 Last 7 days

www.nature.com www.nature.com

Yang, G., CsikászNagy, A., Waites, W., Xiao, G., & Cavaliere, M. (2020). Information Cascades and the Collapse of Cooperation. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 8004. https://doi.org/10.1038/s4159802064800z

 May 2020

www.digitaldemocracy.org www.digitaldemocracy.org

From a game theoretic standpoint, we’ve already lost. Too many of our civil society adversaries have too much of our data, and we have so little of theirs.


en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Tags
Annotators
URL


ltcwrk.com ltcwrk.com

In evolutionary terms, certainly, because the individuals that show these traits have a higher chance of survival in the long term.
Not surprisingly, nature is a great teacher. Not until the 1950s and Johnny von Neumann did game theory get developed, but it was found that tit for tat with forgiveness is the optimal model. In other words, altruism or as Henry Ford called it, enlightened selfinterest (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Game_theory)

 Apr 2020

psyarxiv.com psyarxiv.com

Gelfand, M., Jackson, J. C., Pan, X., Nau, D., Dagher, M. M., & Chiu, C. (2020, April 1). Cultural and Institutional Factors Predicting the Infection Rate and Mortality Likelihood of the COVID19 Pandemic. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/m7f8a

 Jan 2020

www.coreecon.org www.coreecon.org

game theory
Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interaction among rational decisionmakers.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed zerosum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of the other participants. Today, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations, and is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, and computers.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory


www.biorxiv.org www.biorxiv.org

Interactions between Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) and human (players) are often included in the Mtb’s strategies to invade host responses, to replicate and persist within the host,
Does the M.Tb have knowledge of the host responses or is it merely adapting bet hedging strategies (a mix of multiple strategies across population) and whatever survived is what we see.
This will have major implications in treating the problem in a game theoretic fashion


academic.oup.com academic.oup.com

Losing face
Open research working paper version: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/427678/1/LosingFace_workingversion_nomarpar.pdf

 Dec 2019

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Nash proved that if we allow mixed strategies, then every game with a finite number of players in which each player can choose from finitely many pure strategies has at least one Nash equilibrium.
It always has at least one Nash equilibrium (but it may only be a NE in mixed strategies).
Tags
Annotators
URL

 Nov 2019

www.pnas.org www.pnas.org

we define the physiological and environmental parameters that mediate the transition from cooperation to competition

 Aug 2018

link.springer.com link.springer.com

Yet, strategic games look for equilibrium in the formation and dissolution of ties in the context of the game theory advanced first by (Von Neumann et al. 2007), and later by (Nash 1950).

 Dec 2016

www.edge.org www.edge.org

If you make it so that future consequences exist in any of these various ways, it makes people more inclined to cooperate.

 May 2016

consilience.com consilience.com

unfamiliar game
annotation text

 Oct 2015

courses.edx.org courses.edx.org

In my research, we filmed an interaction between a couple and had each partner turn a rating dial as they watched their tape afterward. On this graph (at left), you can see how one couple rated their interaction. The blue dots represent the wife’s ratings over 15 minutes of conversation; the red dots represent the husband’s ratings. When you add them together, these ratings are a constant, which means that in this interaction, her gain is his loss and his gain is her loss. This is what’s called in game theory a “zerosum game.” You’ve probably all heard of the concept. It’s the idea that in an interaction, there’s a winner and a loser. And by looking at ratings like this, I came to define a “betrayal metric”: It’s the extent to which an interaction is a zerosum game, where your partner’s gain is your loss. On the other hand, by trust we really mean, mathematically, that our partner’s behavior is acting to increase our rating dial. Even though we’re disagreeing, my wife is thinking about my welfare, my best interests. When we scientifically tested these socalled trust and betrayal metrics, we found that a high trust metric is correlated with very positive outcomes, such as greater stability in the relationship. In a 20year longitudinal study of couples in the San Francisco Bay Area that I recently completed with UC Berkeley psychologist Bob Levenson, we found that about 11 percent of couples had a zerosum game pattern, like in that graph. Every six years, we would recontact all of the couples in the study, and they would come back to Bob’s lab at Berkeley. Yet we noticed that many of the zerosum couples weren’t coming back. I thought maybe they dropped out because they found the whole thing so unpleasant. Well, it turns out that they didn’t drop out. They died.

Interestingly, the investors’ expectations about the backtransfer from the trustee did not differ between the oxytocin and placebo recipients. Oxytocin increased the participants’ willingness to trust others, but it did not make them more optimistic about another person’s trustworthiness.
The Trust Game; however, there was no difference in groups when the trustee was a computer, showing oxytocin affects social connections but not riskbehavior itself.

Conventional economic theory maintains that people will always behave in a purely selfinterested manner. According to this worldview, it makes no sense to trust, whether in a trust game or in real life, as any trust will be exploited. The trustee will always keep her entire windfall for herself, so the investor would be better off not transferring any money in the first place. And yet when researchers like Joyce Berg and others have had people play the trust game with real monetary stakes, they have repeatedly found that the average investor will transfer half of her initial endowment and receive similar amounts in return. Through the trust game, researchers have also discovered a number of factors that seem to drive levels of trust. Familiarity breeds trust—players tend to trust each other more with each new game. So does introducing punishments for untrustworthy behavior, or even just reminding players of their obligations to each other.

 Sep 2015

courses.edx.org courses.edx.org

In a first analysis, data showed that people who took less than 10 seconds to decide how much to give gave approximately 15 percent more to the common pool than people who took longer than 10 seconds.
Public Goods Game
