Adam Smith was wrong...

[hoosd42]

Many people on here say this is a deviation from his actual theory which is true, where by people would betray each other and go for the blond. BUT when Nash's theory was tested they found that the people tended to cooperate.

[atsay714]

Hey, let's all debate about economics in the comments section on youtube.

[PeaceLovePink223]

What kind of accent does russell crow have in this movie? Is it southern??

[LogicalFlawDetector]

This is not even the Nash Equilibrium.  Ron Howard is a moron. And there are ignoramuses commenting on how great this video is.

[mseesquared2]

@LogicalFlawDetector

Seriously? This movie isn't one hundred percent accurate? Shocking. It was created for entertainment. This video is entertaining.

Besides, if you look at the situation, the problem described in the video isn't too far off from a cooperation game. Stop being so self-righteous.

[LogicalFlawDetector]

@mseesquared2

stupid fag

[sefitzge19]

The nature vs nurture idea of whether we are born with a trait or encultured to certain traits has been a long debate. There is no doubt we are all born with self-interest, as we all cry without caring who we deprive of sleep, but as we grow we loose a lot of that. In some cultures, such as our own, it is seen as a trait you should hold onto. The most ruthless and uncaring are rewarded for it, but some cultures discourage it strongl. If there wasn't a character limit, I would give you examples.

[sefitzge19]

Capitalism has problems, like the Tendency of the Profit to Fall, which is a direct problem to the laws of supply & demand. Also, Socialism and Communism are not the same thing, do not guarantee scarcity and shortages, and they have never been used in anything but title. Socialism is the idea that people have intrinsic rather than instrumental value, and is closer to a pure democracy than any capitalist idea. And communism is an idea that prices should be set to improve factory worker conditions

[waketheoblivious]

@sefitzge19

The primary difference between a free market and controlled market economy is the role of government and degree of market interferance and corruption of markets by corrupt governments. The only possible combination that theoretically produces abundance, is Capitalism and a Free Market. Every other possible combination guarantys scarcity, shortages and failure. We were all born Capitalists, proven by the fact it is our of Self interest we take our first breath.

[sefitzge19]

I was more referring to Smith's idea of the "Invisible Hand," that the best possible outcome will come if everyone is out for themselves, and his idea there is an underlying good in the intentions of the many. Which, as you may have noticed, doesn't actually happen. Again, you should check out "The Tragedy of the Commons." And Smith's idea that this happens has been generally accepted in many fields as incorrect, though I do not know much about his other ideas, which are probably very sound.

[waketheoblivious]

@sefitz Principle of Self Interest helped determine the Laws of Supply & Demand. Every choice a human makes is subject to self-interest i.e. receiving a psychological or material benefit. Even the choice to remain indifferent is a positive benefit to the person choosing to remain indifferent. Self Interest pitted against itself in a Free Market (Capitalism) generates abundance & conversely, self interest in controlled markets, (Socialism/Communism) guarantys scarcity & shortages. cont.

[waketheoblivious]

@sefitzge19

If Adam Smith had chosen to use the term "God" instead of "Invisible Hand" we would all be asking, who was Adam Smith. Invisible hand referred to the mechanism that efficiently distributed products and services.ie. we In/directly benefit our neighbor by making good choices. The first question posed in the Bible, "Lord am I my brother's keeper". God's answer was absolutely consistent in that by helping ourselves ( good choices) we in/directly benefit our brother...cont..

[waketheoblivious]

@sefitzge19

The difference between selfish and Self-Interest is immense. 'What choce can a human dccose, that is Not subect to self inerist ie. Do not receive a psychological benefit? Beyond the importance of Self Interest in Economics, it also is entirely consistent to God's answer to the first question posed the Holy Bible. Should not come as any real surprise since Self Interest/Laws of Supply and Demand are Natural Laws created by owner of the "Invisible Hand".

[centurion180ad]

Bogus, they got the implication of Doctor Adam Smith’s economic theory wrong.

….not to mention that it’s a shorty of the 5 ladies, the long thick curly hair brunette in the navy & maroon skirt that is #1 sexy!

The object here is to go along and //say// that the blonde is #1 and allow the peer pressure to leave the one that is the best mate wide open! Then play it up that you lost, when you walk away with the best lady without a struggle.

[sefitzge19]

@centurion180ad

They did not get Adam Smith's rule wrong. And Smith's theory has been proven wrong by both theories, computers, and just basic logic. If you doubt me, look up "the Tragedy of the Commons," "The Prisoners Dilemma," or "The Evolution of Cooperative behavior."

The Beautiful Mind example was just to put it into an easy to understand terms.

[centurion180ad]

@sefitzge19 Doctor Adam Smith has never been more proven correct. This set theory and/or social choice theory, has NOTHING to do with Doctor Smith's economics. The example in this video clip is bogus. In Smith's theory this video would be an example of market clearing & comparative advantage, not of each man going dog eat dog against each other or colluding with each other then betraying each other squabbling over the blonde, as a nonexample of each man's ambition serving a common good.

[iRavindu]

and selfish :P

[Mray3460]

Of course, the optimal choice is to get your friends to talk to, and thereby commit to the brunettes, agreeing to do so yourself, before going after the blond after you have no competition.

Of course, that approach assumes that you don't have to talk to your friends in the morning, and get the crap beaten out of you for backing out of the deal (And probably never get them to agree to it again).

[centurion180ad]

@Mray3460 ...but it’s a shorty of the 5 ladies, the long thick curly hair brunette in the navy & maroon skirt that is #1 sexy!

The object here is to go along and //say// that the blonde is #1 and allow the peer pressure to leave the one that is the best mate wide open!  Then play it up that you lost, when you walk away with the best lady without a struggle.

[harbingerofpeace1]

I can't help but wonder if Professor Nash actually created Governing Dynamics in this way. The implications of which would be staggering!

[starpointz]

Remember to study kids, because contrary to popular belief, math can sometimes get you laid.

[Brasco017]

this person is unique .

All americans must be proud of that professor Nash is Americans.That all economics holds in his theory.

[ShadesOfKnight]

He begins from a faulty premise... that it is ideal for all men to advance. It is actually ideal for the best man to advance. In this case, the blonde (the ideal) NEVER gets picked up... And thus, the ideal is sacrificed for stupidity.

[savingdestiny]

@ShadesOfKnight our ethical standards of today frown upon the "best man" to advance because of it's Darwinian origins. The blonde (the ideal) never gets picked up because each person understands that they want the ideal, but each person also understands that in order for humans to go above and beyond the petty and detrimental affects of greed, they must sacrifice. Sacrifice the ideal for something that can be just as good without all the glitz and glamor.

[ShadesOfKnight]

@savingdestiny Sadly, that sort of thinking is the reason we have contests where EVERYONE gets a prize... The fact of things, the real truth of the world is... there are winners and there are losers, and the only way that the SPECIES can advance is not if everyone becomes merely average... but if great things are achieved and the giants carry the rest along on their backs. Sacrifice the ideal... and you might as well kill us all.

[savingdestiny]

@ShadesOfKnight we're talking about economics. Not some 5th grade science fair where everyone gets a medal/trophy.

[ShadesOfKnight]

@savingdestiny And the difference is? Economics is basic enough to be mastered by a fifth grade education. The ideal is always to be striven for; to suggest that everyone should NOT strive for the ideal is simply insane.

[savingdestiny]

@ShadesOfKnight what is ideal though? a company that gives you a product for a cheap price, but pays it's workers minimum wage while the products themselves are of inferior quality and perhaps even harmful. OR. a company that gives you a product for a more expensive price, because it needs to pay it's employees for a better standard of living and it's products are actually of better quality and not harmful? I hope you understand what I'm getting at here.

[ShadesOfKnight]

@savingdestiny I understand what you are getting at... perhaps the blonde is a stalker-type. But now you're obfuscating the issue: it doesn't matter WHAT the ideal is... the ideal is singular (hence the blonde), and should be pursued. The athlete should pursue athletic excellence, even if it means his academic performance is not nobel-prize level. Whatever the ideal IS, it should be pursued wholeheartedly... not neglected for some mythical "greater good."

[savingdestiny]

@ShadesOfKnight now that i look over it a little more in depth, I agree the ideal should be pursued, but how can the ideal be singular? Is there really only one answer to any social, political, or economic problem?

[ShadesOfKnight]

@savingdestiny Think about what you are saying... "how can the ideal be singular?" If the ideal were not singular, it would have to be written "the ideals." Now, is anything perfect? Of course not. But for every singular problem, there is a singular solution. You are hungry, you solve it by eating... not by going for a jog around the block. Occam might have been a lazy bastard, but he was right that adding complexity to a system is to be avoided if possible.

[savingdestiny]

@ShadesOfKnight economics and hunger are at two opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of the ease in solving. There's only one way to solve ur hunger. There's more than 100 ways to solve economic greed or mismanagement. Let's try to find a better analogy than that. And Occam was right, but life is rarely so simple when humans are involved.

[ShadesOfKnight]

@savingdestiny I disagree. If you have a person who is trying (because of greed, or whatever reason) to take your property, you fight back. If you have a person who is mismanaging your company, you fire them.  It really is that simple. The idea that a simple problem requires a complex solution is part of why we are in the dire straits we are today. You cannot borrow your way to prosperity, and refusing to punish the guilty only makes it worse.

[Jipzorowns]

can anyone tell me the pianosong?

[LittleModig]

that's funny...that's how I approach issues. Counter-intuitive Approach... and most of the time I'm not understood... hahaha ohh.. well...hahaha

[TheEleventhIndian]

Can I assume that a counter-intuitive approach is the fastest method to dissect and explore operating systems? For the philosophy types, this might represent the "left side" approach (Jim Morrisson). I'm trying to formulate a hypothesis about those that seek enlightenment (God) and those who believe God directs them (Terrorists)

[JimBobJenkins]

This isn't the equilibrium to the game. The pure strategy Nash equilibrium is for one guy to go after the blonde and the rest to go after a brunette. YouTube search "game theory 101" and I will explain why.

[anish1304]

Great theory on the how to get laid.

[hiandic]

Nobody likes to be a second choice. I love this scene.

[ShadesOfKnight]

@hiandic Nobody likes to be a second choice, but reality is... most of us are.

[jfuya2000]

Men could get so much pussy if they were as smart as John Nash.

[sierrasig]

simply brilliant... this makes me smile every time I see it. Sadly, it also makes me wonder what the blonde's name and number might be.

[atavikusplus]

In a simple way, what Nash discovers here is that INDIVIDUALISM is wrong, it means everyone for themselves go and reach a common goal, that my friends is the perfect formula for a massive failure! instead what his theory proposed is to work as a team for a common goal, for example if you have a baseball "team" and everyone of the player wants to play all the bases and all positions, you'll get a mayor mess perhaps a failure, wolfs, lions, monkeys don't hunt by themselves, I hope u all get it!

[MarkEDenman]

@atavikusplus

people get it.... the problem is, in reality someone always goes for the blond, everyone agrees to not, but then someone does. A system that relies on everyone being nice, and working for "the greater good" is no system at all. you can't even get people to use turn signals for the greater good.

[atavikusplus]

@MarkEDenman I totally agree w/ you, for those that do it, then they will fail, until they realize the truth of becoming a team to conquer a common goal, again look for simple examples in nature, also look for the real meaning of the word "System" and you will begin implementing the word "Synergy" instead, I ad the same concern when I begin studying ways on how to develop investing forms where everybody benefit from w/out breaking anybody's financially, I'm finally there brother!

[MuffBandit69]

@MarkEDenman

the Nash Equilibrium does not want everyone to operate for the greater good, in fact, it was designed off of human beings tendency to be selfish and doing what is best for them. If one does act for the greater good, that will be reflected in their payoffs to the 'game' of getting the blond girl. Also note that this theory is based off of a competitive system. From my last recollection there exists no competitive turn-signaling.

Don't try to understand Game Theory from a movie.

[MarkEDenman]

@MuffBandit69

... maybe read the posts over agian and respond to the concepts within.

"understand game theory from a movie" ... what?

"competiative turn-signaling" ... hu? i mean i do have the term "turn signal" in my post but..... again.. what?

I have said nothing about "the Nash Equilibrium" I refer only to this scene in this movie. However you are a gent and a scholar for knowing such concepts as "the Nash Equilibrium" perhaps tht is what we were going for?

[MuffBandit69]

@MarkEDenman

Excuse me. Let me rephrase. You are wrong. The Nash Equilibrium is not about the greater good. Don't, like a million other people, assume that this is what the Nash Equilibrium is because you've seen the movie. People do not use their turn signals because most of the time, when there isn't a car immediately to your left or right, there exists no reward for using your turn signal, thus your point on that is also moot. But, again, you're wrong. This is not about the greater good.

[XTimes3GreaterThanU]

Unfortunately, Nash's actual theory doesn't propose how to all prosper. The in most applied Nash Equilibria both players with dominate strategies will choose the utility-maximizing choice for themselves, not that of the group, and have no will to delineate from their choice. The scenario in the movie is not a NE if played once, as each player still has the choice to go for the blond after agreement to go for her friends.

[screamsinfamous]

piano song?

[aizik2005]

can anyone write down the combination that he spoke out?

[Yostiemonster]

the problem with pure capitalistm is that too much energy is spent trying to tear down your rivals

[khmauri]

The best escene

[philsense]

He wrote a theory on how to get laid? Give this guy the Medal of Honor or something.

[SuperArchitect101]

@philsense he got a Nobel

[Andersson203]

@philsense

He did win the nobel prize, you know ;)

[moonjumpr]

Who said math won't get you laid? ; ) My favorite of the more lighthearted scenes... Directed by Richie Cunningham. : ) (Best Pic & Best Director Oscars for 2001.)

[Doc418]

I thought the Nash equilibrium was part of his idea behind the fuck your buddy game, which doesn't take the group into account at all.

[FM897]

Brilliant

[N6MAA120355]

So here is the problem in a nutshell. The thinking inside Goldman Sachs is focused on Adam Smith (every man for himself) when, in reality, their heads should be at least 150 years further ahead. They should be thinking about the best result for both themselves and their clients. You can through in "and the nation" as well. Betting against the very investments you are selling your clients is Adam Smith, not John Nash.

[greenclaw68]

blonde (@ the end): errr wtf?

[gsinctbone]

this part is so intriguing

[elevatorgrl]

this is my favorite scene in the entire movie! any way i could get this clip from you perchance?

[BeondaPale]

I LOVE that scene