Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
** The movie doesn't explain that second part but it doesn't contradict it either. In fact in the movie we are not informed of the official Nash Equilibrium, only the EurekaMoment (with diagram) when discussing the "blonde with her friends" dilemma. It is just implied that the theory he presents is directly connected to the bar scene revelation, which it is.
to:
** The movie doesn't explain that second part but it doesn't contradict it either. In fact in the movie we are not informed of the official Nash Equilibrium, only the EurekaMoment (with diagram) when discussing the "blonde with her friends" dilemma. It is just implied that the theory he presents is directly connected to the bar scene revelation, which it is.is.
** Here's how the actual Nash equilibrium analysis works, if anyone is interested. If a person's (doesn't matter who) friends go for the blonde, if he does as well he gets rejected. If he goes for a darker haired person, he gets someone for the night. If a persopn's friends go for a dark haired person and he goes for the blonde, he gets the blonde for the night, if he goes for a friend, he gets a dark haired person for the night. Mixed friends going for blonde or someone else works out the same as if everyone goes blonde. This means to best decision in the first case is to go for a dark haired friend, but in the second case to go for the blonde. Since the decision with the best payoff is different in each situation, there is no Nash equilibrium. (Unless some mixed choice and exact measures of payoff is thrown in, but that's a bit much exact numbers for this situation). His friends actually get this without formally thinking it out, the "if you're just trying to get the blonde for yourself" comment is the second situation in action.
** Here's how the actual Nash equilibrium analysis works, if anyone is interested. If a person's (doesn't matter who) friends go for the blonde, if he does as well he gets rejected. If he goes for a darker haired person, he gets someone for the night. If a persopn's friends go for a dark haired person and he goes for the blonde, he gets the blonde for the night, if he goes for a friend, he gets a dark haired person for the night. Mixed friends going for blonde or someone else works out the same as if everyone goes blonde. This means to best decision in the first case is to go for a dark haired friend, but in the second case to go for the blonde. Since the decision with the best payoff is different in each situation, there is no Nash equilibrium. (Unless some mixed choice and exact measures of payoff is thrown in, but that's a bit much exact numbers for this situation). His friends actually get this without formally thinking it out, the "if you're just trying to get the blonde for yourself" comment is the second situation in action.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** It's not quite a PrisonersDilemma. In the PrisonersDilemma, the globally best solution is for everybody to cooperate but each individual will do better defecting than cooperating no matter what the other player chooses. In the movie's scenario, defecting is only better if everybody else cooperates. If at least one other player defects, you will do worse by defecting rather than cooperating. This situation is more like the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonia_dilemma platonia dilemma]], though the "consolation prize" for cooperating is a slight twist.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
** OP: Ah, OK, so the movie's example is actually Prisoner's Dilemma?
to:
** OP: Ah, OK, so the movie's example is actually Prisoner's Dilemma?PrisonersDilemma?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
** The movie doesn't explain that second part but it doesn't contradict it either. In fact in the movie we are not informed of the official Nash Equilibrium, only the EurekaMoment (with diagram) when discussing the "blonde with her friends" dilemma. It is just implied that the theory he presents is directly connected to the bar scene revelation.
to:
** The movie doesn't explain that second part but it doesn't contradict it either. In fact in the movie we are not informed of the official Nash Equilibrium, only the EurekaMoment (with diagram) when discussing the "blonde with her friends" dilemma. It is just implied that the theory he presents is directly connected to the bar scene revelation.revelation, which it is.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
** OP: Ah, OK, so the movie's example is actually Prisoner's Dilemma?
to:
** OP: Ah, OK, so the movie's example is actually Prisoner's Dilemma?Dilemma?
** The movie doesn't explain that second part but it doesn't contradict it either. In fact in the movie we are not informed of the official Nash Equilibrium, only the EurekaMoment (with diagram) when discussing the "blonde with her friends" dilemma. It is just implied that the theory he presents is directly connected to the bar scene revelation.
** The movie doesn't explain that second part but it doesn't contradict it either. In fact in the movie we are not informed of the official Nash Equilibrium, only the EurekaMoment (with diagram) when discussing the "blonde with her friends" dilemma. It is just implied that the theory he presents is directly connected to the bar scene revelation.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
** Ah, OK, so the movie's example is actually Prisoner's Dilemma?
to:
** OP: Ah, OK, so the movie's example is actually Prisoner's Dilemma?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
** Yes, but only if all the guys really take one of the blonde woman's friends. Afterwards, it is somehow stable. But, if the guys plan beforehand to only talk to the blonde's friends, each one of them would gain by not sticking to that plan. No equilibrium in the terms of game theory then, and not the famous Nash equilibrium.
to:
** Yes, but only if all the guys really take one of the blonde woman's friends. Afterwards, it is somehow stable. But, if the guys plan beforehand to only talk to the blonde's friends, each one of them would gain by not sticking to that plan. No equilibrium in the terms of game theory then, and not the famous Nash equilibrium.equilibrium.
** Ah, OK, so the movie's example is actually Prisoner's Dilemma?
** Ah, OK, so the movie's example is actually Prisoner's Dilemma?
