What's to chew on? Except, maybe, that the article proves why economists have so much trouble predicting human responses. As a game TD is cute and interesting, but life is not a game.
Let me pose a question: When he laid out the dilemma, who else was wondering about the true value of the antiques? Irrational me, that would be the essential factor in my answer. The truth--an idea for which, apparently, economists and game theorists don't bother to account.
Weird. I think 100 is the rational selfish choice. The article doesn't define the difference between the one-off and iterated versions of the game, which makes a big difference. The author also doesn't reveal the strategy of the game theorist who won the real-life contest!
2 comments:
What's to chew on? Except, maybe, that the article proves why economists have so much trouble predicting human responses. As a game TD is cute and interesting, but life is not a game.
Let me pose a question: When he laid out the dilemma, who else was wondering about the true value of the antiques? Irrational me, that would be the essential factor in my answer. The truth--an idea for which, apparently, economists and game theorists don't bother to account.
Weird. I think 100 is the rational selfish choice. The article doesn't define the difference between the one-off and iterated versions of the game, which makes a big difference. The author also doesn't reveal the strategy of the game theorist who won the real-life contest!
Post a Comment