header beckground

игра на деньги x2

Игра на деньги x2

To dispel its influence, let us first introduce some terminology for talking about outcomes. Welfare economists typically measure social good in terms of Игра на деньги x2 efficiency. Now, the outcome (3,3) that represents mutual cooperation in our model of the PD is clearly Pareto superior to mutual defection; at (3,3) both players are better off than at (2,2).

So игра на деньги x2 is true that PDs lead to inefficient outcomes. This was true of our example in Section 2. However, inefficiency should not be associated with immorality. As we have described the situation of our prisoners they do indeed care only about their own relative prison sentences, but there is nothing essential in this.

What makes a game an instance of the PD is strictly and only its payoff structure. Thus we could have two Mother Theresa types here, both of whom care little for themselves and игра на деньги x2 only to feed starving children. But suppose the original Mother Theresa wishes to feed the children of Calcutta while Mother Juanita wishes to feed the children of Bogota.

Our saints are как заработать деньги на пк на играх a PD here, though hardly selfish or игра про шахту с выводом денег with the social good.

But all this shows is that not every possible situation is a PD; it does not show that selfishness is among the assumptions of game theory. Agents who wish to avoid inefficient outcomes are best advised игра на деньги x2 prevent certain games from arising; the defender of the possibility игра на деньги x2 Kantian rationality is really proposing that they try to dig themselves out of such games by turning themselves into different kinds of agents.

In general, then, a game is partly defined by the payoffs assigned to the players. In any application, such assignments should be based on sound empirical evidence. Our last point above opens the way to a philosophical puzzle, one of several that still preoccupy those concerned with the logical foundations of game theory.

It can be raised with respect to any number of examples, but we will borrow an elegant one from C. Consider the following game: The NE outcome here is at the single leftmost node descending from node 8.

To see this, backward induct again. At node 10, I would play L for a payoff of 3, giving II a payoff of 1. II can do better than this by playing L at node 9, giving I a payoff of 0.]



commentsCOMMENTS0 comments (view all)

add commentADD COMMENTS