).
2.Steve wasn't completely wrong for choosing split because he had faith that Sarah would pick split as well. However, he probably should have picked steal too so that no one would go home with anything.
3.The situations are extremely similar because there is no firm trust among the people. Thus, the result can be anything that you might not have expected. High price targets that they have agreed upon are rarely met because some people don't keep their promises, just like Sarah.
1) She had a lack of trust and wanted the money.
2) He, being the nice guy, tried to do the right thing. I personally would of stolen.
3) The lack of trust causes them to fall apart, but the amount of dependability causes a need between them. Political and social tensions, along with greed, inhibit these actions which affect our markets everyday.
1. I believe that Sarah believed that he was lying to her, and either way she would have revenge for being wronged before. She felt she was going home with nothing or everything, nothing else.
2.I do not think Steve was wrong, he just trusted in a good liar. I probably would have done the same thing as Steve, because I am far too trusting in people.
3. The choices are very similar to members of an oligopolistic member. The decisions of very very can impact the whole greatly. It is very easy for a member to agree to something, and no follow through with the agreement. With alliances such as OPEC so much can be gained and lost that tough decisions must be made, that might not benefit everyone.
John Moore
3rd Period
1) I believe Sarah chose steal because she believed it was the best strategy in a game like this. This is not correct but that was her thought process with the knowledge of economic theory.
2) In Steve's place I would have chosen to split in the hopes of her giving me a percentage afterwards.
3) The choices are the same really. Each action has multiple reactions and political pressure can sway these actions greatly.
1. I think Sarah chose the steal ball because she had been fooled a previous time and she would have felt foolish to be tricked a second time. Also, from Steve's sincerity she knew that he would choose split making it easier for her to choose steal and have better peace of mind about it.
2. I don't think Steve was wrong in this situation. I think he put a lot of trust in Sarah but she was just not willing to do the same with him. I feel as though I would have chosen split as well.
3. Steve and Sarah's situation represent oligopolitic markets because the decision of one leader affects the entire body or group.
1) Sarah's reasoning was that she had been stabbed in the back before, and couldn't handle going through that again. That was probably part of it in my opinion, but i also think greed was a big factor. She put on a big show and actually did a better job of convincing me she was going to split than the other contestant did. I feel like I even saw a hint of a smile at the end of their negotiations when she seemed convinced that she had convinced Steve of splitting so she could steal. But that's just me.
2)Steve wasn't wrong, he was just trusting. He believed the crocodile tears, and chose what in his mind was the morally right thing to do. Steve just learned a valuable lesson in humanity.
3)First of all I loved how the author of the question described OPEC as a cartel. But to answer the question, people go where the money is. If an opec member decides going against an opec decision will get them more money at the suffering of their colleagues. People choose money over everything...always (and yes I realize that can be argued, I was emphasizing a point).
Brookley Torres
1) Sarah chose to steal during the game because she believed that either she would go home with all of the money or they would both go home with nothing. Splitting never really seemed to be an option.
2)I think that Steve was somewhat naiive on the greed that would overcome during the game but I don't think that it was wrong of him to trust in
Sarah and choose split.
3) This relates heavily with real world business agreements and worldwide business agreements because you never know when a company is bluffing or you never know when greed will take over the company and they will do what they want to gain money rather than what is best for everyone.
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.
1. Sarah chose to steal because it was in her best interest to do so. All she needed to do was the fool the partner and make the maximum amount of profit. The gamble was about 50% as there was no mental incentive to pick split. Say if she knew the other person would be just as likely to pick steal she would be much more open to negotiation.
2. Steve was more weak minded and easier to manipulate and so in his situation it might have been better to suggest the possibility he might steal. If I was in his situation I would have upped the ability to threaten Sarah into picking split as it would allow me to choose either steal or split according to whim.
3. It is due to competing interests and human greed. They are not threatened by the use of such underhanded tactics as it is in their best interests, but at the same time they are genuinely profiting more. The cost-benefit analysis for such a situation is much better for them to act independently than to cooperate. Politics is just simply other people trying to get above others plain and simple.
Alvin Mei
4th Period
1. Sarah chose steal because she understood the trust that Steve had in her so she took advantage of it. She didn't want to choose split because he was feeling confident enough to choose steal.
2. No, Steve was not wrong to choose split. There was a lot of negotiating going on, and it's understandable that Steve chose split. I think I would choose steal, even if it risked losing the money, I would rather have the money go to nobody than the person I'm competing with.
3. Selfishness is something that all humans deal with. Those cartels and corporations fail because the cheaper prices enables them to get more money.
Alexander Pappan
4th Period
1) Sarah stole because she had played the game before and was stabbed in the back. And to prevent this from happening again, she went with the obvious strategy to get the other player to trust her to split.
2) Steve was not totally wrong to choose split because of the pure amount of money they both would have won and the fact that she seemed very convincing with her words.
3) In business, people tend to only care for themselves. So using these same tactics, negotiations and deals can go sour simply due to not trusting someone enough with the smallest of things. As long as that individual gains something, trust is something that can easily be thrown away.
Harrison You
4th
1. I thought that Sarah's decision to steal was the best strategy because the game was an "all-in" type of game. There are two extremes to choose from and there's a small chance of hitting middle ground, which is due to the fickleness of chance.
2. I would have also chosen to steal that way nobody would've won. Losing is not an option.
3. Unfortunately, these large corporations usually fail because offering a cheaper prices lets them have more money. Greed will always prevail and people will always follow the money, which ends up in shut downs.
1. Before she chose to steal, Sarah made sure that Steve was genuine about sharing the share of the money. Once she was sure that he would indeed share the money, she knew then that she could steal it and get the most benefit the most.
2.He wasn't wrong. He based his decision on his opponent's appearance. Her teary-eyed demeanor may have ensured him that she would pick split. This may have sparked altruistic attitude in him that made him choose split so that they can both go home happy. In my case, I would have chosen steal because judging from her appearance she seemed desperate to split. This is apparent through her teary eyed face and shaky palms. I would have played on her emotions and stolen from her.
3. Oligopolitic markets exhibit the same responses faced by Steve and Sarah. In that decisions of one firm greatly influences another and can be detrimental to the success firms success. Agreements between oligopolitics often fall apart because of the fear of backstabbing. In order to ensure their own success, individuals may break their agreement fearing that if they don't do it the other person might. Leaders like OPEC fail to achieve high price target because they are more inclined to achieve immediate gratification. In other words, some leaders would rather offer cheaper prices to ensure the loyalty of consumers and their own success rather than collaborating or sharing their wealth with others.
saira sultan pd. 3
1. Sarah chose steal because she had a strong belief that Steve was going to select split and if that was the case she could easily walk away with all of the money. i think most people in that position would do the same thing whether they realize it or not.
2. i think steve made a mistake he did not question Sarah much on whether or not he could trust her. personally, i would not trust anyone only because i do not know the kind of person they are and how they would truly act in a situation like that.
3. this is similar because the decision that one oligopolistic member makes can set back an entire group because their decisions are so dependent on each other.
1) Sarah chose to steal instead of split because she understandably wanted to win as much money as possible. In this game, the objective of the game is manipulation of strategy and your opponent in order to get what you want. Facing a stranger over a large amount of money, why would anyone trust their opponent to split the prize money when they could easily take all of it? Sarah chose to steal because of the innate desire of man to desire more and more of what they can get.
2) Steve was not totally wrong in choosing to split as he was relying on his belief that Sarah would stick to her word and choose split as well. In his mind, he believed it would be in both their interests to split the money rather than go away with nothing. In his situation, I believe I would have chosen steal because I would not be able to trust a stranger in that heavy situation no matter what they said to me to persuade me to choose split.
3) Sarah and Steve’s choices relate to oligopolistic markets as the decision of one person greatly affects the consequences for the other. Collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart because the agreement between them creates a sense of trust and teamwork, but this false trust may be taken advantage of by one of the oligopolistics as they know what the other person is going to do so they decide to take an action they had not agreed on before in order to secure their higher place. Cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price target agreed upon in meetings as they are all in competition with each other, making it advantageous to them as their lower prices will be more attractive to customers than the higher prices of their competition.
Period 4
1. Sarah chose steal because she saw it as the option that could benefit her the most. Choosing steal was in her best interest and was her dominant strategy because she knew that she could make no less money if Steve chose steal as well, and if he chose split, she would make a bigger profit. By choosing to steal, Sarah was maximizing her own possible payoff while not risking as much, which is likely why she chose to steal.
2. Steve was not totally wrong to choose split, but he should have realized that choosing steal was Sarah's dominant strategy and chance to profit the most. If he was intending on choosing split, he should have tried to convince Sarah to choose split as well, so he could avoid not gaining anything like he did in the actual game since Sarah chose steal. In this situation, I think I would have threatened Sarah with trying to steal to convince her to split as well so we could both have some profit.
3. The choices are similar because they both involve game theory. In the game, the players need to consider each other's decisions. The same can be said for firms in oligopolistic markets since they need to considers each other's decisions, because they can all affect each other.
Sara Ali 4th
1) I think the lady did what many people would have in her situation and chose to do whats best for her. Especially when put in an all or nothing situation an such a decision is not a surprise.
2)I understand the decision he made because while he may have not ended up with money he at least had the hop e to and was being the nice gut however Sarah was not to be trusted and took the money.
3) This similar to organizations such as OPEC because they all have to agree and trust each other enough to sell oil at the same price. If one of the member s lowers the price then they would get ALOT more business and therefore would break that trust similar to the game.
1.She either believed that her partner was going to put steal and would rather they both go home with nothing, or she decided that she could trust her partner enough to put split and then she could walk away with all of the money
2.It would seem that it is the typical strategy for both players to pick split because it is the only way that both people will get money.
3.Cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders because for the same reasons.
1. Sarah chose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000 because she is a “coldly rational, self-interested, deceptive creatures that would not hesitate to stab one another in the back to get what was best for themselves.” It was only possible for her to choose steal if she absolutely knew Steve was going to choose split because should Steve chosen steal, they both have not brought back the money home.
2. Steve’s decision is not wrong at all. In fact, his decision seems more human-like in terms of his kindness and will to share the money. On the contrary, Sarah is a self-interested creature who is determined to deceive anyone when something big is up for grabs. I would have threatened to use steal at the one minute discussion before the decision so Sarah would hesitate to use the steal, and choose split to share the money evenly. It is better for both Sarah and I to bring back something home rather than nothing.
3. The choices faced by Steven Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolistic market because one firm’s decision affects the response of its rival competitors. Collusive agreements between firms often fall apart because individual firms attempt to seek profit at their own interest, not to share happiness with others. Cartel such as OPEC often fails to achieve the high price targets agreed upon meetings of their leaders because individual attempt to attract more consumers by lowering their prices which consequently lowers the competitor’s price, bringing down the price of the entire market.
Sam Kadakia
Period 1
1. Sarah was clever, this is a game and in a game you fulfill the objective to win. Crying about it is almost childish, it's simply the way the game is set up that it makes deceiving others seem immoral.
2. Steve was wrong, I would have done steal. He was wrong to trust her because, speaking emotionally, after he had already deceived her earlier Steve should not have expected fair play. Speaking logically, choosing steal gives you the chance of all or nothing but choosing split gives you something, however it's on you to convince your opponent to choose split.
3. This game demonstrates that too much greediness can become a downfall. In business deals, these situations show that people can be left with nothing or everything. However, it also depicts the naivety of trusting others for their word on something.
Anthony Chenevert
Period 3
1.) Sarah's reasoning was that she had been stabbed in the back before, and couldn't handle going through that again. That was probably part of it in my opinion, but I also think greed was a big factor. She put on a big show and actually did a better job of convincing me she was going to split than the other contestant did. I feel like I even saw a hint of a smile at the end of their negotiations when she seemed convinced that she had convinced Steve of splitting so she could steal. But that's just me.
2.) .I do not think Steve was wrong, he just trusted in a good liar. I probably would have done the same thing as Steve, because I am far too trusting in people.
3.) The situation depicts the oligopoly because it is effects by other peoples decisions. The market cannot be by just one person. It requires the effort of others as well. Others decisions influences the markets which in turn affects other individuals and firms. Therefore, the innate instinct of greediness and selfishness creates a downfall. OPEC increases the demand for oil by selling their oil at a low price. Each firm wants to avoid setting really high prices because then people will not want their oil. Again, it just manipulating and putting themselves before others concerning economic needs.
Post a Comment