There is more to game theory than casinos and dices. You can actually see games around you, without even noticing them. You're struck in a traffic jam and the motorist right behind you is blowing his horn hard . . . there's a game theory to it, you decide to buy a computer...to purchase a certain software A... compatible with a certain product B ... there's a game theory to it ... you want to research something ... there's a theory to it ...marrying?... there's a theory to it... thinking of the perfect time to go to your favourite restaurant? ... there's a theory to it.
And if you go to a temple regularly, there's game theory to it too!
Man is a rational being (Girls need not feel bad about it; they're too cute to be rational!!). Right from the very ancient times, man has formed certain beliefs, conventions, rituals and science. But as you know, everything that the early man believed, followed, professed and knew is not correct. The Universe does not revolve around the earth, and the earth does not rest on a giant snake. The early man must have tried many herbs as the possible medicines for certain ailments ... but all that is tested on the fine screen of time, which lets only the rational beliefs to pass through. But why, then, religion, which seems so inutile in the rational world, passed so swimmingly through the multiple screens of time?
Because religion is rational.
Welcome again to the game-theory world! Let me take you through a few more games before I make my point clear. Let's talk about a problem very similar to the classical prisoner's dilemma.
Let's talk about a traffic signal. The moment I see a red light, I stop. How does stopping at a signal help me? I may get late for work. But if nobody stops at the signal, the traffic would go haywire, and no one's gonna reach office. So, it is good for the society as a whole (i.e. for all the players of the game, combined) that the signal is followed. And note that it is extremely beneficial to me, if all other players (drivers, I mean) follow the signal, stop when it's red, and I alone break the signal and go straight off. I save my time. Now, let's play a game. Let us put the cop out of the scene. Now, there is no police (which is not very rare) and no police cameras. No fine. Fine enough. Every player has a choice to stop or not to stop. What should rational players be doing in this case? By definition, rational men (okay, and women too) are selfish and extremely intelligent. They make their moves just to increase their rewards and are very good at guessing other people's moves. Well, why don't you play, too? Let you be a rational being. When encountered a red signal, you have two options: (1) Stop and (2) Not Stop. Now, in game theory, a player's moves depend upon his expectations and apprehensions about other players' moves. (He first thinks about what other people may do, and then moves accordingly). There are two cases possible:
- All other players at red signal stop.
- Some or all other players at red signal do not stop.
If other players stop (case 1) then the traffic would be moving pretty smoothly. Then it would be in your interest to break the signal and move! In this way, you save your time. (And I forgot to mention, 'time' is the reward in this game). And even if other players are not stopping (case 2), it is still in your interest to move on. In this case, however, the traffic goes haywire and you may lose half an hour in the resulting traffic jam. Still, it is in your interest here not to care about the signal when nobody cares.
Now, everybody in the game is a rational player. So nobody stops at the signal. The traffic goes haywire. In an attempt to save 30 seconds, the drivers waste half an hour! You may call them fools. But, by mathematics, that is what's expected of the most rational men. Now you see, how rationally all those 'fools' are working who skip signals, evade taxes, break queues and do all kinds of uncivilized things! The game doesn't end here. The fun has just started. The game until now was very much similar to prisoner's dilemma. Now we make it different.
One argument that you may give favouring the generally observed result of people stopping at signal is that this is a repeating game. Player A follows the signal and expects player B to do the same. The implicit threat is that if he doesn't, A would make the game worse for B next time. But let us not get into that. All games in real life do not repeat. And I eventually want to relate its conclusion to real life.
Now let us make our players somewhat less rational. Let us infuse into them something called morality. They now think about others. They still want to maximize their own profit, but are now a little considerate about others. Now, when a person finds himself in the above situation (encounters a red signal), he stops for the sake of the society; and thus, does not behave rationally. Barring one or two selfish (rational?) players all others are moral too. Hence everyone stops when the signal is red, wait for 30 seconds, and move when it becomes green; thus preventing a traffic jam. The combined payoff for the society increases and everyone is benefited. So what does it tell us? In some specific games, for all the players combined (i.e. for the society, as a whole) it is beneficial if players play morally and not rationally. (Note that it is still beneficial for an individual to dodge the signal).
But where does this good sense come from? Morality does not come naturally. We expect people to be selfish. The mayor of the city was extremely intelligent and rational. He took advantage of the fact that the people of the city are not completely rational and respect and believe him. He encouraged them to behave irrationally, which eventually turned out to their advantage. Is it why wise men profess religion and dodge your questions when you become too pesky about its rationality? Is this why religion came into being in the first place? Some extremely wise mayor infused into us some good sense that leads us to do something different from what pure rationality would require us to do? Maybe. (For the record, I believe in God; about which I would write sometime later.)
Now, see the game in a broad sense. The life has many junctures which are similar to this game. You have to follow what everyone else follows: a specific set of rules, even when no real punishment is feared, a set of rules called religion. But, in the problem above, we do not strictly need rules. People just have to be a little considerate. That's all. You just care a bit about others and everything goes fine. Isn't it?
No.
The game is not over yet. Now, we remove the traffic light. The players are still as considerate. They still think about others. But now, as there is no signal, they do not know when to stop. The traffic flows from two sides. People on one side must wait while the other side is moving. People still want to do that. But they don't know how to! In such a situation, even for players who care about the society's benefit as a whole (and who are partly selfish too) the best move, by logic, is to move, not stop. So they move. They want to be considerate, but they don't know how to. They need a traffic signal to guide them about when to stop and when to move. The electric bulb may not hold any absolute power upon any of them, but it becomes helpful when everyone decides to follow it. Everyone must derive the same meaning for red (for stop) and green (for go). Let there be light. Now, they must start following it strictly (not rationally) as if it has some power on them. If someone, somehow, makes them believe that it really has some power on them, he would be doing a noble job. The light here signifies religion, or, should I say, God!
And, somewhere far off, there is a society which believes it is blue for stop and yellow for go. Are they, in any way, wrong? That is, today, the biggest question!
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment