Game
Theory is one of those subjects I only know a little bit about, and this book
promised to lead me to understand it with a cheerful, pop-science writing
style. In a way, it succeeded, in that it's peppered with personal anecdotes,
some of which are quite enjoyable.
But as far as getting me to understand and be enthusiastic about game theory, it failed. I already understand about brinkmanship and the prisoner's dilemma, and how rock-paper-scissors work, so Fisher's descriptions added little. In fact, in some ways, they made it worse. He has several charts which explain the outcomes of various decisions made in the prisoner's dilemma, and, try as I might, I could not make any sense of the charts. Maybe it was a typo? I don't know. I also would have liked to understand the concept of quantum game theory, and about how he came to the numbers of the formula used in the Nash barganing theory. I read the passage over several times, and didn't understand it, which is quite disappointing, as I am neither completely ignorant of game theory nor am I unintelligent. It's just that he assumed we knew what was going on, and skipped past with only the briefest of descriptions.
Another problem I had with this book was the structure. It had numerous footnotes and text blocks that sometimes went on for several pages, forcing me to flip back and forth, and lose my train of thought about what I'd been reading. In short, while the anecdotes were entertaining, they couldn't overcome the fact that Fisher's explanations weren't clear and lucid enough for me.
But as far as getting me to understand and be enthusiastic about game theory, it failed. I already understand about brinkmanship and the prisoner's dilemma, and how rock-paper-scissors work, so Fisher's descriptions added little. In fact, in some ways, they made it worse. He has several charts which explain the outcomes of various decisions made in the prisoner's dilemma, and, try as I might, I could not make any sense of the charts. Maybe it was a typo? I don't know. I also would have liked to understand the concept of quantum game theory, and about how he came to the numbers of the formula used in the Nash barganing theory. I read the passage over several times, and didn't understand it, which is quite disappointing, as I am neither completely ignorant of game theory nor am I unintelligent. It's just that he assumed we knew what was going on, and skipped past with only the briefest of descriptions.
Another problem I had with this book was the structure. It had numerous footnotes and text blocks that sometimes went on for several pages, forcing me to flip back and forth, and lose my train of thought about what I'd been reading. In short, while the anecdotes were entertaining, they couldn't overcome the fact that Fisher's explanations weren't clear and lucid enough for me.
A
non-mathematical discussion of how game theory applies to daily dilemmas and
negotiations, this was a surprisingly easy read. Fisher's explanations are
consistently clear (no facility with higher math required) and his writing
light-hearted and entertaining. From the many examples provided from Fisher's
personal life, it seems one invites him to a dinner party at the risk of
turning the evening into an experiment in game theory. (Personally, I think
that'd be a great way to enliven an evening, but then I spent my last dinner
party discussing the implications of the forensic DNA typing I'd performed on
one of my guests and her five siblings. My idea of entertainment may be
suspect.)
I particularly enjoyed the discussion of computer models as a method for examining which strategies work best for determining the optimal outcome between two (or more) self-interested parties.
I would perhaps have liked a more detailed look at the applications of game theory on a political and global scale. The percentage of the book devoted to introducing the subject and personal exemplars seemed to overwhelm the last couple chapters, which is where Fisher ultimately got around to providing concrete suggestions for daily applications.
But this is a minor nitpick. I'm hoping to track down Fisher's other books as well
I particularly enjoyed the discussion of computer models as a method for examining which strategies work best for determining the optimal outcome between two (or more) self-interested parties.
I would perhaps have liked a more detailed look at the applications of game theory on a political and global scale. The percentage of the book devoted to introducing the subject and personal exemplars seemed to overwhelm the last couple chapters, which is where Fisher ultimately got around to providing concrete suggestions for daily applications.
But this is a minor nitpick. I'm hoping to track down Fisher's other books as well
Game
theory investigates the motives and dilemmas of social interactions relative to
selfishness and cooperation. As we understand game theory we can increase our
chances of finding satisfying resolutions by adopting new strategies or even by
just having a clearer view of social dilemmas and their underlying causes. In
his book on the subject, Rock Paper Scissors, Len Fisher gives the following
ten tips:
1. Keep the same strategy if you’re winning, shift strategies if you lose.
2. Bring a third player in. They can be a known negotiator or a known cheater – either way it helps.
3. Set up reciprocity. Knowing that you’ll deal with people after a conflict can increase the incentive to cooperate.
4. Limit future options or provide incentives. This shows that you are committed to the best possible outcomes.
5. Offer trust. It’s simple, but it can be effective.
6. Create a situation from which neither party can escape from without loss.
7. Use side-payments to maintain cooperation.
8. Know the seven deadly dilemmas and avoid the worst outcomes:
a. The Prisoner’s Dilemma – all must cooperate or all fail.
b. The Tragedy of the Commons (a series of Prisoner's Dilemmas) –self-interest prevents cooperation despite impending long-term failure.
c. The Free Rider problem - people taking advantage of a community resource without contributing to it.
d. Chicken/Brinkmanship - each side tries to push the other as close to the edge as they can, with each hoping that the other will back down first.
e. The Volunteer’s Dilemma - someone must make a sacrifice on behalf of the group, but if no one does, then everyone loses out.
f. The Battle of the Sexes - two people have different preferences, but each would rather share the other's company than pursue their own preference alone.
g. Stag Hunt - cooperation between members of a group gives them a good chance of success in a risky, high-return venture, but an individual can win a guaranteed but lower reward by breaking the cooperation and going it alone.
9. Work to create transparent processes that are inherently fair.
10. Favor smaller groups, it’s easier to foster trust and cooperation
1. Keep the same strategy if you’re winning, shift strategies if you lose.
2. Bring a third player in. They can be a known negotiator or a known cheater – either way it helps.
3. Set up reciprocity. Knowing that you’ll deal with people after a conflict can increase the incentive to cooperate.
4. Limit future options or provide incentives. This shows that you are committed to the best possible outcomes.
5. Offer trust. It’s simple, but it can be effective.
6. Create a situation from which neither party can escape from without loss.
7. Use side-payments to maintain cooperation.
8. Know the seven deadly dilemmas and avoid the worst outcomes:
a. The Prisoner’s Dilemma – all must cooperate or all fail.
b. The Tragedy of the Commons (a series of Prisoner's Dilemmas) –self-interest prevents cooperation despite impending long-term failure.
c. The Free Rider problem - people taking advantage of a community resource without contributing to it.
d. Chicken/Brinkmanship - each side tries to push the other as close to the edge as they can, with each hoping that the other will back down first.
e. The Volunteer’s Dilemma - someone must make a sacrifice on behalf of the group, but if no one does, then everyone loses out.
f. The Battle of the Sexes - two people have different preferences, but each would rather share the other's company than pursue their own preference alone.
g. Stag Hunt - cooperation between members of a group gives them a good chance of success in a risky, high-return venture, but an individual can win a guaranteed but lower reward by breaking the cooperation and going it alone.
9. Work to create transparent processes that are inherently fair.
10. Favor smaller groups, it’s easier to foster trust and cooperation
No comments:
Post a Comment