Welcome to Gaia! ::


Fashionable Capitalist

7,750 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Someone tried to tell me today that group game theory was:
"It's in my best self-interest to give people good grades whether they deserve them or not. Because that way everyone will do well."

But isn't that just a really short-term fallacy? Because firstly, how is it his best self-interest to give everyone else good grades when we're grading anonymously? No one will know if he gave them a good grade or not.

And then how is it in his best self-interest to do that when say people do give him a good grade even though he didn't deserve one? From that point on he may think he is more knowledgeable or factual about the topic he presented on even though every point he made was wrong, which would jeopardize himself and his intelligence.

Maybe I'm not understanding Group Game Theory correctly or maybe he explained it incorrectly or used a flawed example. Can someone explain this in a simpler and more concise way?
It depends. If it is in math, then giving good grades to bad students is bad. Truthfully, being a professional requires intelligence and that is something MANY Americans lack, but I think that is intentional for grading.

Fashionable Capitalist

7,750 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Lord Akhenaton
It depends. If it is in math, then giving good grades to bad students is bad. Truthfully, being a professional requires intelligence and that is something MANY Americans lack, but I think that is intentional for grading.


Group Game Theory is intentional for grading? Or intelligence is intentional?

I mean I am just really confused about group game theory. Cause he was trying to tell me that it was in his best self-interest and everyone else's for the class to have a 50-70% instead of a couple people having 90%+, 80%+, etc etc.
Christien Chalfant
Lord Akhenaton
It depends. If it is in math, then giving good grades to bad students is bad. Truthfully, being a professional requires intelligence and that is something MANY Americans lack, but I think that is intentional for grading.


Group Game Theory is intentional for grading? Or intelligence is intentional?

I mean I am just really confused about group game theory. Cause he was trying to tell me that it was in his best self-interest and everyone else's for the class to have a 50-70% instead of a couple people having 90%+, 80%+, etc etc.

Intelligence is genetic. Meaning that Some people are born to exceed over others. I think that you shouldn't award failure, but if people did, then at least try not to bring smart people down with them. Our scientist grad rate is poor to say the least.

Shadowy Powerhouse

9,125 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Game theory is basically bogus anyway.

Fashionable Capitalist

7,750 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Wendigo
Game theory is basically bogus anyway.


It seemed like that when he started talking about it. But I need to get some good constructive ideas about what Game Theory actually is so that I don't believe the idiot(s) that talk about it falsely.
I need....the facts ninja

Shadowy Powerhouse

9,125 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Christien Chalfant
Wendigo
Game theory is basically bogus anyway.


It seemed like that when he started talking about it. But I need to get some good constructive ideas about what Game Theory actually is so that I don't believe the idiot(s) that talk about it falsely.
I need....the facts ninja
Once upon a time, there was a subject area studied by academics at the higher levels called "political economy."

Quote:
Political economy emerged as a distinct field of study in the mid-18th century, largely as a reaction to mercantilism, when the Scottish philosophers Adam Smith (1723–90) and David Hume (1711–76) and the French economist François Quesnay (1694–1774) began to approach this study in systematic rather than piecemeal terms. They took a secular approach, refusing to explain the distribution of wealth and power in terms of God’s will and instead appealing to political, economic, technological, natural, and social factors and the complex interactions between them. Indeed, Smith’s landmark work—An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), which provided the first comprehensive system of political economy—conveys in its title the broad scope of early political economic analysis. Although the field itself was new, some of the ideas and approaches it drew upon were centuries old. It was influenced by the individualist orientation of the English political philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704), the Realpolitik of the Italian political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527), and the inductive method of scientific reasoning invented by the English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561–1626).

Many works by political economists in the 18th century emphasized the role of individuals over that of the state and generally attacked mercantilism. This is perhaps best illustrated by Smith’s famous notion of the “invisible hand,” in which he argued that state policies often were less effective in advancing social welfare than were the self-interested acts of individuals. Individuals intend to advance only their own welfare, Smith asserted, but in so doing they also advance the interests of society as if they were guided by an invisible hand. Arguments such as these gave credence to individual-centred analysis and policies to counter the state-centred theories of the mercantilists.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467600/political-economy


One day, in the mid 1940s, German economist Oskar Morgenstern wrote a book. The book was called "The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior," and it drew on an earlier work by Hungarian mathematician John von Neumann.

Quote:
game theory, branch of applied mathematics that provides tools for analyzing situations in which parties, called players, make decisions that are interdependent. This interdependence causes each player to consider the other player’s possible decisions, or strategies, in formulating his own strategy. A solution to a game describes the optimal decisions of the players, who may have similar, opposed, or mixed interests, and the outcomes that may result from these decisions.
...
Game theory has been applied to a wide variety of situations in which the choices of players interact to affect the outcome. In stressing the strategic aspects of decision making, or aspects controlled by the players rather than by pure chance, the theory both supplements and goes beyond the classical theory of probability. It has been used, for example, to determine what political coalitions or business conglomerates are likely to form, the optimal price at which to sell products or services in the face of competition, the power of a voter or a bloc of voters, whom to select for a jury, the best site for a manufacturing plant, and the behaviour of certain animals and plants in their struggle for survival. It has even been used to challenge the legality of certain voting systems.

It would be surprising if any one theory could address such an enormous range of “games,” and in fact there is no single game theory. A number of theories have been proposed, each applicable to different situations and each with its own concepts of what constitutes a solution. This article describes some simple games, discusses different theories, and outlines principles underlying game theory. Additional concepts and methods that can be used to analyze and solve decision problems are treated in the article optimization.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/224893/game-theory?anchor=ref386139


The root of the theory is that all human behavior is simple enough to reduce to mathematics, since human beings are machines designed on a common blueprint rather than people with different backgrounds, temperaments, experiences, and beliefs who make their own choices when faced with unfamiliar situations.

Fashionable Capitalist

7,750 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Wendigo
Once upon a time, there was a subject area studied by academics at the higher levels called "political economy."

Quote:
Political economy emerged as a distinct field of study in the mid-18th century, largely as a reaction to mercantilism, when the Scottish philosophers Adam Smith (1723–90) and David Hume (1711–76) and the French economist François Quesnay (1694–1774) began to approach this study in systematic rather than piecemeal terms. They took a secular approach, refusing to explain the distribution of wealth and power in terms of God’s will and instead appealing to political, economic, technological, natural, and social factors and the complex interactions between them. Indeed, Smith’s landmark work—An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), which provided the first comprehensive system of political economy—conveys in its title the broad scope of early political economic analysis. Although the field itself was new, some of the ideas and approaches it drew upon were centuries old. It was influenced by the individualist orientation of the English political philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704), the Realpolitik of the Italian political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527), and the inductive method of scientific reasoning invented by the English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561–1626).

Many works by political economists in the 18th century emphasized the role of individuals over that of the state and generally attacked mercantilism. This is perhaps best illustrated by Smith’s famous notion of the “invisible hand,” in which he argued that state policies often were less effective in advancing social welfare than were the self-interested acts of individuals. Individuals intend to advance only their own welfare, Smith asserted, but in so doing they also advance the interests of society as if they were guided by an invisible hand. Arguments such as these gave credence to individual-centred analysis and policies to counter the state-centred theories of the mercantilists.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467600/political-economy


One day, in the mid 1940s, German economist Oskar Morgenstern wrote a book. The book was called "The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior," and it drew on an earlier work by Hungarian mathematician John von Neumann.

Quote:
game theory, branch of applied mathematics that provides tools for analyzing situations in which parties, called players, make decisions that are interdependent. This interdependence causes each player to consider the other player’s possible decisions, or strategies, in formulating his own strategy. A solution to a game describes the optimal decisions of the players, who may have similar, opposed, or mixed interests, and the outcomes that may result from these decisions.
...
Game theory has been applied to a wide variety of situations in which the choices of players interact to affect the outcome. In stressing the strategic aspects of decision making, or aspects controlled by the players rather than by pure chance, the theory both supplements and goes beyond the classical theory of probability. It has been used, for example, to determine what political coalitions or business conglomerates are likely to form, the optimal price at which to sell products or services in the face of competition, the power of a voter or a bloc of voters, whom to select for a jury, the best site for a manufacturing plant, and the behaviour of certain animals and plants in their struggle for survival. It has even been used to challenge the legality of certain voting systems.

It would be surprising if any one theory could address such an enormous range of “games,” and in fact there is no single game theory. A number of theories have been proposed, each applicable to different situations and each with its own concepts of what constitutes a solution. This article describes some simple games, discusses different theories, and outlines principles underlying game theory. Additional concepts and methods that can be used to analyze and solve decision problems are treated in the article optimization.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/224893/game-theory?anchor=ref386139


The root of the theory is that all human behavior is simple enough to reduce to mathematics, since human beings are machines designed on a common blueprint rather than people with different backgrounds, temperaments, experiences, and beliefs who make their own choices when faced with unfamiliar situations.


Hmm. So it appears to be that Game Theory would be best used in situations like war? Am I hot or cold? That's just what I got from reading these.
I'm a pretty big Adam Smith fan, haven't heard of the other three guys mentioned.
I definitely don't agree with the simplifying humans to math, which is probably why I seemed skeptical of Group Game Theory the first time I heard it. Especially when using Group Game Theory in terms of grading people, definitely don't agree with it there.

Jeering Regular

I don't know about "group game theory" because i don't think that's an actual thing, as in, not a sub-discipline that game theorists actually discuss. But game theory in general is a way of studying how individuals make decisions. Much of it assumes that people are rational, self-interested, and so forth (i.e., sociopaths) but arguably it is helpful to deconstruct decision-making.

As for your actual example, the problem I see is that it doesn't really fit most games, which generally have more than one player, and also describe the cost benefit for each decision. This "everyone will do well" doesn't seem to be a self-interested benefit, either. It's an altruistic benefit, because it involves other people.

6,000 Points
  • Tycoon 200
  • Wall Street 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
Generally game theory is the study of how various 'game structures' can influence outcomes. Through looking at how various actions lead to various payoffs, there are ways at looking at how institutional or decision structure can impact decisions individuals make. 'Traditional' game theory makes a bunch of strong assumptions about humanity effectively being sociopaths, but behavioral and computational economics has extended some of the game design into no longer asserting strict selfishness of agents.

So broadly game theory has been applied extensively to international relations, the structure of auctions, elections (whether national to decisions on who becomes CEO within companies) etc. It's also been applied to the study of subjective morality, among other topics.

As far as 'group game theory,' is concerned, game theory is automatically concerned with grouping individuals into different forms of agents to be studied. So certainly there might be a teacher-student paradigm, in which it's in the best interest of the teacher to give more A's so his students progress ahead of other teachers, which can look good on evaluations (an ad hoc analysis that can suggest long run grade inflation trends). In comparison, while punishing students with harsher grades might force them to learn the material better, as grades are a main source of signalling, the 'Nash equilibrium,' as it would be called, is to give inflated grades.

Fashionable Capitalist

7,750 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Ban
I don't know about "group game theory" because i don't think that's an actual thing, as in, not a sub-discipline that game theorists actually discuss. But game theory in general is a way of studying how individuals make decisions. Much of it assumes that people are rational, self-interested, and so forth (i.e., sociopaths) but arguably it is helpful to deconstruct decision-making.

As for your actual example, the problem I see is that it doesn't really fit most games, which generally have more than one player, and also describe the cost benefit for each decision. This "everyone will do well" doesn't seem to be a self-interested benefit, either. It's an altruistic benefit, because it involves other people.


That seems to explain why I was so confused when the guy I was talking to tried to explain it to me.

Smoker

Christien Chalfant
Someone tried to tell me today that group game theory was:
"It's in my best self-interest to give people good grades whether they deserve them or not. Because that way everyone will do well."

But isn't that just a really short-term fallacy? Because firstly, how is it his best self-interest to give everyone else good grades when we're grading anonymously? No one will know if he gave them a good grade or not.

And then how is it in his best self-interest to do that when say people do give him a good grade even though he didn't deserve one? From that point on he may think he is more knowledgeable or factual about the topic he presented on even though every point he made was wrong, which would jeopardize himself and his intelligence.

Maybe I'm not understanding Group Game Theory correctly or maybe he explained it incorrectly or used a flawed example. Can someone explain this in a simpler and more concise way?

Perhaps the root of all this is that none of the work you do in class matters anyway.

Fashionable Capitalist

7,750 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Agent Thrax
Christien Chalfant
Someone tried to tell me today that group game theory was:
"It's in my best self-interest to give people good grades whether they deserve them or not. Because that way everyone will do well."

But isn't that just a really short-term fallacy? Because firstly, how is it his best self-interest to give everyone else good grades when we're grading anonymously? No one will know if he gave them a good grade or not.

And then how is it in his best self-interest to do that when say people do give him a good grade even though he didn't deserve one? From that point on he may think he is more knowledgeable or factual about the topic he presented on even though every point he made was wrong, which would jeopardize himself and his intelligence.

Maybe I'm not understanding Group Game Theory correctly or maybe he explained it incorrectly or used a flawed example. Can someone explain this in a simpler and more concise way?

Perhaps the root of all this is that none of the work you do in class matters anyway.


In his opinion it did.
But the presentations we were graded on were a large portion of our semester grade so....I dunno.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum