In a chapter of Len Fisher's, "Rock, Paper, Scissors: Game Theory in Everyday Life," on the classic decision-making game, Fisher flaunts the inherent fairness of the format. He cites three-pronged interactions in nature, including colonies of birds, and foreign policy, most notably the nuclear arms race between Europe, Russia and the US.
Fisher claims that the set-up, when ideally formatted, allows for a symbiotic balance of influence, where no one party receives more than their fair share. In fact, when the balance is tipped, all three participants lose out.
Game theorists call this sort of agreement a zero-sum game, in which, if the winner gets +1, the loser gets -1, and a draw gets 0, then the combination of all outcomes will equal zero. This contributes to the idea that this method is inherently fair.
One particular instance of interest: when an art collector decided to auction his collection, he offered it to both Sotheby's and Christie's, however he added that they needed to decide who would get to run the event. He offered that they should use R-P-S to determine the winner. The story, as reported by the New York Times may be found here.
No comments:
Post a Comment