An excerpt from the book The Art Of Strategy by Aviniash K. Dixit and Barry J. Nalebluff found online at W. W. Norton & Company.
After learning about The Game Theory in module 1, I decided I wanted to dig deeper and find other pieces of writing relating to this as it was something that interested me. This chapter 'The Ten Tales of Strategy' starts by asking us to guess a number between 1 and 100 and if you answer it correctly you get £100 (not really but just pretend).
It explains that by not wanting to give you the money, they predicted a number that would be hard for you to get. With the first guess most commenly being 50 and discovering if it is too high or too low, it is most common for us to divide the interval in to two parts then pick the mid point.
'The key lesson of game theory is to put yourself in the other player’s shoes. We put ourselves in your shoes and anticipated that you would guess 50, then 25, then 37, then 42. Understanding how you would play the game allowed us to greatly decrease the chance that you would guess our number and thus reduce how much we’d have to pay out.'
They give us an example of strategics being used in the American realtiy show Survivor, the winnner being Richard Hatch.
'We weren’t surprised when the pudgy nudist Richard Hatch outwitted, outplayed, and outlasted his rivals to become the first champion of the CBS series and earn the million-dollar prize. He was gifted in his ability to act strategically without appearing to be strategic.'
The final challange of Survior consisted of 3 people and the winner would be the last one stand on a pole with their hand touching the immunity idol. They explain how the winner of the challange gets to pick their opponent and make it to the final. The winner is then decided by the other outsted contestants. Ok, so first thoughts you would assume that this would be a physical task and that the strongest physically would win...but no. Richard and Kelly where aware of Rudy's popularity throughout the competition and that if they where to face him in the final, he would definitely win. Richard had a strong alliance with Rudy and so if he won the task and didnt pick Rudy then he would lose Rudy's vote, as well as all of Rudy's friends. So...instead of winning the task, Richard wanted Kelly to win so that she would pick him and make it to the final. This is exactly what happened! Richard came down first, followed by Rudy after 4 hours which made Kelly the winner. She of course chose Richard who was the least stronger contender...the final came and Richard was crowned the champion.
'With the benefit of hindsight it may all seem easy. What makes Richard’s play so impressive is that he was able to anticipate all the different moves before they happened'
Richard outwitted his fellow contestants without them even realising it. This is an interesting example and something which I can relate to the entertainment industry. People work in certain ways to better themselves without anyone else even realising it. Have I had it done to me? Or have I actually done this myself? Strategics is something that I find very exciting...am I clever enough to figure someone else out and realise this is what they are doing? Are people willing to do this to further their careers? Will it have an overall good effect or bad? This is something I would like to explore further and I look forward to challanging my inquiry partipants with this idea.
An important point made which I believe to be very relative in this industry 'you have to take into account the objectives and strategies of the other players.' You can think in the most logical way possible and think you know the outcomes 'But if you are playing a game, then you have to consider how the other player will be acting and how those decisions will influence your strategy.' So how do we know if the other person is playing a game? Will it be through trail and error...trusting them and then not trusting them and learning from experiences? Will discovering they have a strategy change how we behave? Or are you the one with the strategy? Reading about strategy in this extract coincides with what I learnt in module 1. The 'prisoners dilemma' demonstrated to me that people sometimes have a strategy in life; make affiliations with resourceful people to gain all they can, to then defect and reap all the benefits themselves, therefore the benefit not being mutual. So for example, meeting up with a friend who you know has inside contacts with a big casting agency and pulling out any information you possibly can. Therefore receiving important information that will benefit you or even better, your friend putting in a good word for you to the right people. Once you've got everything out of this affiliation you have made, would it be right to not give back to them anything you have gained that would maybe help them out? Is playing a strategic game where you are the only winner very ethical? Could there be conesquence to your actions? These questions I hope to explore further and widen my knowledge by gauging opinions and ideas from my inquiry participants.
References
http://books.wwnorton.com/books/detail-inside.aspx?ID=8657&CTYPE=
No comments:
Post a Comment