There is a big mistake in this video. The definition of "Nash equilibrium" in the video is actually the definition for a strictly dominant strategy: "A player in a game has found A STRICTLY DOMINANT STRATEGY when they make the choice that leaves them better off no matter what their opponents decide to do.” In the prisoner's dilemma, each player has a strictly dominant strategy to confess--it's better NO MATTER what others do. A Nash equilibrium, by contrast, is when each player has a strategy that is better GIVEN what others are doing. Each person is doing the best to outguess others, and mutually each person is playing a best response. Here's an example to illustrate the difference. Do you drive on the left side of the road or the right? There is no choice better for you "no matter" what others do. Your best choice is to match what others do: you drive on the left if others do, and you drive on the right if others do too. This game does not permit a strictly dominant strategy. But there are two Nash equilibria--when everyone drives on the left, or everyone drives on the right. Very few games have strictly dominant strategies. In contrast, every game* has a Nash equilibrium (*under certain conditions) Nash proved the existence of the equilibrium in his doctoral thesis at Princeton, and that is work for which he was recognized with a Nobel Prize and is the subject of the book/movie "A Beautiful Mind." I mostly liked this video and the Shapley value example is good. But the definition of the Nash equilibrium is a big error--perhaps include a note or annotation?
Funky Com Lag Cat The logic is that each player is rewarded for the help that they gave the other, regardless of their personal skill. Think of it like this: If I made 10 cookies and sold them for 10 dollars, I would only make 10 dollars. Same for you, if you only made 20 cookies and sell them you would make 20 dollars. However, when teamed up, we make 10 extra cookies. Now lies the question, how much does teaming up with you benefit me? (And the other way around). That is what we are trying to determine. I am no pro at this either, but from what I have looked up so far this is what I was able to make up.
Another mistake is to ignore the differences in optimum outcomes - whether selfish or no - that must occur when the game is repeated. After a certain number f repetitions, the best personal outcome differs quite a LOT! While prisoner's dilemma posits two self-interested players, excluding any others affected by players' actions, that presumption falsifies any biological organism's reality. Further, temporally delayed response remains a factor in real situations. Game Theory DOES consider such reality, but within the complexity so brushed off by the video, other equilibria exist. ANYONE interested in social dynamics, economics, ecology, population dynamics, needs to explore game theory far more deeply. The role of uncertainty can be quantified to variable extents, and overly simplistic accounts, even in introductions, may leave people (prominently shown in the drive-by twits of almost all the comments). So, to the video posters: more work is needed on the closing generalities and disclaimers.
I went to drop off some toilet paper to a friend, thinking I was going to leave it on her porch and back away. She opened the door, grappled my shirt, dragged me in, and through me on the bed. If that's the way isolation effects women, this can go on forever 🤣
Love how you break-down what is common sense to most.. it really forces me to understand why I think a certain way in situations where I'd normally think automatically
1. "pioneered by John Nash"! John von Neumann is the father of game theory! John Nash found the equilibrium exist in a much more general class of games, but his contributions are less significant than von Neumann's. 2. (4:26) "no matter what everyone else decides to do" The whole purpose of studying game theory is that others actions affect your outcomes, and perhaps your optimal actions. You should say: taking into account what everyone else decides to do. The above condition doesn't make sense in a game theory context.
I've studied a lot of game theory and this is one of the best introductions I've seen to these game types. One small thing, a Nash Equilibrium is achieved when no player can improve their result by changing strategy. As the brief annotation mentioned, you described a Dominant strategy. Curious viewers should look into optimal strategy for Prisoner's Dilemma in an iterated game (ie. multiple rounds of the same decision). It may be the best mathematical model available for the axiom "It doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's how you play the game."
As someone who's been stuck watching intro game theory videos for about 5 years, this is the best one I've seen to date. Very clear and concise description, Sci.
that example reminds me of the game show Friend or Foe. two players have acquired a certain amount of money based on their performance in the game. Then at the end they make a secret decision. If they both choose the Friend option, then they split the winnings 50/50. If one chooses Friend and the other chooses Foe, then the person who chose Foe gets all the winnings and the other person leaves with nothing. If both people choose Foe, they both leave with nothing
Excellent video on the basics of Game Theory. My 17 year old learned a lot from it. It may also be worth mentioning that Game Theory is put to good use by economists, military strategists, and policy strategists. Differential Games are more difficult to axiomatixe and compute, but often more accurately reflect real world situations. Military strategists generally use Differential Game Theory, as situations are often continuously changing.
@@bozimmerman So true. Arguably the first book on the subject by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern was essentially an econometrics sort of book, as revealed in the book's title.
I noticed two errors in the video: 1. Game theory was pioneered by von Neumann and Morgenstern in their 1944 book. John Nash came later. 2. The definition given of a Nash equilibrium is actually a dominant strategy. A Nash equilibrium is more general.
I notice you comment this on a lot of SciShow's videos. Nothing wrong with that, you just want them to make a video educating us about cerebral aneurysms. However, your comment is not the best at grabbing attention the way it needs to be in order to get its own video. Might I suggest a revision: "Why do I have cerebral aneurysms around my anus?"
I too, have seen your comment before. I'm sure they have also seen it. However, you as a victim of an aneurysm obviously know everything about them first hand and from communication with your doctor. Perhaps you should phrase it more like "My best friend/relative suffered an aneurysm and is now in the hospital, I have dyslexia so it's hard for me to learn from reading the very good Wikipedia article on the subject, Please make a video on it to help me understand what my friend is going through and what to expect from his/her recovery!".
Hank, you didn't end the video right. See according to game theory your ending was supposed to be. "And remember its just *Science*.....*Delicious Science* Thanks for *Learning*
The next time you’re stuck in traffic understand that it’s because people don’t understand game theory. A few selfish drivers try to drive slightly faster than the density of traffic allows and so everyone, including the speeders end up going much much slower.
Great video on explaining the basics of Game Theory! Would you ever do a part two which explained the Normal Form vs. Extensive Form, further exploration of the Nash Equilibrium, or even the math behind certain ideas like the Cobb-Douglas utility function?
Game theory was pioneered by John Von Neumann's paper in 1928 which completed by "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior" by Von Neumann (mathemarician) and Oskar Morgenstern (economist) in 1944. It mainly covered zero-sum games, expected utility (to deal with uncertainty, introduced in the second edition) and applications in politics, economics, and social behavior. In 1950, John Nash contributed a remarkable one-page PNAS article that defined and characterized a notion of equilibrium for n-person games. Above statements is paraphrased from Wikipedia and PNAS.
everybody seems to be correcting the video, so I will also join the chorus. FOr once that I can. The winning strategy in the prisoner's dilemma is to defect only if the game is played only once. If you play another version which is repetitive prisoner dilemma, the winning strategy end up TfT (tiit for tat) where each player starts to cooperate and then copies the behaviour of the other player in the previous round.
I use a running shapley value when I play chess, each piece in part of the coalition. I just didn't know what it was called, I assign each piece a value and keep a tally of how much each piece contributes towards capturing other pieces and advancing my position. Allowing me to make sacrifices that appear to be me losing but are me just positioning my opponent a certain way.
I'm a chess player and sorry, but your statement is nonsense. Chess is a game of patterns and observation (not mathematical), the only use of the shapley value is how much are pieces/pawns truly worth in a given moment which can be compensated by the common Reinfeld values. Math and Chess don't have a relation to each other, I am a dumb-dumb in math for example but can crush in chess.
@@Maelthras if chess could be boiled down to maths, then we'd have a computer (or atleast an algorithm) of beating the game. Which is impossible. Chess is outside even the field of NP problems. It's also why newer engines always become better. What you're saying already happens. Pieces already have value (measured in how many pawns they are worth, which themselves are worth a point). But knowing this doesn't help you strategize or win because as Michael correctly points, chess is a game of positions and patterns.
@@kingbradley3402 Exactly, you assign weights to positions and strategies. As the game evolves you are always assessing your position against previous and future in an attempt to come out on top. Just so happens it feels more mathematic to me as I do so.
Game theory is actually pioneered by John von Neumann in the 1940s, not John Nash in the 1950s. Nash's biggest contribution was coming up with the Nash equilibrium.
Hmm..Prisoner's Dilemma is basically like the part in The Dark Knight where The Joker offers the chance to people on the two ships to either bomb each other by a certain time, or they both get bombed.
Speaking of cookies, you can solve it in this way too: You made: 10 cookies Your friend made: 20 cookies 10+20=30 10/30*100=33,3% 20/30*100=66,7% Now we just need to multiply $ 40 by these percentages, and we will find the amount that each person earned.
Very very good demonstration of SIMPLE Game Theory. A bit fast paced for a beginner, IMO, but straight to the point and easy to comprehend! Awesome video.
If you want to learn more about game theory and you like anime/manga I suggest checking out the manga Liar Game! It's pretty entertaining and it teaches you a lot. Plus it's complete, which is always nice.
Well, to be fair it doesn't teach you _a lot_ about game theory. It has its moments, but most of it doesn't actually involve game theory at all. It's nonetheless an absolutely worthwhile read.
Im studying game theory now nd I got John ven on my book so aftr watching this video for a moment I thought damn I learned d wrong ans but ur comment save me:-)
He is right off the bat misrepresenting Prisoner's Dilemma. He says that if both keep silent they'll get two years in prison, whereas if X confesses but Y does not, X goes free while Y gets a harder punishment. That is not the usual explanation. Usually, if both keep silent, they'll both go free, since there is no evidence against them. Whereas if X confesses but Y does not, Y is punished harshly while X gets a short time in prison, but still less than if both confess or if Y rats out X. The question in Prisoner's Dilemma is if they trust each other enough to both keep silent so they both get the best outcome.
SciShow Life - Health - Psych Why not all 3 and call it SciShow People? It would help keep the videos diverse and prevent stagnation from being a (relatively) smaller field and would also keep work on the videos fresh (instead of working on videos in the same field continuously), my opinion atleast :)
Kind of not actually. In this example, it is always most advantageous for the player to betray the other player. A player that selects the cooperative option is vulnerable to being taken advantage of and will serve either 2 or 10 year sentences each round whereas an uncooperative player will either serve 5 or nothing. Therefore, players are motivated to not confess, rather betray.
Not really. In practice confessions are verifiable and lead to useful intel. If not, the confessor receives no benefit. However it also leads to extralegal punishment for snitches to discourage confessors
I think it says a lot about our society that of the many times I have heard about the prisoner's dilemma, no one has ever mentioned that not only does it convict a pair of innocent people with the 'game' mentality, if one person is guilty and the other is innocent the innocent person goes up the river for 10 years.
I REALLY hope it's Sci show psych. I freaking love psychology (despite only studying it on the side to computer science) but it's so damn fascinating and it just clicks with me so easily
Oh My God. John Nash Was doing Game theory in his head the whole time during A Brilliant Mind when making choices about his schizophrenic hallucinations.
There are so many inaccuracies in the video that I don't know where to even begin. Firstly, game theory is about mathematically modeling strategic situations and studying mutually enforcing decisions ("equilibria"). GT is neither normative ("this is how you should behave"), nor is it predictive ("this is how people would behave in the same situation"). GT is a modeling paradigm that can potentially be used as one component of some normative or predictive theory, but it would never be able to do this by itself. Secondly, as someone already pointed out, the definition of "Nash Equilibrium" in the video is completely and utterly wrong. But regardless, the video seems to conflate equilibrium with "the most sensible action". In fact a lot of game theory concerns about how individually "rational" decision-making can lead to insensible equilibrium outcomes. e.g. destruction of the commons (over-fishing, pollution, etc.). An equilibrium outcome can be either good or bad, so this is not what the concept is about. An equilibrium is about the stability of decisions taken by multiple agents; i.e. it is about mutually enforcing decisions. GT is not a science, kind of like maths is not a science. However, it can be used to make predictive or normative claims, but in itself, GT like mathematics does not point its finger in either direction. It's almost better to see maths and GT as types of languages that allow you to speak about certain situations that might be extremely hard otherwise.
and you just showed you do not understand what the nash equilibrium is yourself. The "stability" you talk about is ONLY reached when no person involved in the game can benefit more than you if you choose a particular strategy, no matter what strategy they choose. So tired of the ignorance on youtube.
I'm glad he didn't. That phrase is a bane to scientific thought. It's sick. Causes people to think theories can be "just a theory", when they are actually proven time and time again.
One of the most applicable fields that exist actually. You can literally use to to analyze everything you do, every single choice from the moment you wake to the moment you sleep to optimize your life.
There is a big mistake in this video. The definition of "Nash equilibrium" in the video is actually the definition for a strictly dominant strategy: "A player in a game has found A STRICTLY DOMINANT STRATEGY when they make the choice that leaves them better off no matter what their opponents decide to do.”
In the prisoner's dilemma, each player has a strictly dominant strategy to confess--it's better NO MATTER what others do.
A Nash equilibrium, by contrast, is when each player has a strategy that is better GIVEN what others are doing. Each person is doing the best to outguess others, and mutually each person is playing a best response.
Here's an example to illustrate the difference. Do you drive on the left side of the road or the right? There is no choice better for you "no matter" what others do. Your best choice is to match what others do: you drive on the left if others do, and you drive on the right if others do too. This game does not permit a strictly dominant strategy. But there are two Nash equilibria--when everyone drives on the left, or everyone drives on the right.
Very few games have strictly dominant strategies. In contrast, every game* has a Nash equilibrium (*under certain conditions) Nash proved the existence of the equilibrium in his doctoral thesis at Princeton, and that is work for which he was recognized with a Nobel Prize and is the subject of the book/movie "A Beautiful Mind."
I mostly liked this video and the Shapley value example is good. But the definition of the Nash equilibrium is a big error--perhaps include a note or annotation?
Thank you for an insightful comment! It makes a nice change from the constant babel
Thank you Presh for the explanation
Funky Com Lag Cat The logic is that each player is rewarded for the help that they gave the other, regardless of their personal skill. Think of it like this: If I made 10 cookies and sold them for 10 dollars, I would only make 10 dollars. Same for you, if you only made 20 cookies and sell them you would make 20 dollars. However, when teamed up, we make 10 extra cookies. Now lies the question, how much does teaming up with you benefit me? (And the other way around). That is what we are trying to determine. I am no pro at this either, but from what I have looked up so far this is what I was able to make up.
Another mistake is to ignore the differences in optimum outcomes - whether selfish or no - that must occur when the game is repeated. After a certain number f repetitions, the best personal outcome differs quite a LOT!
While prisoner's dilemma posits two self-interested players, excluding any others affected by players' actions, that presumption falsifies any biological organism's reality.
Further, temporally delayed response remains a factor in real situations.
Game Theory DOES consider such reality, but within the complexity so brushed off by the video, other equilibria exist.
ANYONE interested in social dynamics, economics, ecology, population dynamics, needs to explore game theory far more deeply.
The role of uncertainty can be quantified to variable extents, and overly simplistic accounts, even in introductions, may leave people (prominently shown in the drive-by twits of almost all the comments).
So, to the video posters: more work is needed on the closing generalities and disclaimers.
MindYourDecisions v
Watching this in 2020.
"Did you interact with anyone today?"
No. No I did not.
factsssssssssssss
Lock down
Corona bias
I went to drop off some toilet paper to a friend, thinking I was going to leave it on her porch and back away.
She opened the door, grappled my shirt, dragged me in, and through me on the bed.
If that's the way isolation effects women, this can go on forever 🤣
Only 20's kid will understand
"Did you interact with anyone today?" ha... ha...
You were practicing for 2020
Hehe
Hi from Sept 2020.
Lolz.
Not anymore
Always
Love how you break-down what is common sense to most.. it really forces me to understand why I think a certain way in situations where I'd normally think automatically
you can gain a better understanding of how the mind works in the Critique Of Pure Reason by Kant.
Most of the investor thinks like that.... Simple And normal thing....
@@henrykashyap8913 How do investors think? Please elaborate
This is probably one of the more concise, bitesize videos on understanding game theory, very helpful.
Watch the veritasium one...
1. "pioneered by John Nash"!
John von Neumann is the father of game theory! John Nash found the equilibrium exist in a much more general class of games, but his contributions are less significant than von Neumann's.
2. (4:26) "no matter what everyone else decides to do"
The whole purpose of studying game theory is that others actions affect your outcomes, and perhaps your optimal actions. You should say: taking into account what everyone else decides to do. The above condition doesn't make sense in a game theory context.
Thats true
If I were a betting man I'd say that there is at least one comment in here referencing Matthew Patrick.
Wyatt Castle 95% of the comments on this video mention MatPat. I'd say that'd be a safe bet to make
His own comment is inclusive to the betting parameters, thus allowing to win his bet at a rate of 100%
But that's just a theory
A GAME THEORY!!!
Thanks for reading.
HELLO INTERNET; WELCOME TO GAME THEORY!
wtf they turned matpat into a science
I've studied a lot of game theory and this is one of the best introductions I've seen to these game types. One small thing, a Nash Equilibrium is achieved when no player can improve their result by changing strategy. As the brief annotation mentioned, you described a Dominant strategy. Curious viewers should look into optimal strategy for Prisoner's Dilemma in an iterated game (ie. multiple rounds of the same decision). It may be the best mathematical model available for the axiom "It doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's how you play the game."
5:55 "DUMMY PLAYERS HAVE ZERO VALUE"
*Luigi* would like to speak with you.
🍷😆 Yessa wella it issa abouta timezee we have a little chat about zzaat!⌚
@@evm6177 Lets wait for some italian guys to resspondd to yorr comment
"Did you interact with anyone today?"
I don't like your tone there hank. Feels a little personal.
That was very offensive
freddy graffam well it’s a lot more personal in 2020
@@Halo-lg7rq Only to you.
Hence why it's "Personal".
As someone who's been stuck watching intro game theory videos for about 5 years, this is the best one I've seen to date. Very clear and concise description, Sci.
@Aymanne 1 year has passed only one like coincidence are you alive?.
that example reminds me of the game show Friend or Foe. two players have acquired a certain amount of money based on their performance in the game. Then at the end they make a secret decision. If they both choose the Friend option, then they split the winnings 50/50. If one chooses Friend and the other chooses Foe, then the person who chose Foe gets all the winnings and the other person leaves with nothing. If both people choose Foe, they both leave with nothing
Ive be running this in my head to make situations work for me without even realising it was a thing.
Excellent video on the basics of Game Theory. My 17 year old learned a lot from it. It may also be worth mentioning that Game Theory is put to good use by economists, military strategists, and policy strategists. Differential Games are more difficult to axiomatixe and compute, but often more accurately reflect real world situations. Military strategists generally use Differential Game Theory, as situations are often continuously changing.
One could even argue that game theory is an extension of economic modeling, since it borrowed ideas like marginal utility and others...
@@bozimmerman So true. Arguably the first book on the subject by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern was essentially an econometrics sort of book, as revealed in the book's title.
That's just a theory, a GAME THEORY! Thanks for watching!
Von Neumann and Morgenstern pioneered/created Game Theory in the 1920s-1940s. Nash made important contributions.
Game Theory was one of the best classes I took last semester, loved it. I'm planning on taking Advanced Game Theory this year :D
I'm glad you guys went with SciShow Psych. I've been loving those vids!
Legend. Took my thoughts out of my mouth, I didn't think people has gone deep into studying this stuff wow!
I noticed two errors in the video:
1. Game theory was pioneered by von Neumann and Morgenstern in their 1944 book. John Nash came later.
2. The definition given of a Nash equilibrium is actually a dominant strategy. A Nash equilibrium is more general.
A nash equilibrium is when you know what your opponent will do
Thank you, Hank! You totally just gave me a new title for my podcast. I'll let you know what it is once I get it rolling.
Can you do one on cerebral aneurysms? I had one rupture at 19 and would love to learn more!
Why do you comment this on every video?
i fi may, i'd be more interested in more rare stuff like Guillain-Barré syndrome and other parlyzing illnesses.
I notice you comment this on a lot of SciShow's videos. Nothing wrong with that, you just want them to make a video educating us about cerebral aneurysms. However, your comment is not the best at grabbing attention the way it needs to be in order to get its own video. Might I suggest a revision:
"Why do I have cerebral aneurysms around my anus?"
I too, have seen your comment before. I'm sure they have also seen it.
However, you as a victim of an aneurysm obviously know everything about them first hand and from communication with your doctor. Perhaps you should phrase it more like "My best friend/relative suffered an aneurysm and is now in the hospital, I have dyslexia so it's hard for me to learn from reading the very good Wikipedia article on the subject, Please make a video on it to help me understand what my friend is going through and what to expect from his/her recovery!".
98Zai Mine's still better at baiting attention!!!1! :P
Thank you so much for the de-obfuscating a very complicated subject that to be honest I've never even started to get, until now. Thank you again!
the prisoner dilemma made me remember a scene from The Dark Knight, that ship scene. Just sharin
Spot on
Same
I can't be the only one expecting a matpat crossover
Cont3mplation no mat pat sucks ass
you're not alone
well it's just a theory A GAMETHEORY LOL............. kill me
Did I just start an internet fight? Check that off my bucket list XD
Cont3mplation I actually clicked on this video thinking it was a game theory 😿
matpat comments incoming.
GAME THEORY!!!!!!!!!!!!
what's a matpat please ?
he's a youtuber. his channel is called game theory.
samwisegamzy ok thanks ;)
thor steffes much copyrighted infrigemund
Hank, you didn't end the video right. See according to game theory your ending was supposed to be.
"And remember its just *Science*.....*Delicious Science* Thanks for *Learning*
aaayyyy
+Kyle C yes?
Wow...saw that coming
Ayyyyyy
Lol ur quite right :)
The next time you’re stuck in traffic understand that it’s because people don’t understand game theory. A few selfish drivers try to drive slightly faster than the density of traffic allows and so everyone, including the speeders end up going much much slower.
Im too stoned for this
Can we do a part 2 to this. I love this. :D
The only thing I could think of was "Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward". It's a great game based on the prisoner's dilemma. Great video, as always!
I can only pray for no cringeworthy posts on this video.
Sadly, too late.
BUT HEY...
+Gay IT'S JUST A GAME TH-why are there game theories around my anus?
because they couldn't fit on your ear.
I like this video
Thank you
You explain things with such clarity!
3:14 °MatPat crying in the distance°
I like how they re posted yesterday's vid
Garett Mcafee I saw that too.
what vid was it
+Crazsome Lizard This one, it got taken down yesterday
Great video on explaining the basics of Game Theory! Would you ever do a part two which explained the Normal Form vs. Extensive Form, further exploration of the Nash Equilibrium, or even the math behind certain ideas like the Cobb-Douglas utility function?
Game theory was pioneered by John Von Neumann's paper in 1928 which completed by "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior" by Von Neumann (mathemarician) and Oskar Morgenstern (economist) in 1944. It mainly covered zero-sum games, expected utility (to deal with uncertainty, introduced in the second edition) and applications in politics, economics, and social behavior.
In 1950, John Nash contributed a remarkable one-page PNAS article that defined and characterized a notion of equilibrium for n-person games.
Above statements is paraphrased from Wikipedia and PNAS.
everybody seems to be correcting the video, so I will also join the chorus. FOr once that I can. The winning strategy in the prisoner's dilemma is to defect only if the game is played only once. If you play another version which is repetitive prisoner dilemma, the winning strategy end up TfT (tiit for tat) where each player starts to cooperate and then copies the behaviour of the other player in the previous round.
Tip: Don't bake with the Cookie Monster. It doesn't work out well for your profit margins.
I use a running shapley value when I play chess, each piece in part of the coalition. I just didn't know what it was called, I assign each piece a value and keep a tally of how much each piece contributes towards capturing other pieces and advancing my position. Allowing me to make sacrifices that appear to be me losing but are me just positioning my opponent a certain way.
I'm a chess player and sorry, but your statement is nonsense. Chess is a game of patterns and observation (not mathematical), the only use of the shapley value is how much are pieces/pawns truly worth in a given moment which can be compensated by the common Reinfeld values. Math and Chess don't have a relation to each other, I am a dumb-dumb in math for example but can crush in chess.
@@michaelstephenvargas8821 it's all boiled down with math for me.
@@Maelthras if chess could be boiled down to maths, then we'd have a computer (or atleast an algorithm) of beating the game. Which is impossible. Chess is outside even the field of NP problems. It's also why newer engines always become better.
What you're saying already happens. Pieces already have value (measured in how many pawns they are worth, which themselves are worth a point). But knowing this doesn't help you strategize or win because as Michael correctly points, chess is a game of positions and patterns.
@@kingbradley3402 Exactly, you assign weights to positions and strategies. As the game evolves you are always assessing your position against previous and future in an attempt to come out on top. Just so happens it feels more mathematic to me as I do so.
I instinctively recoiled seeing this in my recommendations before I realized who posted it
I have to tell you, the PD is a cooperative game. The game is variable-sum, not zero-sum; everyone benifits from cooperation.
Thank you for that kind of a inner information which also explains how the system can be settled by someone intending to set one.
I actually thought I was clicking on a matpat video haha! awesome video though hank! :D
8:47 - this video in a nutshell
But hey, that's just a theory- a game theory! OH GOD SO MUCH MATPAT.
Game theory is actually pioneered by John von Neumann in the 1940s, not John Nash in the 1950s. Nash's biggest contribution was coming up with the Nash equilibrium.
I had to make a presentation on Game Theory. Your video really helped me to understand the concepts. Thank You!
"Did you interact with anyone today?"....ahh life pre-covid.....
Hmm..Prisoner's Dilemma is basically like the part in The Dark Knight where The Joker offers the chance to people on the two ships to either bomb each other by a certain time, or they both get bombed.
Exactly
This has helped me a lot to understand the theory. Thanks!
Who
Life before Game Theory, Life after Game Theory :)
Speaking of cookies, you can solve it in this way too:
You made: 10 cookies
Your friend made: 20 cookies
10+20=30
10/30*100=33,3%
20/30*100=66,7%
Now we just need to multiply $ 40 by these percentages, and we will find the amount that each person earned.
i am also thinking the same.
I would’ve loved it if they had matpat host this episode
Like Michael Scofield from Prison Break. He uses Game Theory to earn other inmates' trust and friendship for his own benefit.
But thats just a theory. A GAME theory.
Very very good demonstration of SIMPLE Game Theory. A bit fast paced for a beginner, IMO, but straight to the point and easy to comprehend! Awesome video.
Awesome explanation using simple example and words!
0:50 :
- Like, did you interact with anyone today?
- Me: ......
- Well you can probably..
If you want to learn more about game theory and you like anime/manga I suggest checking out the manga Liar Game! It's pretty entertaining and it teaches you a lot. Plus it's complete, which is always nice.
Loved Liar Game!
Well, to be fair it doesn't teach you _a lot_ about game theory. It has its moments, but most of it doesn't actually involve game theory at all. It's nonetheless an absolutely worthwhile read.
Would recommend "Code Geass" too.
thankyou
John von Neumann pioneered game theory not John Nash, dammit!!
John Nash did make a notable contribution, but yeah, if I had to single out ONE person out as THE pioneer, I'd pic von Neumann too.
Gonna give my support for this comment. I'd put Shapely on the same level as Neumann
Definitely true. They should give credit where credit is due.
Im studying game theory now nd I got John ven on my book so aftr watching this video for a moment I thought damn I learned d wrong ans but ur comment save me:-)
For sure, came here to say this too
He is right off the bat misrepresenting Prisoner's Dilemma. He says that if both keep silent they'll get two years in prison, whereas if X confesses but Y does not, X goes free while Y gets a harder punishment. That is not the usual explanation. Usually, if both keep silent, they'll both go free, since there is no evidence against them. Whereas if X confesses but Y does not, Y is punished harshly while X gets a short time in prison, but still less than if both confess or if Y rats out X. The question in Prisoner's Dilemma is if they trust each other enough to both keep silent so they both get the best outcome.
Dummy play is the best concept here.
SciShow Life - Health - Psych
Why not all 3 and call it SciShow People?
It would help keep the videos diverse and prevent stagnation from being a (relatively) smaller field and would also keep work on the videos fresh (instead of working on videos in the same field continuously), my opinion atleast :)
But then they can't use the decision as a reward for the people contributing money
contributions are merely still opinions right? :S
Health and psych could be combined, but not life. There's a whole lot more in the subject of life than just humans.
health and psychology could be contained within life though.
MICKEY -renraw- BUT THAT'S JUST A THEORY
MFW I don't even have to keep scrolling into the comments section to know what a lot of them are.
But that's just a theory
That prisoner's dilemma sounds like a great way to get false confessions.
Kind of not actually. In this example, it is always most advantageous for the player to betray the other player. A player that selects the cooperative option is vulnerable to being taken advantage of and will serve either 2 or 10 year sentences each round whereas an uncooperative player will either serve 5 or nothing. Therefore, players are motivated to not confess, rather betray.
Not really. In practice confessions are verifiable and lead to useful intel. If not, the confessor receives no benefit. However it also leads to extralegal punishment for snitches to discourage confessors
I want to study game theory now. Thanks for the video. 😊
I think it says a lot about our society that of the many times I have heard about the prisoner's dilemma, no one has ever mentioned that not only does it convict a pair of innocent people with the 'game' mentality, if one person is guilty and the other is innocent the innocent person goes up the river for 10 years.
But hey!
Thats just a theory
A GAME theory, thanks for watching!
And now it's time for the SUPER AMAZING END CARD TOURNAMENT
well it's not "just a hypothesis"
Which means that there's probably sigma5 error so we're fine
You stole my words
help solve da fortnote mystery plez
Forgot the "As always".
Always wondered what game theory was, this vid makes me want to study it more. Very cool.
Did you ever?
This is an amazing explanation, great video!
If all the dragons in Spyro are boys who laid the eggs?
Simple and to the point! Loved it.
That was GREAT. Keep doing what you are doing! :)
"Safety First, Then Teamwork."
Also, I just lost The Game.
I thought hurricane season was over?
Eric Harshberger damn it I lost the game
I REALLY hope it's Sci show psych. I freaking love psychology (despite only studying it on the side to computer science) but it's so damn fascinating and it just clicks with me so easily
Oh My God. John Nash Was doing Game theory in his head the whole time during A Brilliant Mind when making choices about his schizophrenic hallucinations.
All i can think about is "But hey, that's just a theory. A GAME THEORY."
There are so many inaccuracies in the video that I don't know where to even begin. Firstly, game theory is about mathematically modeling strategic situations and studying mutually enforcing decisions ("equilibria"). GT is neither normative ("this is how you should behave"), nor is it predictive ("this is how people would behave in the same situation"). GT is a modeling paradigm that can potentially be used as one component of some normative or predictive theory, but it would never be able to do this by itself.
Secondly, as someone already pointed out, the definition of "Nash Equilibrium" in the video is completely and utterly wrong. But regardless, the video seems to conflate equilibrium with "the most sensible action". In fact a lot of game theory concerns about how individually "rational" decision-making can lead to insensible equilibrium outcomes. e.g. destruction of the commons (over-fishing, pollution, etc.). An equilibrium outcome can be either good or bad, so this is not what the concept is about. An equilibrium is about the stability of decisions taken by multiple agents; i.e. it is about mutually enforcing decisions.
GT is not a science, kind of like maths is not a science. However, it can be used to make predictive or normative claims, but in itself, GT like mathematics does not point its finger in either direction. It's almost better to see maths and GT as types of languages that allow you to speak about certain situations that might be extremely hard otherwise.
Thanks a lot
and you just showed you do not understand what the nash equilibrium is yourself. The "stability" you talk about is ONLY reached when no person involved in the game can benefit more than you if you choose a particular strategy, no matter what strategy they choose. So tired of the ignorance on youtube.
Tim Q - So tired of the people who believe they're exempt from stupidity.
Your last paragraph is beautiful!
Senses are kept sharp
Crash course game theory anyone?
Game theory gets annoyingly complicated pretty quickly in my experience.
please this.
Every single time I hear him say "Game Theory," I hear Matpat's voice. DAMMIT.
Awesome video, I have learnt a lot watching this one and others from this channel.
My Mantra: "Resource management is complicated."
Really wanted him to end it with "that's just a theory, a game theory!" Was somewhat disappointed....
.
I'm glad he didn't. That phrase is a bane to scientific thought. It's sick. Causes people to think theories can be "just a theory", when they are actually proven time and time again.
Lol that would be funny but it would probably tick someone off.
"that's just a hypothesis, a game hypothesis!"
Tom H I was just saying.
Loved this video. Videos like these have made me change the way i used to think about of Maths!
AND THATS A THEORY!!! A GAAAAAAAAAAME THEORY!!! thanks for watching
The lecture is just a tour on Game and a good introduction. We can dig deeper
Game theory is an entire concept I never figured.
Never talk to the cops when split up.
But hey, that's just a theory: A GAME THEORY!!!!
That One Amiibo Hoarder why
Gunnar Carey Why... WHYYYY?!?!?!?
+
literally i saw this in my subscription box and i thought i was from the game theory channel
+That One Amiibo Hoarder that's a bit harsh
It's so theoretical I feel bad for the people who's job it is to analyze THE WORLD in terms of GT. I would pull my hair out.
One of the most applicable fields that exist actually. You can literally use to to analyze everything you do, every single choice from the moment you wake to the moment you sleep to optimize your life.
Game theory is the best channel
"A BEUTIFUL MIND " played by Russell Crowe is the best movie about a mathematician..
I also like Russell Crowe's
Gladiator
If I was him I would end the video by saying "but hey, it's just a theory, a GAME theory, thanks for watching"
No guys, not MatPat.
But hey, this is only a theory. A GAME THEORY.
The conclusion was amazing.
Thank you for your great explanatory information