There are two versions of this process. One version involves only eliminating strictly dominated strategies. If, after completing this process, there is only one strategy for each player remaining, that strategy set is the unique Nash equilibrium.
Another version involves eliminating both strictly and weakly dominated strategies. If, at the end of the process, there is a single strategy for each player, this strategy set is also a Nash equilibrium. However, unlike the first process, elimination of weakly dominated strategies may eliminate some Nash equilibria. As a result, the Nash equilibrium found by eliminating weakly dominated strategies may not be the only Nash equilibrium. In some games, if we remove weakly dominated strategies in a different order, we may end up with a different Nash equilibrium.
Psychology Wiki Explore. Animal defensive behavior Kinesis Animal escape behavior Cooperative breeding Sexual cannibalism Cannibalism zoology Animal aggressive behavior.
Recent Blogs Community portal forum. Explore Wikis Community Central. Register Don't have an account? Dominance game theory. Side note: this is the same thing for the brain. Furthermore, the irrationality itself of some of the market participants may be needed to make a market efficient. In the early days of the Catholic church, a group of begging monks who depended solely on the population to survive, were banned from the church until they disappeared completely.
You hired your pilot as a contractor. You know you will go bust. Your company is over. Furthermore, the longer someone stays an employee, the more they are emotionally invested, the more they will be diligent.
The thing about employees is that they lower your tail risk because you own them. They also think you lower theirs…but do you? In the past, company men would often do their entire careers in the same company. In the s, as Silicon Valley was rising, many companies started laying off their people who could not find work anywhere else. The company men are now gone. People are no longer owned by companies, but by something worse: the idea they need to be employable.
An employee is someone you will never find in history books because they are designed to never leave their mark on any events. A free market is a place where forces determine specialization and information travels via price points. Understand: people fight to get the best, which automatically creates velocity people buying and selling in the market.
But within a company, these forces are lifted because they cost more to run than what they bring. Understand: employees have no incentives to work since they get paid anyway. Reminder: contractors have SIG doing good work as it influences their salary, but they can leave at any time if they find better opportunities.
The best slaves are the ones you overpay, and they know it, and they are terrified of losing their salaries as a result. This is why companies pay expats lots of money.
In the tale of the dog and the wolf, the dog brags about his house and unlimited food. The wolf is about to join him, until he notices the dog collar and asks what it is. Those are the traders and salespeople within companies, that would cause a higher loss to the company than they would suffer from themselves if they were to leave. Consider the difference between a Western head of state who has to give feedback to the press, political parties, and likely, other nations VS…Vladimir Putin.
People whose survival depends on qualitative job assessments by someone of higher rank in an organization cannot be trusted for critical decisions.
The employee has no interests in the company, but has interests in keeping his job, and will make decisions in this direction. The idea is that while we know when some courses of action are absurd, it is often easier to continue on this path than to stop. In the latter, the people in charge did not want to take the risks to go to the source of terrorism Saudi Arabia and potentially miss on oil. Same thing happened in with the banks, when no one went to prison, and when almost all of them were in fact, saved.
Imagine you work for a company and discover the company poisons thousands of people each year that die as a result. If you blow the whistle, you may have to wait a long time before being believed, and your friends and family will suffer , and you will lose your job forever. People with that volume of exposure families, mortgages are much easier to control, which is why corporations prefer people with families. Intellectual and ethical freedom requires the absence of the skin of others in your game, which is why real free people are rare.
Most of the time, when you make powerful enemies that cannot pressure you because you are independent, they will pressure your closed-ones. The problem of suicide bombers is that they have no exposure, since the end of their means is their own. In the case of Hammurabi, if a house collapsed and killed the firstborn of the owner, the firstborn of the architect would be put to death too. In any way, this principle can be used in the case of terrorists. What has been happening in the world since the vote against the establishment is a rebellion against people who have no exposure and yet, pretend to tell us:.
The first one is inequality between stars, singers, entrepreneurs, artists, and the common people. People become fans of them, usually. The second is inequality people hate because the subject appears to be someone just like them, except that he has been playing the system, and getting himself into rent-seeking, acquiring privileges that are not warranted.
Put plainly, people hate the people that make a lot of money…on a salary when you think about it, this is an oxymoron. This is why they have respect for entrepreneurs, and look at them as role models.
Entrepreneurs have SIG. The exact opposite is absorption, which happens when a particle that moves hits an obstacle, and gets absorbed or gets stuck to it. Pikettism and the Revolt of the Mandarin Class. According to him, inequality rises as capital tends to command too much return in relation to labor. Furthermore, Piketty makes conclusions out of static measures of inequality, not dynamic. Inequality happens when the rich have a disproportionate role in society.
And that works best in the US. They get paid by the states, and the more wealth control they push to instigate, the more secure they become — since it locks them up in the social ladder. Piketty is part of the people that engage with the oppressed while consolidating their privileges.
These people tend to view themselves from a hierarchical perspective — and assume others do it too. Fragility is defined as sensitivity to disorder. Fragile things want a quiet and regular life.
As soon as disorder spreads, they break. That which is fragile has an asymmetric response to volatility and other stressors, that is, will experience more harm than benefit from it. Lindy answers a very important question: in the long term, who will survive? Who will guard the guard, and judge the judge?
These cannot be subject to the Lindy effect, since that which is lindy is what ages in reverse: life expectancy increases with time. Time and survival are the ultimate judges of the validity and quality of an idea.
You want a book review in years which will mean someone will still be reading your book, which means it must be good. As a result, the idea that your work is best when positively assessed by your peers is wrong.
Readers judge a book, not authors. Peer assessment taken to the extreme leads to the bureaucratization of the activity, where university administrators are the ones calling the shots on academic knowledge. The less convincing statements are those where one stands to enhance oneself virtue signaling. Karl Popper sees science not as something that holds true, but as something that has not yet been proven false.
The longer an idea has been around without being falsified, the longer its future life expectancy, according to Lindy. For things to survive, they need to be solid against risk. If an idea has skin in the game, it is not in truth, but in harm. Answer: the butcher, because his lack of being perceived as a surgeon means he had to go over much bigger obstacles than the first one to succeed and as a result, is probably much better too.
The problem today with science is that someone that looks like a scientist is more likely to be taken as, than an actual scientist. Academics get their stature out of the role they play, not out of the things they do — they have no SIG. Often, because they have no incentives to find easy solutions since they get paid to find difficult ones.
This is why the tech people saw a great opportunity to solve hunger by creating new types of rice, since they could easily get rich from it. Once someone starts to judge something based on metrics instead of real-life results, it becomes distorted. When people get rich, they lose their skin in the game and substitute their preferences for the preferences of people that want to sell them something. As a result, they become miserable.
If rich or intelligent, you need to hide your IQ or net worth. They understood it was much better to control alive people than to kill them. We say that strategy W is dominated by V or, more simply, that strategy W is dominated. Note that when a player has a dominant strategy, all of that player's other strategies must be dominated by that dominant strategy. However, a player can have a dominated strategy without having a dominant strategy like Player 2 in the example above.
To understand this dictinction, consider the following mathematical facts. If we can say that a player's strategy earns at least as much as weakly more, i. For all of the confusion that the distinction between weakly and strictly causes, the distinction matters only in very specific cases.
In the same way, the only time that there is a distinction between a strategy being weakly or strictly dominant or weakly or strictly dominated is when there's a tie for best response.
Summary and Caveats A strategy is dominant if it always earns more than every other strategy for that player no matter what others do. A strategy is dominated if it always earns less than some other stratgey for that player no matter what others do. The two statements above and how to verify them are the keys to understanding dominant and dominated strategies. Then, the issue of weak or strong just comes down to a small semantic issue of how we define "more" and "less. A few caveats: The definition for weakly dominant or dominated is just slightly bit more annoying than presented above.
Technically, for a strategy to weakly dominate another, it can't earn the same as the other strategy in every case the two strategies can't be equivalent. There has to exist at least some instance in which it earns strictly more.
0コメント