Nash equilibria: Nash's solution of the Prisoners Dilemma

[sylwyu1]

please, higher volume, for god's sake...

[Zee96969696]

equilibrium shmiquilibrium, this game doesnt look very fun to play

[Doomload]

"Nash Equibria"

[Feroxing12]

economics 101 and very poorly explained

[zeriice9900]

this is for the nerds

[Emil652]

@zeriice9900 not really for nerds but for people who actually want to learn something. this is more logical, i think nerds are just based on books and don't know any logic, thats just how i see it.

[dardanoilir]

I wish I would just now what is useful about

[firemanhalo]

Respond to this video... economic models like such are used as an aid decision making; this is important because there exist a relationship to rationality and decision making.....economist are constantly trying to figure out what should be done, they often turn to calculus and statistics to formulate such conclusions. what I'm trying to say is this; these ideas are useful, for those who understand them

[morefree1200]

nice explane

[Meddd123]

many thanks

[johnnymasters]

this professor is wrong. the nash equilibrium would be the 2,2, not the 1,1 prisoner's block.

[ToreRex]

@johnnymasters

Lets check the Best Responses!

BR1(q) = F

BR1(f) = F

BR2(Q) = f

BR2 (F)= f

This makes the 1,1 the only NE cos 2,2 is never a Best Response... :)



[zeriice9900]

@ToreRex  Im tired

[Stallkyr]

@johnnymasters Actually, he's right in that the Nash equilibrium is for both to fink, but the numbers are wrong. The "better" choice in this SHOULD be for both to stay quiet. the prisoner's dilemma states that if they both stay quiet, they both get lighter sentences than if they both fink. So, he should have the fink/fink at 2/2, while the quiet/quiet should be at 1/1. The paradox is that both do better by staying quiet but they can't trust each other, so they both fink.

[simonarcher200002]

@johnnymasters 2,2 is the socially desirable outcome not the NE. NE is the mutual best-response and 2,2 does not meet this criterion.

[Virus14092]

@elektra1984 People discussed this theory over 50 years and they are still interested , you got bored from watching 6 mins or less of it, that really tells much about you !!

[elektra1984]

fucking boring nerd shit

[UndeadTheta]

@elektra1984 why the fuck did you watch it then?

[phcf]

Great Video!!!

I had many problems to understand nash equilibria and now this video cleared my mind a bit!

Thanks!!!

[manderz199113]

THANK YOU SOOO MUCH!!! defs helps me for my poli sci midterm tomorrow thanks for posting this :)

[westaux999]

thanks for your video.

[honger204]

speak louder please!!

[Albimar17]

LOL. Is 'equibria' some shortcut derived from the word 'equilibria' that nobody seems to have known about? :D

OK, more to the point: first off, in prisoner's dilemma the 'payoffs' are intended to be years spent in prison (so sth negative and not positive as is usu. the case). Then each player will intend to minimise their own payoff. Your reasoning, however, is rather confusing.

But even using your terminology, yes, (f,f) is the best strategy for both players, and is the only NE in the game.

[Albimar17]

Even though we may notice that (q,q) would lead to higher payoffs than (f,f) (or less yrs spent in prison). That means that, unfortunately, this game won't lead to the most desired (q,q) outcome.

Also, you've only explained a case when a game is only played once which is seldom a case in reality. It would be nice to introduce the same finite game played >1, or even the same game played infinitely many times.

Good luck!

[EGarrett01]

I never liked using the graph when first explaining the idea.

A Nash Equilibrium is a point in a competition where no one can change what they're doing without making it worse for themselves, but the end result of what everyone is doing is bad or not optimal.

Examples: No country can destroy their nukes without losing power, but all countries having nukes means the world is constantly on the verge of being destroyed.

[gusselinius]

I love how he spells it wrong while talkin in the beginning :D

[bigtimeglupek]

well

simple concept, though you made it not so simple any longer

thank you, but NO ..thank you.

I suggest you spend time thinking of your teaching style.

sorry, though you need to know that.

best of luck to ya

r.

[wlcsp]

you don't know how to teach

[gilbert4321]

how does criticizing someone help them become a better teacher... You could of recommended on ways he could improve on what hes doing wrong.

[GavinPalmer1984]

Q/Q is the best choice. This is cooperation and selflessness.

[ienjoyapples]

f/f is the best, he just explained the reasoning very poorly.

[GavinPalmer1984]

Both Bob and Alice have to give up the possible 3, realizing that they will both benefit so long as they cooperate.

If either goes against their word/honor, then F is the better choice for the individual and the honorable person who chooses Q will have 0.

Then you simply punish the person who chooses F because they are selfish. This is a proof illustrating the superior logic behind socialism.

The square shows why competition is not better than cooperation.  Q is the most logical choice.

[NoSpawn]

I think it's equilibrium singular and equilibria plural

[agipony]

Correct.

And it's certainly not "Equibria" as on the whiteboard.

[GodG4m3r]

1stplacedirector is right. The 3rd option is to hope that your fellow convict knows this theory, or use your one phone call XD

[wreckedlemon]

As a thought experiment this is all well and good. The problem comes when you apply this to human beings as the Rand corporation did back in the 50's. This experiment run with humans has the reverse effect. i.e. they chose to cooperate (1stplacedirector is actually on the money). This shows an innate problem in applying game theory to economics, and social engineering. Human Altruism gets in the way. Let's not forget that Nash was a paranoid schizophrenic. It's a nice idea though.

[1stPlaceDirector]

I understand that both people will chose 1, because they can't be certain what the other person will choose, but if both people chose 2, they the end result will be better for the both of them. So if they have a bit of faith (or trust) in the other person, they will both end up with 2 which leaves them better off. So basically, they have more of an incentive to trust each other so that they both end up better off with a 2 rather than a 1.

[neveSykcuL]

thats the thing, even if you are 100% sure that the other guy will keep quiet then you should fink because it will get you off the hook.

[djprodikis]

really cool !!

[t2enterprise]

Just wanted to say thanks. This really helped for my assignment

[bobcaygeonfrench]

That's a pile of assumptions.

[Survivalist2theEnd]

Imagine Bush trying to learn this BWUHAHAHAHAHA

[bobcaygeonfrench]

To imagine you try is much more comical.

[Survivalist2theEnd]

ohhhh..do I detect an honest to goodness Bush supporter? I bet your gonna send your kids off to Iraq to fight for freedom too. LMAO What an IDIOT!!

[casablancaaccent]

suck my dick shithead.

[Survivalist2theEnd]

Is that what Rush Limbaugh said to Sean Hannity during the gay orgy at Bohemian Grove?

BWUHAHAHAHAHAHA

[jon3m2007]

ROFL!! Mh thats a good one! Erm did he manage it?

[pokettosnorlax]

omg six minutes, talk quicker

[ronvicc]

my man, dats coz we already known it

if its b/t u n me, just as quik as 2 words: "you know..." n dats it.

so......we know wat i mean right?

[ronvicc]

my man, dats coz we already known it

if its b/t u n me, just as quik as 2 words: "you know..." n dats it.

so......we know wat i mean right?

[federasy]

Thank you! You really healped me understand! So that is why John Nash got the nobel prize?

[AdamTheEskimo]

he spelt it wrong on the board lol

[OceanderTethyseus]

@AdamTheEskimo

equilibria is the plural of equilibrium

[Theobrothers]

@AdamTheEskimo

Naw, I'm pretty sure that's how you spell Bob.

[bigfeet97887736]

He missed the 2,2 equilib. In a game with totally rational players (or just players who have a good understanding of their situation, the other player, and what they stand to gain), the most rational choice would be the 2,2 box. The key is having strong trust in the other player.

Of course there is another solution: legislation/regulation.

[Pranikki1]

I would love it if you did more videos on other game theories too.

[thecoolestjay]

zzzzzzzzzz

[DeUltiemeLosers]

Though I'm only in high school at the moment (will probably be getting my A-level in a few weeks), I must say, this is a very lucid example. There's only one thing, namely that there's no such things as 'a' Nash Equilibria, because equilibria is plural in Latin. But I'd best stop whining about details now.

;)

[mopac91]

likewise, "getting my A-level in a few weeks" doest make sense. Smart ass..

[Otaku073]

when are the next 4(?) coming out?

[brocool]

great explanation, thanks!

[ricksterMAR555]

thanks. i think you just help me understand this for a test i gotta take tomorrow =). much appreciated