GAME THEORY: The Pinnacle of Decision Making
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Game theory, despite its innate complexity, constitutes an incredibly powerful body of knowledge that can allow a person to be more effectual when it comes to decision making.
Life oftentimes feels like a game.
And, usually, the winners are the ones who know how to play.
🔴 You can find the REMASTERED version of the video here: • Game Theory: The Pinna...
Ways to Support the Channel:
Check out my ebook: 30challenges30...
Buy me a coffee: www.buymeacoff...
Donate on Paypal: paypal.me/andr...
Donate ₿itcoin: 345jY1BjcuPoVutB6tLAFW6z23aY8sCvNX
Social Media:
Instagram: / _metamorphosis_77
Twitter: / adrian_ilio
Facebook: / metamorphosis77official
TikTok: / metamorphosis_77
#gametheory
You can find the REMASTERED version of the video here: ruclips.net/video/KHNnuqmRvAU/видео.html
😎
thanks for fundamental knowledge sir, i respected so much.
for zero excusses challenges, to make the ordinary people can struggle stronger move faster and hold longer they must projected theyself as the special person who have that criteria, can projected as king, knight, superhero leader etc, so when they reach maximum limits, they have more power reserve to reach higher stages because the paradigma he projected as 'leader' must be and act stronger. maybe it can be useful variable, salam from indonesia.
I need this
you wrote than in place of then. sorry hehehe.
Is there any book about game theory????
"When you strip away the genre differences and the technological complexities, all games share four defining traits: a goal, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary participation."
Jane McGonigal
this is honestly a better sentence than the 12 minute video imo
Good quote but the voluntary participation part is weird to me.
If two siblings are forced to play a board game, it is still considered a game even though participation is mandatory.
@@LivinBilly Voluntary participation is essential. You can actually quit the game and just wait for entropy to log you out.
except in the game of life participation is not voluntary.
@@joemartin7451 Entry to the game of life might not be voluntary, but participation certainly is. However, you cannot refuse to participate in life without starting a different game simultaneously.
But thats just a theory.. A GAAAAAAMMME THEORYYYYY
I got d reference 😁
well done
This is the best explanation of game theory I am ever come across. This concept of visual essay is great. Thank you for breaking this complex concepts. I enjoyed as much as you enjoyed making it. :)
Pretty sure this video got very many information wrong
If you'd actually study game theory, you quickly realize this is nothing but some weird glorification of game theory, like its the holy grail of life.
so i assume you never heard of it before? its not only a bad explanation, its just wrong, you would be better forgetting everything you heard here
The other guys are right: it ain't good. I've studied it at a top university and I also work on Game Theory. This is a confused presentation made by a total novice.
Veretasium also made a video about game theory.You can also check it out.That is also very good.
Great to see this type of content and intellect on the internet. The video was well done. I will return. :)
😎
Sounds as greek accent.
Pretty sure this video got very many information wrong
I’m a simple guy. I see Machiavelli. I click.
me too
I see a Machiavelli and I push the trigger right away...
Machiavelli best political philosophy for real
It is a self-inflicting tragedy that game theory is not formally taught in schools. We focus so much on the technicals, on the rote memorization, on passing standardized tests, that we no longer see the forest from the trees. Or in this case, the soil itself that is the foundation of the trees and ultimately the forest. In other words, we force students to memorize facts when we should be teaching them how to think rationally in a structured and formal way. Our current payoff strategy is a zero-sum game where if you are not at the top of your class, you are at the the bottom and be ridiculed as failures. There are no bad students, just bad teachers. By bad teachers, I include the education system in general. In a way, it’s a trickle down system. When the boss behave badly and the subordinates are helpless to change the boss because the boss of the boss is also behave badly, the structure breaks down the good teachers, making the good ones leave. This creates a vacuum where the bad ones thrive, resulting in organizational infighting. Bad teachers then trickle down to the last strata which is the students.
“There are no bad students, just bad teachers.“
INCORRECT ASSUMPTION
There are good teachers and good students.
As well as bad teachers and bad students.
If you use your belief as a rule of thumb in life, you’d be making bad decisions and assessments.
I wonder if Game Theory is richly represented in the public school system, just not in the way that the public would enjoy.
Perhaps Game Theory is deliberately withheld from being taught in the public school system. Those who are competing against the public have a reward for encouraging the development of suboptimal competitors. There's an exclusive club, and we're not in it.
people want to think rednecks don't exist
Teachers don't exist. It the politicians that are educating the students with policy.
game theory was taught in my first year of economics class idk about you
But hey, that's just a theory... A GAME THEORY!!!
John Nash received a prize for it though.. 🤷
Even has a movie about him: A Beautiful Mind
Lol hell yeah! I was like Matt patt?! O wait a video on actual game theory haha
In math, a theory is not just an unproven idea or hypothesis. It's more like a law in other sciences.
You also have "mystery" voice, so fit for this type of video content.
Very well done. I was also very impressed by your presentation on Machiavelli.
I am a researcher in the areas of ethics, political and societal responses to the concept and reality of homelessness.
Rarely do I find such clear, concise and meaning ‘full’ presentations.
Keep up the good work and happy new year 🥂!
Every move in life is like a game of chess, and it's important to always stay a step ahead ♟️💯
Except unlike chess, life is not a finite game of perfect information. So it’s really not like chess.
Well thats your view, I have another, but yours is just as valid
What sucks is when you don't want to play but you're the only one.
@@patinho5589
Life IS a finite game though and chess also doesn't have perfect information (since I don't know what moves my opponent will make), so it's a good enough analogy for me! 👍
With no redos
edit: I have now noticed your remastered video. Cheers!
5:43 In the Prisoners' Dilemma both players staying silent is not the Nash Equilibrium. Both betraying each other is a Nash Equilibrium. Definition of Nash Equilibrium. A result of the game in which no player has an incentive to change her strategy while the other player keeps her strategy the same is a Nash Equilibrium. If both players stay silent then prisoner A would like to change his strategy (betray) since that means he would get 0 years in prison, instead of 1. The same holds for prisoner B as well. Thus (stay silent, stay silent) isn't a Nash Equilibrium.
@@angeloskoulas3988 I was thinking exactly the same thing. So I looked at the comments to see if someone else had noticed the flaw. Great 👍🏾
And that’s just a theory
a game theory
A fooooood theory!!!
It is sad how this doesn’t have more likes
Best comment by far
@@tylerblackstonne cry
At 5:45, In the prisoner's dilemma the only nash equilibrium is for both to Betray, not for both to cooperate/stay silent, at least in this 1 time period run of the game. A nash equilibrium by definition is each players best response given the other player's strategy. In the point where both cooperate, cooperating is not the best response to the other person cooperating, one can choose to betray and get a better payoff given the other person is cooperating/stay silent. The reason a nash equilibrium is a equilibrium is that because no other action given the other persons action can produce a better payoff, at the outcome where Both betray, neither of them can change their strategy to Stay silent and get a better payoff, therefore it is a nash equilibrium.
The table is wrong anyway. It says they score 1,1 if they both stay silent, or 2,2 if they both betray. It should be the other way round.
In live human experiments at least 20% of the time both parties co-operate. We are more emotional than rational and many want to believe.
True but a pure nash equilibrium is also the point in which no player would deviate from their strategy, he's correct. If B chooses betray, A would prefer to stay silent as 3>2, if A chooses to betray player 2 would prefer stay silent as 3>2. But if B chooses to stay silent A would choose to stay silent as 1>0 and if A chooses to stay silent B would also choose to stay silent as 1>0. Therefore neither player would deviate. Both players betraying is not a nash equilibrium as its not either players best response based on the numerical representations of the preferences as given.
@@davidknipe4113 The table presented at 3:45 correctly depicts the terms of imprisonment according to the rules of the game as presented at 3:35, David. Note that the numbers in the matrix (table) do not represent a "score." Instead, they indicate the term of imprisonment for each player, respectively, depending on the choice each makes INDEPENDENTLY (i.e. without knowing the choice made by the other). According to the rules presented, each prisoner serves 1-year in prison if EACH chooses INDEPENDENTLY to remain silent ["1,1"]; OR each prisoner serves 2-years in prison if EACH chooses INDEPENDENTLY to betray the other [2,2]). This is accurately explained between 3:35 and 3:45 in the video.
What IS wrong (or at least misleading) in the video, however, is how the author IMPLIES -- both verbally and in the video animation -- that prisoner "B" WAITS for prisoner "A" to betray him, and then prisoner "B" SUBSEQUENTLY betrays prisoner "A," so as to mitigate his own sentence (i.e. reduce his own prison sentence from 3-years to 2-years). This is in violation of rule #2 of the game, which states that the players cannot communicate with each other (each player must make his decision INDEPENDENTLY of the other, and the decision of each player is not revealed [to the other] and final adjudication not pronounced until BOTH players have submitted their irrevocable decisions).
@@infiniteeye9155 Yes, you're right on the first point. I thought it was the "score" (number of remaining years of freedom) but it does say it's the number of years in prison.
(I'll not reply to the rest, because it's not related to anything I've said.)
I'm impressed, amazing and quality work everytime! Keep it up and a big thank you from Mexico!
Pretty sure this video got very many information wrong
Greetings, Nash equilibrium for this game is actually for the prisoners to each choose to betray. The idea here is that the player is choosing their best move in response to the other player's best move.
Agreed!
Soldiers looking each other in the eyes: “What the fuck are we doing here”!
😆
The concept of Nash equilibrium is a good follow-up to this video. When each player has nothing to gain by changing their strategy, we have reached equilibrium. This concept helps us examine in further detail, why a prisoner might defect against a fellow prisoner.
Life's dominant strategy? Knowledge and intelligence. Knowledge empowers the experience, the more you know the more you do & see. Intelligence empowers your awareness. You are more intelligent the more sensitive you are to knowledge. Work on these in every situation and you'll never lose.
Love it ! Thanks for sharing !
Love it ! Thanks for sharing !
The wise thing here is being careful of what games you play first.
Great video, except there’s an error on the Prisoner’s Dilemma explanation of the Nash equilibrium. A Nash equilibrium is where the decision taken is the best outcome regardless of the other players decision or if they changed their decision you would not be worse off.
The Nash equilibrium occurs when both players betray each other, since neither player can benefit by unilaterally changing their strategy. If one player stays silent while the other betrays, the betraying player gets a better outcome, and if both players stay silent, they both end up with a better outcome, but neither player can achieve a better outcome by changing their strategy if the other player keeps their strategy unchanged.
check the remastered version
@Metamorphosis 77 it’s great. Thanks.
I’m very happy RUclips suggested me your videos! My Audible book for this month is “The Art of Seduction” by Robert Greene and while doing some research on how my interactions differ with other people RUclips suggested your content, please keep making more!
Any update?
Robert Greene is a communist
Game theory steps simplified;
1. Betray/ Coop (fool me once, shame on you)
2. Betray/ Betray (fool me twice, shame on me)
3. Coop/ Coop (we're tired of fooling each other)
Glad you keep doing it... they keep getting better and better
Congratulations
Great work. Just two small comments though: 1) One of the assumption of all games is that the number of players is "2 or greater than 2", not "greater than 2" (see 2:31). 2) A very important assumption of game theory is "perfect information", which you have missed on the assumption list (see 2:47). This assumption greatly limits the usefulness of game theory in the real world because in many real-world situations, "perfect information" cannot be attained.
Awesome video. Great topic and excellent presentation. Subbed!
People will always favour delusional, hope to a harsh truth
As Machiavelli said. He understood game theory to his advantage
So rather than assess if one has rational actors it is better to leverage uncertainty by feeding their delusional hope and then act against a nash equilibrium .. this approach is the calling card of what we call the “psychopath “.
One persons psychopath is another’s survivor approach
So humanity by default at its best even by social evolutionary advantage is to collaborate to benefit of the species
That’s called
Civility
Morality
Normal
Psychopathy is the term that feels appropriate in that those that go against our average optimal collaborative nature
It’s a sterile description of humanity where one approach is as logical as the other and yet we define psychopathy
as abnormal and martyrs as ideals and nash equilibrium as humane optimums.
Unless we add Gods expectation s
we are without a convincing argument for the uncertain of their humanity or psychopathy . This is why humanism will always be weaker than personal religion .
We need god to keep us cooperating when we have no more need to cooperate as we
Conquer “nature “ and have nothing to survive against .
I see a drawback in Game theory pertaining to principles 4 & 5. I cannot perceive with sufficient certainty what constitutes as “rational and self- interest” for myself, let alone what they represent to a third party.
"Are the actors rational?"
Nope, definitely can't use it in a relationship with your woman.
I like the topical exploration into game theory. Although the short-form content is entertaining, I'd be interested to hear a deeper level, long-form with the topics that your exploring. Possibly interviews or a Jordan Peterson style rant/ discussion.
Great work. I like what you're up to.
Ew, Jordan Peterson is a quack, but I agree a deeper dive would be wonderful
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man - The Dude. ☯️
This is like an ad or a pamphlet. A teaser to learn about game theory.
I'm impressed. VERY impressed. Usually, I don't make time for longer video's, but your blog has intrigued me for years now. This is an excellent start, and I'm very much looking foward to many more in the future!
We as humans must kill every other human. That is the name and purpose of this game. When the world ends, the game ends and everyone finally gets to see the scoreboard.
It was a really good starting video. So in order for this to work, and before you even think about finding the nash equilibrium, there have to be more players that desire the same reward, right?
Yes, that's accurate.
keep going. You deserve way more than 1k subs.. its astounding to me. Youll find a large audience in no time because the content is great.
I don't have time now to produce more content. But I will do so in the future. I know that this channel has a lot of potential. Thanks for the support. :)
really insightful video, thanks, I picked up the book from the father of game theory you mentioned. Cheers!
Metamorphosis 77 has exactly 77.7K subscribers.
This is really enlightening. I have always been curious about philosophical stuff. After watching this video I visited your blog. They are really interesting and I would suggest all, to read your blog. Excellent piece of work. Spread the knowledge, Keep going and keep inspiring. Beautiful. :) :)
Thank you Neha for this amazing comment. :) :)
:) :)
substantive human rights choice for divine central authority unity
5:51: "Nash's theory of equilibrium ... presupposes that in each game there is at least one point of equilibrium." No, it doesn't _presuppose_ the existence of an equilibrium. It _guarantees_ the existence of an equilibrium. (Under certain conditions... I don't know what the conditions are.)
David Knipe the conditions would need to be of perfection to produce equilibrium
@@godswill2260 What do you mean when you say "perfection"?
Great video man - proud to see you moving into the YT realm! I enjoy video essays like this and I can already tell that you will pour quality into these projects. I suppose my only word of advice as a mere watcher is to find a consistent voice, look, icon, or some sort of “meme” that will always be associated with yourself. You’ve likely already considered this though and I look forward to seeing more content!
That will come with time. :)
Best explanation, Game theory is not an easy one, it takes years and experience to master this as you have to understand your opponents ratio as its the most factor that will determine how to pursue other factors like their dominant strategy is placed
in the prisoners dilema compared to a beautiful minds example, one of the big differences is thinking about the aftermath and colateral effects that come from our decisions. in the prisoners dilema it is not considered that if you snitch on the other prisoner, if and when they get out of prison they can go after you and ultimately make you pay the biggest price of all which is your life.
Wrong the nash equilibrium is that both betray each other.
i think i must misunderstand the prisoner dilemma or the value of nash equilibrium within this context. it appears to me that if you always betray, your possible outcomes are 0 or 2. If you never betray, your possible outcomes are 1 or 3.
So betrayal is the only option with the possibility of no prison time and betrayal has the best worst option of 2 years vs 3 years prison time.
Silence guarantees prison time and contains the possibility of the longest prison time.
Surely if you run this over and over the betrayers end up with a total prison time lower than the silents'?
watch the remastered version in the description
This was a great video and structured to impart knowledge with outmost clarity .
Awesome stuff. How long did it take you to make this video.
Since it was my first video, and I had no experience in video editing, it took me a few days. However, I had the script ready from my essay and I believe this is the most difficult part; creating a great script that will lead to a well-articulated narrative.
Glad this video found me
If u can enter translate to arabic and other languages
hhmmss: game theory adaptation escalate teamwork disagree and commit dispute resolution war of attrition
attrition is key
Liked the conclusion of the video, well said!
Mpravo adherfe kai efharistw. To video sou tha mou einai hrisimo gia mia ekpompi pou kanw apopse mes dhekadhes hiliadhes pou mas akolouthoun ;) Na se kala.
I just found your channel and it is actually amazing. Keep up the good work
Thank you for all the thought-provoking video essays!
Awesome video man. In Psychology, we use a lot of Game Theory as well. I like your practical approach to it. Keep it up!
How is it that Game Theory is used in Psychology?
At the outset, a load of thanks to the makers of this video. My focus is on the Stock market, and it is a zero sum game, meaning, one loser will get one winner, the platform gets its commission. Now, there are more than 2 players, and all the rules of GT is practiced. How do we explain the same and how do we become the winner, when 95 percent of the cases, investors lost their investment. Lookig for your thoughts, and my biases.
The buglers blow, and all the soldiers run back whence they came:sounds like a Woody Allen movie. 😊
Nash needed one extra statement to complete the sequence: "the blonde gets offended and starts pursuing all of us instead"
That’s our best bet baby! Mutual agreements under love. Love you Calli! 😎
Setting priorities and following through to achieve your goals keep you a step higher in life.
I still thinking with smile when I remembered automates in greek bar. One man play stubbornly every day...leaving inside a lot of many. And at the end he win. He was so happy and bought for everyone drinks. But he don't know he play all the time with himself. I ask owner gamemachines about it. And he shrugged and say:They I constructed than half money is kept inside. He always win. Game theory.) So question is how many is players? You will own nothing an you will be happy...
Wouldn't we assume players only act rationally after applying backward induction? Also, what you described at the 2:50 mark seems like a non-cooperative game, only
Nice work, liked and subscribed with bells on
High quality work! Love the explanation 👌🏽
Bro, I'm going to user this video for a research trigger, like reference.
Use the updated version
اللي من عند خالد الصميت لايك😂
Problem with game theory is you have to know all the variable and their outcomes. Something that rarely happens in the real world. If you sit down to play poker, and you don't know who the mark is. It is you.
wow ... bravo ..thaaaanks ..u should try poker... a video about AI and how it manage to solve ( as it appears !?!] an imperfect imformations games mostly w 2 players.. and im informin now and even more than 2 players but then what about Daskalakis and mathematik award about nash can not reached w many players in real life ( if i understand correclty
Thank you. I've looked at so many videos that promised an explanation of game theory, and they all just showed game scenarios and solutions.
Do I sense some Jordan Peterson influence?
The issue here is that a rational response or self interest are context driven and of course under pressure people are not rational. A person's self interest might be motivated by unanticipated reasoning on the part of the individual assuming there is any reason at all versus some impulsive response.
En los primcipios de GT dices que los participantes tienen que interactuar. En el dilema del prisionero los prisioneros no tienen contacto el uno con el otro. Es decir, no interactuan.
Great presentation dude. Thanks for the video. Subscribed.
but that's just a game theory
What an overly complicated yet entertaining way of saying compromise is better than selfish conquest.
This is the Clearest Way of Depicting the Game theory. I am well versed thank you
edit: I have now noticed your remastered video. Cheers!
The scene from the Beautiful Mind is very inaccurate. The fact that competition and free market don't always yield the best results is known for about 30-40 years before Nash by the works of Schumpeter and Pigou. Also again you have hugely misunderstood what a Nash Equilibrium is. In the dating game depicted in the movie, each player has two strategies (blonde, not the blonde). Everyone playing (not the blonde) isn't a Nash Equilibrium since the players have incentive to change their strategy to (blonde) if other players keep their strategy constant.
Not really. The blonde showed interest on nash, and the propose comes from nash. so the others players have incentive to not play blonde if they wants to get laid.
The Explanation of game Theory using "The 2 Prisoners Dilemma" is still the biggest Misdirection Ever Used For description of Mutual or Expressed Cooperation in the Better Interests of Someone Self and the Others...
7:30
Followed by the Best Depiction of Nash Equilibrium...
Pax Equilibrium is same , but better...
The Blond is Lesbian and Half Jewish by the way...
She was just wondering how the Sister of Russell Crowe would have looked like when Sitting on Her Face...
We Won..
In the Prisoners dilemma I don't think that both stay silent is the equilibrium, because if the other betray the outcome of that strategy would be worst than to betray always.... So the correct strategy is betray
Correct. The expected utility of betrayal is a one year prison sentence :(0 + 2)/2.
The expected utility of staying silent is a two years prison sentence: (1+3)/2
Since we have no influence on the decision of the other prisoner, we have to calculate the expected utility based only on our own decision. As prisoner A we have to add the pay-offs in each row in the pay-off matrix and divide it by the number of possible options that are not under our control. We can only choose between the two rows, the columns are not subject to our decision.
Cooperation would only make sense, if both prisoners can communicate and come to an agreement, which was explicitly stated as not possible.
Fascinating video, well explained and well diagrammed. Thank you - job well done!
Excellent video 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Thanks!
Prisoner's dilemma is a dilemma because players can't interact ergo interaction isn't necessary.
Why’s your profile pic the Masonic logo?
Great video! Thank you for making the concept simple and easy to understand.
PLAAtoe
If this speaks to your interest, I believe you'd enjoy a book that covers similar grounds. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell
I like how you mention John Von Neymann but not Oskar Morgenstern
1. A GAME NEEDS TO INCLUDE MULTIPLE PLAYERS (>2). Tennis singles is not a game! Game theory fails in the first premise!
Nash's Game Theory is simply applied Ergodic Theory. And since the Nobel Prize is not given to mathematicians, Nash got the prize in economics. In reality, many systems are not ergodic. Evolution, for example. But the study of these systems rests on Numbers Theory. The most complex area of mathematics.
I came here to find answers and strategies. And I feel left with more questions than answers. But, I guess this is how the game works...
Real game theory: Nerds running computer programs to determine optimal play
Wannabe cool guy game theory: Playing blackjack because "you can get the edge on your side" and still losing because you don't know how to play the way game theory recommends
This video portrays one of these versions of game theory, I wonder which one.
Poor J Nash
The problem with the word "rational" is that there is no such thing. Socrates example was comically inept in describing the very real Rationales of the ancient Hellenes. The Art of War explained all parts of "game theory" 2500 years ago, as well as everything "game theory" fails to explain. Similarly, the game of Football, not soccer, contains all the elements of game theory. So does chess. Given the Hungarians historical love of chess it's not surprising that a Magyar developed the theory.
Shortcomings aside, it would be an excellent exercise for the youth to develop their analytical and synthetical skills.
Loved it!
I can't be the only one who expected Mattpatt from game theory show up in this video 🤦🏿♂️🤣😭😂🤷🏿♂️
Excellent!!!!
Loved the video but multiple players is >1. Am I missing something?
Don't >2 from the theory mean 'more than 2' yet the first example, with prisoners, has mere 2 players (who btw can't communicate with each other while rule 2 of the theory states that the players must be able to interact)??
Or.... hm.... I'm stupid??