|
|
#21 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
last.fm Last edited by lord_carbo; 05-30-2007 at 08:46 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 | |||
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
last.fm Last edited by lord_carbo; 05-31-2007 at 09:05 PM.. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#25 | ||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|