- Posts: 11077
- Thank you received: 8037
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)
Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.
×
Talk about whatever you like related to games that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Game Theory and Nuclear Standoff
Less
More
06 Sep 2017 15:32 #253789
by Shellhead
Game Theory and Nuclear Standoff was created by Shellhead
Game theory is always less fun than it sounds, but can offer some interesting insights to how people think. Saw an interesting article today that applied game theory to the current standoff between North Korea and the United States. Within the article is a fun little game theory "game" that you play against someone else reading the article. Or maybe it's a random number generator. Anyway:
fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-win-a-nuclear-standoff/
fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-win-a-nuclear-standoff/
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
06 Sep 2017 16:05 #253794
by Gregarius
Replied by Gregarius on topic Game Theory and Nuclear Standoff
heh, I just finished reading this article. Glad to see another 538 reader here.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Erik Twice
- Offline
- D8
- Needs explosions
Less
More
- Posts: 2300
- Thank you received: 2650
06 Sep 2017 16:43 #253799
by Erik Twice
Replied by Erik Twice on topic Game Theory and Nuclear Standoff
I think the game displayed disproves the article, rather than prove it. Some thoughts:
a) There's no reason not to let them grab the 100$. You don't become poorer because he's richer.
b) If there's a reason, the game is simply The Prisoner's Dilemma with so poor stakes so as to be not much of a dilemma.
c) Your bids actually reduce the payoff. So the more of a reason there is to bid, the smaller the actual gain and, hence, the less reason to bid.
d) "Bidding low" or "Bidding high" doesn't seem to make sense in that, ultimately, the game would degenerate into a dollar auction. If you bid, why not bid 99,99, 100 or 110?
In other words, the "rational" choice is actually risk-adverse, not dangerous.
---
Personally, this is my view on the subject using game theory: Do not turn the game into one you don't want to play.
For example, you could make a parallel with The Republic of Rome: If you beat someone so much that they cannot compete in the game through normal means they'll be forced to rely on threats and assassination. Assasination has a 33% chance of killing the guy you have been preparing for 3 hours so it's often better to help them out and try to win by a smaller margin than risk them pushing the button.
In real life terms, I thinks this translates to "don't blockade a country to the point their only option are threats". I don't think blockades are successful as a way to produce regime changes and the US strategy of coups, arming guerrillas and leader assassination has proven to be short-sighted.
a) There's no reason not to let them grab the 100$. You don't become poorer because he's richer.
b) If there's a reason, the game is simply The Prisoner's Dilemma with so poor stakes so as to be not much of a dilemma.
c) Your bids actually reduce the payoff. So the more of a reason there is to bid, the smaller the actual gain and, hence, the less reason to bid.
d) "Bidding low" or "Bidding high" doesn't seem to make sense in that, ultimately, the game would degenerate into a dollar auction. If you bid, why not bid 99,99, 100 or 110?
In other words, the "rational" choice is actually risk-adverse, not dangerous.
---
Personally, this is my view on the subject using game theory: Do not turn the game into one you don't want to play.
For example, you could make a parallel with The Republic of Rome: If you beat someone so much that they cannot compete in the game through normal means they'll be forced to rely on threats and assassination. Assasination has a 33% chance of killing the guy you have been preparing for 3 hours so it's often better to help them out and try to win by a smaller margin than risk them pushing the button.
In real life terms, I thinks this translates to "don't blockade a country to the point their only option are threats". I don't think blockades are successful as a way to produce regime changes and the US strategy of coups, arming guerrillas and leader assassination has proven to be short-sighted.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
06 Sep 2017 17:27 #253805
by Unicron
Ha! Nuclear proliferation makes players of us all.
I'm with Erik. The Kim regime does everything out of ensuring its longevity. Provoking annihilation isn't the plan, but sabre rattling and possessing a nuclear deterrent is certainly on the menu. The regime isn't stupid or suicidal. If it were, then it would already have collapsed. As someone that's been researching DPRK for two years, it was still a very good read.
Replied by Unicron on topic Game Theory and Nuclear Standoff
Erik Twice wrote: Personally, this is my view on the subject using game theory: Do not turn the game into one you don't want to play.
Ha! Nuclear proliferation makes players of us all.
I'm with Erik. The Kim regime does everything out of ensuring its longevity. Provoking annihilation isn't the plan, but sabre rattling and possessing a nuclear deterrent is certainly on the menu. The regime isn't stupid or suicidal. If it were, then it would already have collapsed. As someone that's been researching DPRK for two years, it was still a very good read.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.318 seconds