I’m kinda frustrated. Living in Europe in a country where you are more or less protected against layouts, were unions are allowed to exist. Jet it is so difficult to get the people to get their head out of their butts to do some solidarity or even improve their own conditions.
Companies doesn’t respect some basic laws and rights, people has been angry for 15 years and always complaining.
Despite of that, when asking people to organize, join an union or do even at least a day of strike, people start saying that it is not worth it, that it is not important. The most they accept doing is stop to work a couple of hours to complain at the gate like a kids rant.
I know for sure that workers have power. The company makes more money per worker and day that double de amount they pay us, so stopping working would hurt them more than us. Why do people lacks so much class conciseness? It is even more hurting for people working at a desk with a suit and doing economics, it’s like they think of themselves as if they were some kind of privileged when are just workers. Why do people chicken out so much when going on strike?
The problem with game theory is that it assumes everyone involved is perfectly rational.
On the contrary, game theory doesn’t assume rationality or irrationality whatsoever. Game theory looks at all possible outcomes and investigates different strategies that lead to those outcomes.
Rational strategies can lead to defection in games like the non-iterated prisoner’s dilemma, and this is a Nash equilibrium. However, the infinite iterated prisoner’s dilemma allows cooperation to emerge even with rational strategies.
The superrational strategy leads to cooperation even in a one-shot gang of prisoner’s dilemma
What? Players acting rationally is one of the core assumptions of game theory. Sure there are some models that attempt to account for irrationality, but the conclusions are obviously much less definitive.
It can’t really be any other way, perfectly rational actors are predictable in a mathematical way. Irrational actors are irrational in many different ways. One irrational actor might betray a fellow prisoner purely out of spite, another might refuse to speak purely out of a sense of loyalty. Another might make a decision compulsively without any strategy at all.
Irrational players cannot be analyzed mathematically. You cannot find a dominant strategy playing against irrational players, at least not a non-trivial one. Sure you can try to analyze them, but then you’ve left math behind and have wandered into psychology or sociology.
You clearly have not studied game theory, as you are talking out of your ass. Go pick up a textbook and learn something.
Sure, I can only go off what I’ve read. Would you like to recommend a textbook which goes into making predictions when playing a game with irrational players?
Any mathematical textbook will do it. Try Springer.
It’s quite simple really. Games in game theory are represented with a payoff matrix which shows the utility for each player. Pure strategies are defined as rows or columns in the payoff matrix. The math of game theory doesn’t care about why a player chooses a particular strategy, only its payoff.
I would define a purely rational player at minimum as one chooses a dominant strategy, when one is available. You’re free to expand that to mixed strategies and games where (strong or weakly) dominant strategies do not exist. Irrational players would be anyone who is otherwise not a rational player.
This isn’t very interesting in basic game theory. It becomes a lot more relevant in cooperative game theory, which can have more than 2 players and players forming coalitions.