Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums > General Discussion > Critical Thinking
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-26-2007, 10:09 PM   #21
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default 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.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 08:43 PM   #22
lord_carbo
FFR Player
 
lord_carbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: fighting villains from afar, NJ
Age: 28
Posts: 6,223
Send a message via AIM to lord_carbo
Default Re: Leaf-blowers and Stadium Seating: Group vs. Individual Rationality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x View Post
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.
__________________
last.fm

Last edited by lord_carbo; 05-30-2007 at 08:46 PM..
lord_carbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 10:32 PM   #23
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default 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.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 08:53 PM   #24
lord_carbo
FFR Player
 
lord_carbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: fighting villains from afar, NJ
Age: 28
Posts: 6,223
Send a message via AIM to lord_carbo
Default Re: Leaf-blowers and Stadium Seating: Group vs. Individual Rationality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x View Post
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.
__________________
last.fm

Last edited by lord_carbo; 05-31-2007 at 09:05 PM..
lord_carbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-1-2007, 02:09 AM   #25
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Leaf-blowers and Stadium Seating: Group vs. Individual Rationality

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_carbo View Post
Wait, hold on, were you referring to 1 1 as the inferior outcome or 3 3 as the inferior outcome?
Neither.


Quote:
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.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution