Leaf-blowers and Stadium Seating: Group vs. Individual Rationality

[Kit-]

Re: Leaf-blowers and Stadium Seating: Group vs. Individual Rationality

What is the meaning of the group independently of the individuals? There is none. Society can't be substantiated past its components. Society is a function of every individual.

Which is where the misunderstanding lies. When I say "every individual," I refer to each and every separate individual, rather than the collection of individual persons. Every individual cares only about his/her payoff, not the payoff of every other individual person or the collective society as a whole.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Leaf-blowers and Stadium Seating: Group vs. Individual Rationality

Yet there are only two options, everyone wins or everyone loses. An individual acting rationally in their best interest would also be acting perfectly in the interest of every other individual.

[Kit-]

Re: Leaf-blowers and Stadium Seating: Group vs. Individual Rationality

If the person in front of you is sitting, you get up. You now have an amazing view.
If the person in front of you is standing, you get up. You can now see.
No matter what, standing up is going to increase your payoff in the immediate future.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Leaf-blowers and Stadium Seating: Group vs. Individual Rationality

In that case, what's the problem at all? There doesn't seem to be any serious or long term loss of utility.

[aperson]

Re: Leaf-blowers and Stadium Seating: Group vs. Individual Rationality

In that case, what's the problem at all? There doesn't seem to be any serious or long term loss of utility.

Okay I've got an idea, stop responding to kit or me until you've read some basic game theory.

            Sit           Stand
Sit 	    3, 3 	  0, 5
Stand 	    5, 0          1, 1

1 1 is the dominant strategy
3 3 is the societal maximum

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Leaf-blowers and Stadium Seating: Group vs. Individual Rationality

No, I understand that. It's just that there's no way to attain 3 3. If central organization is your proposal, you still need to answer the criticism that central organization also imposes a cost. The irrationality of agents may lead to 1 1, but there's no reason that rational agents wouldn't try to aim for 3 3. There's also the somewhat paradoxical issue of revealed preference. If all agents opt for an inferior outcome, then by definition it can't be inferior.

[lord_carbo]

Re: Leaf-blowers and Stadium Seating: Group vs. Individual Rationality

No, I understand that. It's just that there's no way to attain 3 3. If central organization is your proposal, you still need to answer the criticism that central organization also imposes a cost. The irrationality of agents may lead to 1 1, but there's no reason that rational agents wouldn't try to aim for 3 3. There's also the somewhat paradoxical issue of revealed preference. If all agents opt for an inferior outcome, then by definition it can't be inferior.

They don't opt for the inferior outcome (assuming inferior means "undesirable," which is a much better term to use for this btw), they get it because of a lack of cooperation and/or greed. 3 3 can be attained through trust, the question is whether to trust or not, which is why it's called a dilemma.

1 1 is the equilibrium (dominant strategy) here. The core reason why it's the equilibrium is because if you know what your opponent is going to pick (betray or trust), no matter what, you'd benefit most from betraying him! I'd probably need to write a long-winded explanation to explain fully why 1 1 is the equilibrium, but if you don't trust me, just Wiki/Google it.

The problem with what you're saying is that you're assuming that the equilibrium is favorable "by definition." Personally, I can't see how you'd say this when the immeasurable amount of examples clearly shows it isn't. Equilibrium isn't always favorable, it's just equilibrium.

Read up on the prisoner's dilemma, it's a very interesting subject and a good written article on it should answer all of your questions. And if you want extended reading, read up on the Nash Equilibrium.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Leaf-blowers and Stadium Seating: Group vs. Individual Rationality

I assure you I understand the issue. The prisoners dilemma, the tragedy of the commons, the Nash equilibrium, whatever you want to call it. The fact remains, as soon as you put in place a third party, at least with the properties government has, it changes the field and the equilibrium, and quite often the equilibrium actually gets worse.

If all agents act of their own accord to reach 3 3, then that's fine. The likelihood of this is very low however. Also, "undesirable" doesn't work as a description because yes, by definition, if a person takes an action voluntarily to acquire something they desire it. However, since the equilibrium is only achieved because of a chain reaction of unwanted events, perhaps it isn't voluntary. Nevertheless, it is extremely unlikely that the situation could be effected in any way to achieve something beyond the equilibrium, at least outside of theory, simply because any mechanism introduced to do so will have both cost and likely third party effects of its own.

[lord_carbo]

Re: Leaf-blowers and Stadium Seating: Group vs. Individual Rationality

If all agents act of their own accord to reach 3 3, then that's fine. The likelihood of this is very low however.

There's always rational foresight and/or compromising. In fact, a good deal of issues that are solved by compromising have a model not unlike the prisoner's dilemma.

Also, "undesirable" doesn't work as a description because yes, by definition, if a person takes an action voluntarily to acquire something they desire it. However, since the equilibrium is only achieved because of a chain reaction of unwanted events, perhaps it isn't voluntary.

Wait, hold on, were you referring to 1 1 as the inferior outcome or 3 3 as the inferior outcome?

Nevertheless, it is extremely unlikely that the situation could be effected in any way to achieve something beyond the equilibrium, at least outside of theory, simply because any mechanism introduced to do so will have both cost and likely third party effects of its own.

You changed "impossible" to "unlikely." Yes, we know that in most scenarios, it is unlikely. You were saying it was impossible, though.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Leaf-blowers and Stadium Seating: Group vs. Individual Rationality

Wait, hold on, were you referring to 1 1 as the inferior outcome or 3 3 as the inferior outcome?

Neither.

You changed "impossible" to "unlikely." Yes, we know that in most scenarios, it is unlikely. You were saying it was impossible, though.

Was I? Well then, I don't know the likelihood, but you caught me, it isn't impossible. There are observable and documented instances in which the commonly proposed real world solution, government intervention, imposes additional costs which outweigh the supposed benefits.