We studied game theory in our microeconomics class today. Game theory relates to decision making in the face of uncertain action of your competitor. As part of the lesson, we were shown the following clip from a game show.
Here's the gist - there is a total payoff of around 100 grand. If both players choose the "split" option, they each walk away with 50 grand. If one chooses "split" but the other chooses "steal" then the latter walks away with all the money. If both choose "steal", neither gets anything.
Before we watched the last bit of the clip (which shows the outcome), our professor asked us what we would have done if we had been in either player's shoes. Over 70% of the class voted that they would "steal".
Here's the gist - there is a total payoff of around 100 grand. If both players choose the "split" option, they each walk away with 50 grand. If one chooses "split" but the other chooses "steal" then the latter walks away with all the money. If both choose "steal", neither gets anything.
Before we watched the last bit of the clip (which shows the outcome), our professor asked us what we would have done if we had been in either player's shoes. Over 70% of the class voted that they would "steal".
What would you have chosen?
More than the outcome of the show (which was shocking, even though game theory teaches us to expect it), I was surprised at the class votes. From what they told me, most of them chose to "steal" not out of greed, but because they mistrusted the other party.
I voted to split. Because I believe that if I ever pull a "steal" over anyone in such a situation, I will not only lose credibility, but also my own ability to trust other people. And both of those are equally and deeply important to me, in business as well as personal matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment