I would like for you to read this article from The Atlantic magazine. I will warn you now, the article is lengthy, but given the topic I don't think that you will find it boring. I would like for you to consider the college admissions process as an example of game theory, and to answer the questions below:
- What is the history of early decision?
- Analyze this quote from the article using game theory: "No one wants to be the first one to take the step, so everyone needs to step back together." What is the speaker referencing, and how does game theory apply to the quote?
- Using what we have learned about game theory, suggest why the author's proposal would not work?
- How do you feel about the early decision process? After all, you are all wrestling with this issues now.
The first post will be due on November 5th at midnight. The second post will be due on November 13th at midnight.
Addendum: Now that you have examined the game theory behind college, let us assume for the moment that college is not in your future: instead, a life of crime awaits you! Let's examine the game theory behind a REAL prisoner's dilemma.
Here is the opening scene from The Dark Knight. I would like for you to watch the clip and answer the questions.
Addendum: Now that you have examined the game theory behind college, let us assume for the moment that college is not in your future: instead, a life of crime awaits you! Let's examine the game theory behind a REAL prisoner's dilemma.
Here is the opening scene from The Dark Knight. I would like for you to watch the clip and answer the questions.
- How is this scenario an example of game theory?
- Listen to the conversation in the car at the beginning. What does the driver suggest about The Joker?
- What was the strategy for each of the robbers?
- How might their strategy change if they were a true criminal gang that would work together in the future?
- What SHOULD each of the robbers have done?
This blog post will be due November 13th at midnight.
43 comments:
Early decision was made for the convenience and reputation of colleges. If colleges had students that promised to go to their school if accepted, they would not have to send so many acceptance letters, decreasing the acceptance rate. Also, it increases the chance of admitting higher qualified students. This raises the school’s average GPA and SAT/ACT scores for admission. Thus, specific colleges get a higher ranking. Colleges care how they look statistically.
The speaker is referencing when two businesses benefit equally from doing the same thing. For instance, two colleges benefit from having early decision and not having early decision alike. So, both colleges have to agree on having or not having the option. If only one college gives up the early option, the college who still has it benefits. If both do, their gain (statistics) stays the same.
The author’s proposal was to have ten of the most selective universities in America rid of all early and special admission programs for five years. Colleges who admit students early believe that this profit benefits them. They are not willing to give it up. They would only keep their statistics high if all ten (ideally for the experiment) drop early options. Yet, if only some of the selective universities drop them, the ones who still keep the options would benefit.
I believe that colleges are greedy in the way that they select their students. Students should be accepted because they deserve it; not because a school wants diversity or a better baseball pitcher. I am not a fan of the early decision process. Personally, I do not enjoy promises because no one can really know if something else will present itself, making the promise unable to uphold. I do enjoy early action though. It has allowed me to get my applications done and receive acceptance letters sooner. It relieves stress. I know that I have options and that I will be able to go somewhere. Early decision takes options away from students.
The Early Decision movement began at the University ofPennsylvania in the 1980's, and has since become an established option in the admissions offices of most colleges and universities in the United States. The quote references a principal similar to mutual interdependence, where the actions of all actors depend on the actions of all other actors. In game theory, we do not know the most preferable move, or the dominant strategy until the other actors act. The Early Decision process represents a true Nash Equilibrium. Once in place, nobody has an incentive to take their system away. The author's proposal to freeze Early Decision, would not work because for all sides, applying Early Decision is the dominant strategy. I personally prefer the non-binding nature of Early Action.
Early decision began as a way for elite schools to make themselves look more appealing to students. Over time, more and more schools adopted the practice. Early decision allows a prospective student to find out much sooner if they are going to be accepted or denied by a college.
The quote relates heavily to game theory. The speaker is referring to colleges/universities altering or dropping their ED program in order to accept more Regular Decision students. Game Theory applies to this because, in this type of scenario, the chances that colleges will follow suit depend upon the choices that all of the others make. The quote is suggesting if the elite schools choose to scrap/alter their ED program, all of the other schools will follow because of their influence.
The authors proposal might not work because of the fact that students also play a role in this whole process. If many students are under the impression that early decision is important, some may not even apply to a school that doesn't have an ED program. This would certainly hurt elite schools that take in the majority of their student from the ED pool.
Personally, I believe that early decision thing is a foul thing. Too often the air surrounding me is plagued by others who are complaining about having to take care of college applications, or that they are afraid if they will be accepted, or how stressed they are. Just because a person chooses to do early decision, that does not suddenly mean they take their education more seriously, or that they are a better student. I am not applying to any schools for early decision. Does this mean I don't take my future seriously? Am I a lazy student? Do I have no direction in my life? No, it means that I actually have important matters outside of school to deal with, and goals and aspirations I want to achieve. Of course my future education is important to me, which is why I am taking the extra time to really get a feeling for what each school could offer me. Regular decision offers me this. Meanwhile, I can use the free time that is available to me to continue perfecting myself as a human being. I am all for the authors plan of getting schools to ditch the early decision program. It is more trouble than it is worth, it seems. I wouldn't know, however; I am using my time more wisely.
The early decision process started in the 1950s with the Ivy League schools. They would go to high schools and tell students of their chances of getting into the school. Then, in the 1980s it was used to guarantee that the colleges got enough students. Then, in the 90s when more students started applying, early decision was used in order to improve numbers for the colleges rankings. UPenn was the first one to do this. In the quote, the person is describing the game theory when it comes to early decision. If one college decides to get rid of early decision, it will only hurt them. But, if all the colleges eliminate early decision, all of the colleges will be on an equal playing field and the students applying will be at ease. This would be considered the optimum solution. But, early decision would be considered the dominant strategy. And this is exactly why the proposal wouldn't work. If all the colleges agree to get rid of early decision, one college would decide against it to give them the advantage, then everybody would join them, and then we will be right back where we started. Although I think this proposal could be enforced through laws. I do not like early decision or early action, although I did early action for all my colleges. It makes the process much more stressful. Nov 1 was the deadline for Michigan and Maryland. Balancing 5 AP classes (which colleges want) and getting the applications in (which the article showed it gave me a better chance of being admitted) was very stressful. If all early plans were not allowed and the universal deadline was Jan 1, all colleges and students would be on a level playing field when it came down to admissions, and stress would be reduced. But, this will never without legal enforcement happen because of the dominant strategy. I particularly hate early decision because it hurts poorer students. If I really wanted to go to Harvard, but couldn't afford the set price, I couldn't do early decision because I would be stuck if I didn't get any financial aid. But, a economically advantaged student could do early decision because they can afford the price anyway. So, according to the article, the kid applying early decision would have a better chance of getting in because he has more money. In conclusion, early plans should be stopped, although it is too late for me.
Early decision began with “A, B, C” programs instituted by Harvard, Princeton, and Yale to grade students on their chances of admission. Then in the 1980’s colleges used modern early decision programs to ensure that their statistics did not fall in this period of fewer applicants. After that period the number of applicants increased and colleges used the early decision option to attract the best candidates from around the country and world.
The speaker is referencing the leg-up that universities receive when they offer early decision options. If any college changes their policy, then they will receive less applicants in quantity and quality. The best option regardless of what other colleges decide to do is to use early decision, so that is what colleges do.
The author’s proposal would not work because the colleges may come to an agreement not to do early decision, but chances are one college will stab everyone else in the back (ALYSSA’S GROUP) and use early decision. It is unlikely that they will all agree to retract early decision because the colleges are thinking of their personal benefit.
I don’t like early decision because it forces students to commit to a college at too early an age. It also does not give an option to opt out if the costs are too high, which limits many people from using early decision.
Early decision began as a way for colleges to make themselves appeal more to the elite students, and thus increase their position in the top college lists.
The speaker is referencing colleges dropping early decision. And it applies directly to game theory.If one college drops it, it will hurt them, but if all colleges drop it then it will work out fine. It refers to mutual interdependence.
The proposal would fail because most students are attracted to the Early Decision title and think that it gives the college a more elite status.
I am personally indifferent to early decision. I am not applying to any academically selective schools so early decision would not really affect my getting into a college or not. I think early decision has its pros like attracting elite students, and its cons like causing more stress.
The history of early decision spawned from the excrement of Satan in the late 1970's. The quote means that no one wants to be the first one who breaks the cycle of individual benefit in order to allow for the greater who to benefit as well and improve the situation. The author's proposal wouldn't work because people are selfish, especially in the business world, and aren't willing to eat a loss in order for the greater good to be served. The early decision process is just a fact of life, it sucks and makes life very difficult but it is no different than any other hardship I'm going to face in the future.
Early decision started at the University of Pennsylvania when Willis J. Setson became dean of admissions in 1978. He needed something that would make Penn seem much more attractive to students in order to combat rising crime rates and doubt of its ivy league status. Penn was able to overcome its challenges through many ways including urban areas becoming safer, investing in its curriculum, and the "early decision" program. Early decision is a binding application that some colleges use, usually due by early to mid november and responded to sometime in december. The author of the quote is referencing his proposal, that all colleges should drop ED at the same time. This is similar to game theory because while it could benefit everyone, it is not most colleges dominant strategy. If some colleges don't drop ED while the rest do, those colleges that didn't drop it will receive the benefit.
I find that early decision is simply a resource created by colleges for colleges. It's massively beneficial to the universities that enforce it, because statistically, it makes them look fantastic on a national level. Students may possibly benefit from the early decision (ED) program, but the student gains are just a second thought to the process. The quote given refers to the author's aspiration that the ten most selective and reputable colleges will abolish both their early decision and early action plans for the next five years or so, all in the hopes that the other colleges will begin to emulate them and do the same. According to game theory, though, there is a lot of evidence leaning against this plan, for it isn't guaranteed that the other colleges will be good sports and do what is expected of them; most likely, what would happen would be that the other colleges will look out for themselves and do what is best for them and their rankings. In my opinion, I feel like the early decision process does contribute somewhat heavily on the stress levels of juniors and seniors. However, I also feel like the entire college process as a whole is stress-inducing, because I'm pretty sure that my last sleep-less week would have been just as sleep deprived if I were applying in january and not november.
Early decisions was to draw more candidates to that college. For example when crime was increasing at Penn, many people didn't look at it as their first choice. So my making the early decision plan it looked better to many students.
The quote is referencing mutual independence. Because some of the elite schools are similar early revisionism give them an unfair advantage over one that doesn't have early decision.
The authors proposal would not work because it would require complete trust between the colleges. And as seen through class the temptation to gain an advantage over one is enticing.
Personally I am not a fan of early session, but instead early action. I do not like the idea of committing yourself to one college without knowing how much it will cost until later.
The fist early decision programs were created in the 50s by "the Pentagonals," an alliance of colleges that included Amherst, Bowdoin, Dartmouth, Wesleyan, and Williams. Their goal was to attract potential Harvard, Yale, and Princeton applicants through the offer of better admission odds in return for making a binding commitment to attend a college. The idea was adopted by other colleges and has stuck around since then.
The speaker is referencing Joseph P. Allen's proposal of "a three-year ban on all ED and EA programs." The quote points out the issue with trying to get rid of early decision: colleges that drop the program will be at a disadvantage, so unless they all do it at once, no individual college will have motivation to end early decision. This relates to game theory in that early decision is the more beneficial choice for most colleges when other colleges are also using early decision. While the elimination of early decision in all colleges may be more beneficial for both students and colleges, it is unlikely to happen because of the competition between schools and the temptation of larger gains.
I think that the author's proposal might work if all the "ten most selective national universities" actually agreed to the idea. The problem is that their admission statistics would take a hit, potentially dropping their rankings in relation to colleges that still use early decision. Due to the current emphasis placed on college rank, I can't see a top university giving up its status for the 5 year experiment. Even if the plan worked exactly as the author hoped and early decision is almost nonexistent by the end of the 5 years, the change would be very temporary. Ambitious colleges would again begin using early decision in order to gain a competitive advantage, and most other colleges would again be forced to follow suit.
Most of the information in the article was news to me, which sort of supports some of the authors complaints about the early decision process. If I had been informed of the advantages of applying early decision or early action, then I probably would have done it. Due to the fact that Catonsville is awful at helping students through the modern admissions process (at least in comparison to Howard County schools), along with my general lack of motivation with this stuff, I never really knew why students would want to apply early. If I had been going to a high school in a wealthier area where all students are upper middle class and aiming for top colleges, the benefits would have been made clear early on by the school administration. I feel like Catonsville High's top students are being put at a disadvantage by those students who aren't college-bound. The administration is too distracted by having to deal with those futureless kids to provide adequate guidance to kids like me.
The early decision movement began in UPenn as a way to improve their school and since then has been adopted by most colleges after UPenn's success.
The speaker is referencing that no one college want to be the first one to drop the early decision because they are all interdependent on each others decisions. If one college drops the option then the other colleges would get better students. No college wants to risk losing better students because no matter if the other colleges offer early decision or not, their dominant strategy is to offer it.
I feel as if they should drop the early decision, but they never will. Colleges are business institutions that want to look good and if that comes at the expense of high school seniors then they don't really care.
Early decision began at the university of pennsylvania to make students begin to think of the ivy league school as a first choice instead of a safety school. This also allows them to raise average gpa and average sat scores. The quote is referring to schools dropping their ED programs. It will not work if only one school does it so, they all have to do it together. However, ED allows colleges to draw more applicants to their schools so not one college will drop it. I feel that ED is only good for applicants who feel like that school is the best for them. Otherwise I don't like ED very much because it is hard for students who don't want to do early decision to get into those schools.
Early decision was a newly created process of admissions for school's who were falling by the wayside, when applicants were few and yield rates were small. Following the baby bust in the 80's, schools needed a way to increase prospective high school students, and with the baby boomer's children applying in the 90's many colleges adopted ED as a way to stay competitive in the college ranking system. It allows schools to increase their yield and admission rates as well as acquiring a larger pool of candidates with higher SAT and GPA scores to increase their statistics. the speaker is saying that while the ED process helps colleges compete and keep their statistics strong, the school that decides to drop ED falls drastically in rankings and thus will lose a majority of its bond rating(act...). In game theory its hard for firms to go with the optimum choice(in this case dropping ED) over the dominant strategy(keeping it). Obviously it's better to g with the optimum strategy over the dominant one, but in real life people suc and there's nothing you can do about it. ED wil always be in the admissions process :[
Early decision began with the idea of competition. Colleges needed to find ways attract new students to their school and one way was to offer early enrollment. Eventually all the schools jumped on the band wagon and many more schools began to offer early decision.
The colleges are mutually independent on each other. If all were to drop the idea then nothing would happen but if one college alone dropped the idea of early decision then there would be a problem for that school only. Most students probably see early decision as a sign of eliteness because the school has become so competitive. I personally do like the idea of early decision because it binds a student to the college even if they are not certain of their financial future. I personally would never agree with early decision but instead support the idea of early action.
Early decision is used by most four year universities, but it began at the University of Pennsylvania in the 80's. As for the quote, the basic idea behind it is mutual interdependence. Mutul interdpendence refers to situations in which several parties depend on one another when making decisions. The actions of one of the parties greatly impact the other parties. That's why no one wants to "take the first step". The author's proposal would't work because it is the dominnt strategy for all colleges to uphold early decision. All the schools benefit from it, so there is no point in removing it. I like early decsion because if there is a school that someone has a burning desire to go to, I think they should be preferred over someone who is applying to that school as a safety.
"A,B,C" programs were the earliest form of early decision. They were used by Harvard,Yale, and Princeton, but modern early decision started at the University of Pennsylvania in the 1980's. The quote refers to one of the main principles of game theory and oligopolies - mutual interdependence. In oligopolies, the actions of one firm greatly impact the other firms. Because of this, firms don't want to be the first to act. The author's proposal wouldn't work becasue the colleges don't want to risk getting the benefits they get for the better of the group. I could careless about early decsion because I am not applying to any early decision programs.
The origin of Early Decision is from prestigious colleges and universities making deals with top students in order to lower their acceptance rates. It also let the institutions choose the top or "A" students which raised the average SAT scores and average GPA of students enrolled as well. All of this increased a college's ranking, which always reflected well on the school, making ED very popular with colleges.
The speaker in this quote is talking about the "step" of moving away from binding ED and why that would be so difficult. Because ED is the dominant strategy for all colleges, it benefits them the most to employ ED. Asking them to step away from ED would not be the best decision because they are in what is called the Nash Equilibrium. This means that ED is the best decision and there is no incentive for the colleges to move away from ED.
The author's proposal to have some colleges get rid of their special admissions programs for five years has many problems. The biggest one would be that in an agreement like this, most of the time one school will back out in order to benefit themselves. Since that will almost always be the case, the experiment would almost be guaranteed to fail.
I feel like the ED process is fair, yet frustrating. To me, EA is a much better decision especially financially. Without a financial aid package that is not enough to attend the school, you cannot back out of an ED decision. By the time these packages come out in April, it would be much too late to apply to any other schools and the student is stuck. As a student who is unsure, I also feel like it is not fair that just because I am not 100% committed to a school that they believe that I am not as good as a candidate. I believe that I will bring school spirit and carry school pride no matter where I choose to go, ED or not.
Lee became the dean of admissions at the University of Pennsylvania. In order to draw more people to the school. This got many people from Lawrenceville and Phillips Exeter Academy to have more students go to the University of Pennsylvania. He was talking about getting rid of early decision because noone wants to get rid of it because everyone else will continue to get the good students. This applies to game theory because if one school does not take the dominant strategy whilt the other does then the school that doesn't will lose many students and the schools that don't get rid of it will get more students. It will not work because no college that does it will want to stop doing it because they would be at a disadvantage until everyone else stopped and the other colleges would have no reason to stop. I do not like early decision. I feel like because of not knowing what was coming to get into college I was at a disadvantage for getting the applications in on time and many other students feel the same way.
My sincerest apologies, Sir Long, for the lateness, but as it was November 5th I was busy donning my Guy Fawkes façade and executing orchestrated acts of terror against Parliament in the UK.
That being said, I am amazed that my incapacitating laziness allowed me to finish this article at all. Ha, I kid, I kid. But really, the article held my interest if only because I grew more and more enraged as I read. I hate colleges. If I had my way, I would squander my college fund on a functioning VW bus and a video camera and make my way across the country; forget getting an education! In this day and age, what’ll it get you anyway? Debt, debt, and a whole lotta debt. And stress, did I mention stress?
Ugh, regardless, this college thing is just a perversely calculated mindgame to admissions offices, who couldn’t care less about students when compared to their latest U.S. News ranking. That’s why these hideously elitist processes, like Early Action and Early Decision, were created in the first place. Back in the 50s, it was a grassroots movement in which the soon-to-be-Ivies participated, though the real deal didn’t gain popularity until the 80s. That’s when UPenn got jealous and sad that nobody wanted to go to their school, so they started bargaining, offering almost guaranteed acceptance for those kids who pinky-promised to attend. Sad, yes, but it was the catalyst to this new age where nearly all schools have some sort of binding early admission commitment. This way, they can guarantee that their precious freshman “spots” are filled with the smartest, wealthiest, and most committed little jerks in America.
The quote is an example of mutual interdependence, a quality present in most instances of game theory. It references the idea that the decisions of one institution depend on the decisions of all the others. If one school relinquishes its Early Action policy but no one else does, then that school has accomplished nothing other than the depression of its own rankings and esteem. It’s a twisted concept of trust, where if one college decides to place its own reputation over the needs of its applicants, then they all do.
While this author agrees with me that Early Action and Early Decision policies royally suck, he actually doesn’t understand much of what he’s implying with the idealistic proposal at the end of the article. He suggests that the ten major colleges in the nation (those being the damned Ivies) just up and drop their ED and EA plans so we can all try a social experiment on today’s 8th graders. Though this may be a sound idea, the colleges really have no incentive to switch from a program that guarantees them smart, self-righteous, rich kids to one that, well, gives a fair chance to the rest of us schmucks.
Now, let me get back to ignoring my college applications.
This clip is an example of game theory because each of the robbers represent different firms competing in the same market. The driver suggests the the Joker is joking if he believes he will get a share of the money without participating in the robbery. The strategy for all of the robbers was to kill their partners after they completed their job in order to get a bigger share of the money. If they planned to be a true gang then none of them would have killed each other and each would have gotten a share. None of the robbers should have killed each other because even if they received a smaller share they would have a cohesive unit to continue to work with.
All of the robbers wanted the money. Since there was a relatively large team of the, they would have had to share the money with many people. Every robber that is killed is one less person to share the money with. What they were not thinking is that everyone will kill everyone so only The Joker will get the money.
He suggests that The Joker should not get any of the money because they believe he isn’t actually doing any of the work in the robbery. Either the driver wants to kill The Joker or he wants to just “take the money and run”.
Each robber kills their “partner” once the job that they did is done. This way, the robber can do what he needs to do after needing the other robber’s help. For example, take the two robbers on the roof. The one robber got rid of the silent alarm. After that, his partner killed him because he felt that he could continue alone after the alarm was turned off.
If they were a true criminal gang, they would have stuck together because if they did anything wrong they would get killed. If the robbers were to work together again, they would need everyone alive to get “work” done. You can’t get help from a dead robber. If one of the robbers were to make a mistake, then they would be killed, not right after they finish their job.
All of the robbers should have stuck together. Obviously, The Joker wanted the money for himself. If the robbers stuck together, they would have been able to take down The Joker. Each robber would have had a portion of the money rather than death and no money.
Haha, this really is an excellent example of game theory. This instance of game theory is formulated around the two choices the six clown robbers have. Each one can either kill the other he is working with, or spare him and split the cash. Certainly they all know that- since they are working with criminals-each other player could pick either option. They have to then weigh their options and pick a dominant strategy. There is a dominant strategy: for each of them to kill the guy they are working with. It clearly doesn't yield the best results for the group, but they need to worry about themselves; they want the money and they can't rely on the others to be benevolent. The desire for the greatest share (and to not die) fuels most of the individuals' choice to attempt to kill the guy they are working with. I say most, because I can't definitely determine the strategy of the first two dead clowns.
The driver suggests that the Joker just sits back and lets these guys run the strategy. He thinks that since the Joker won't be a part of the technicalities there is no way they'd need to pay him. Saps. But essentially what he is saying is that the Joker is not part of the game. The irony screams out, as the audience sees clearly that the Joker is the third robber that got into the car. Thus he is a player and the cleverest at that; he avoided the situations until he only faced one clown left (who he promptly shot). Pretty much, Game Theory will screw you over. The Joker used it wisely to get the job done and make off with all the shares for himself.
Each of the robbers was told different things from the Joker about how to maximize their share. About half of them each waited for their partner to do the work, and then they killed him. After that they ran into the next guy they were supposed to be working with and either killed him once he finished his task or was killed after he finished his task. They kept doing this until they were all dead except for the guy who didn't get hit by the bus and the Joker himself.
If they were a true criminal gang that would work together in the future they would probably do the same thing. UNLESS, they were involved with a mob. I'm convinced that if they had the knowledge that they would never be able to make it away with all the profits and would eventually have to share that they wouldn't bother killing each other. So if they were affiliated with the mob, they would be more likely not pick option "kill you associate," because the mob plays cartel and will cut your face off if you cross them. Thus, the mob as an outside entity serves to contaminate the Game Theory situation.
During the job they were doing, their interactions seemed to hint that they weren't directly affiliated with each other or any larger entity, thus they were all going to pick option "kill your associate". Clearly the Joker was (sorta) working with the mob, but Ledger was the exception as he was much smarter than a drug addict like Eric Roberts and outwitted like 50 people all together in this one instance. The Prisoner's Dilemma doesn't really apply to the Joker cuz he DGAF and "just wants to watch the world burn."
Well for starters they definitely shouldn't have killed each other. And... well yea, that's actually about it. What they should have done was finished the job and split the profit amongst all of them.
This clip is an example of game theory because each robber can either kill the others so that there are less people to split the cash with, or they can not kill the others, and thereby benefit in the long run. The driver suggests that the Joker should not be paid because he is not involved in the operation, when in reality he is in the van with them. The dominant strategy for each robber was to kill the others, because: A) the cash benefit for them would go up as the number of robbers decreased, and B) if they didn't kill the other robbers, the others would kill them to get more cash for themselves. If they were a true criminal gang that would work together in the future, then they would have not killed each other, and would instead have worked together so that all of them got a monetary reward, and none of them were killed. Likewise, the robbers should not have killed each other, and should instead have worked together to pull off the heist.
This scenario is an example of game theory because instead of working together to get as much as possible, each robber decides to take the dominant strategy. The choice between working together and shooting each other to get more money. The driver suggests that the Joker should not get a share because he is not involved in the dirty work of the crime. What the other robbers in the car don't know though, is that the Joker is sitting right in the back seat with them. The strategy for each of the robbers is to kill all of the others in order to get the maximum amount of profit for themselves. Their strategy might change if they were a true criminal gang that would work together in the future because they might choose to not kill each other in order to have the full force of them together for future endeavors. They SHOULD have not killed each other and kept their word in order to profit by having each other as resources in the future for robberies and whatnot.
This scene is a perfect example of game theory. This scenario is an example of game theory because it deals with relatively few actors who are all self-interested. Each robber wants to maximize their share of the profit, and the Joker presents them two options: kill the others and maximize their share, or don't kill the others. In the car scene, the driver suggests that the Joker does not deserve an equal share of the payoff because he is not doing the same amount of work as them. The dominant strategy for each robber is to kill the others in order to maximize his own profit. However, if each robber follows this strategy, then they will all end up killing each other, and the Joker will be left with all the money, he will be the sole winner of the game. In a real criminal gang, the game would be changed because each robber has an incentive to cooperate insofar as that makes their escape more likely. In addition, considering the robbers in the movie were stealing from a mob bank, in reality, they would want a criminal gang to support them when the mob strikes back at them for the theft. Each of the robbers should have cooperated in order to each claim a share of the profit. Their dominant strategies led them to death. They should have all cooperated and lived with a smaller share of the profit.
This is an example of game theory because each of the robbers decides if he should shoot another or not. If he shoots the guy before him he would get more money but if he doesn't then they would be able to work together on another crime later. The driver suggests that the Joker should not get money for the job because he was not there to take part in the actual crime part of it even though they didn't realize that he actually was there. The dominant strategy for each of the robbers is to shoot the other because they would get more money for this robbery. If they were a real team working together they probably wouldn't kill each other so they could work together for future jobs and get more money. For the best all around result, the robbers should not have shot each other because they would all be alive and be able to get more money as a unit in the future.
This scene is an example of the game theory because each has a decision to make that affects how much money they get. The dominant strategy would be to kill the others so that they get the most money. But, if they were to collude, none would be killed and they would all get a portion of the money. In the car, the driver suggests that The Joker shouldn't get any of the money because he just planned the robbery and doesn't actually have to take part in it. If the robbers were a true criminal gang they wouldn't kill each other because then they could work together in the future and get more money. So, they should have not killed each other and possibly ganged up on The Joker, the one who does the least of the work.
This scene is an example of game theory because it shows that the robbers have options, and they must predict which option is most beneficial. Each robber can either kill the others, or they can choose to participate in the group. The driver suggested that the Joker should not get an equal share because he is not actually participating in the robbery.
The robbers would maximize their profit if they were to kill all of the other robbers, but for this to be successful only one of the robbers could do it. Since they all were told about this strategy by the Joker, they all tried to do it, which resulted in all of the money going to the Joker. If this were a true criminal gang, they would not kill each other because they would want to work together for a long time. They could not be successful in the long run if they were killing each other. The robbers should not have killed each other. Since they killed each other, no one received any money; the Joker got all of the money. If they used this strategy, they would have gotten a small profit, but it would still be a profit, and they would not be dead. Also, they could perform more robberies in the future that could be profitable as well.
This is an example for game theory because each of the robbers has the ability to make decisions that will benefit themselves individually, but are interrelated. The driver suggests that the joker shouldn't get a share of the money because he wasn't there at the actual robbery. Each of the robbers waited for the other member to complete his specialty before killing him. They wouldn't have killed each other and would have taken their smaller cut shared over the five members. They should have done what would have benefited the whole group over their selfish dominant strategies.
In the opening scene of the Dark Knight all the robbers are looking to gain the most money. This is a perfect example of game theory because all the robbers are looking to gain money by taking advantage of the other robbers. The robber during the car scene says that the Joker should not have any share of the money because he is not doing any of the work. The dominant strategy for each of the robbers would be to kill all the others so only one man would end up with the money. In the end all the robbers end up dead and the only one left was the joker who planned the whole robbery. In reality a gang of robbers would most likely work together because that would increase the likely hood of escaping with the money. Each robber in this situation should not heave followed their dominant strategy because it led to their death. They should have chosen to live with a smaller share of the money and escaped both richer men and living men.
The example of game theory here is each person has to decide whether or not they are going to kill the person they are told to. If they do then they get a higher share of the money. The guy in the car suggests that the joker not get as much money as everyone else because he did not do as much work as them. The dominant strategy for everyone is to kill the other robbers to maximize profit. If they are to work together in the future then they should not kill each other. This is because they need the other people to work with. If there was no chance they are going to work together in the future then they should have killed the other robbers, because they would have gotten more money. If they are to work again together then they should not because they need each other and will maximize profit for everyone.
This is an example of game theory because it represents different firms in the market of bank robbery trying to reach the same goal.
The driver suggests that the joker should not get anything because he is not actually participating. It is kind of like colluding, but they get caught.
The strategy for the robbers was to be selfish and kill of his partner, or in this case a competitor for the money from the bank.
Their strategy might change if they were a true criminal gang because they would have worked together so they could pull similar heists in the future.
Each of the robbers should have gone along with the plan, because they wouldn't have died and would have ended up with money at the end.
This is an example of game theory because each has two options: kill each other and get more money or work together and split the money. The robber in the beginning suggest that the joker shouldn't make any money because he hasn't participated in it. The strategy was to kill each other so they would get the most money. If they were a true criminal gang, they wool all work together so they could all get some money and in the end make more money. The robbers should have worked together because they would have been able to get more money instead of killing each other.
This is an example of game theory because each of the robbers represents different firms. They all have two choices: kill the other person or don't. The driver suggests that the Joker should not get a portion of the money because he did not partake in the action other than plan. Each of the robber's plan was to kill one other guy so he could get a bigger portion of the money. a true criminal gang would be different because unless they wanted to recruit new people for every job, they may want to keep their people alive and make sure people don't think that anyone who does a job for them ends up dead. The robbers should have colluded with each other and not the Joker so none of them would have died and the Joker would not have gotten his share.
The opening scene of The Dark Knight is an example of game theory because each of the robbers wants the greatest share. The driver in the car thinks that the Joker isn't participating in the robbery and that each of them are going to get an equal share. Since the goal of each of the robbers was to earn the greatest share, they wanted to reduce the number of ways in which the money was split. Instead of working together and guaranteeing each of them a share, the robbers killed whoever became unnecessary. Once their job was done, the person above them would kill them. Since the Joker was at the top of the chain, he guaranteed that he would get all the money to himself. If the robbers held loyalties to each other, if they had known each other before or were in a true gang, then they would not be as willing to kill the person below them. The incentive would still be the same, but the bond they had with the others and the knowledge that they would be needed for future raids would deter them from killing each other. To guarantee that each of the robbers got a share, they should have been willing to accept a smaller share. Because they got greedy, they ended up dead. If they would have worked together, they all would have ended up alive and with a bit more money.
This was an example of game theory because each of the robbers realized that even though they could all do the robbery as planned and take an equal cut, they could also just kill the other robbers and make away like a bandit (no pun intended).
The people in the car hint at the fact that they don't plan on giving the joker a cut because all he did was set up the robbery, he didn't have an actual hand in it. This foreshadows their betrayals of one another.
The strategy for each of the robbers was to kill the others and take off with the loot.
If they were planning to work with each other in the future and had an "honor among thieves," then they would have more likely gone the route of not killing each other and just splitting the loot.
This would have been the best choice for all of them.
The bank robbery is a perfect example of game theory and going against the good of the group for personal wealth. Each bank robber is assigned a specific job, so in theory, each of them has his own "firm". The only way for any of them to make money is for them to do their job, and let the other men do theirs as well. Instead, each member chooses to kill another man after he does his job in order to reduce the number of shares, and increase their personal revenue. Eventually, they all kill each other off, and the Joker is left with all of the money. While driving in the car, one of the robbers commented on the fact that the Joker was going to sit back and do nothing while they execute the robbery, and still make money. That's exactly what he did because he knew that the other robbers would kill each other off, and ironically, he was the ONLY one to come out with any money (and the only one to survive). If the robbers were a team, they would have probably gone with the best scenario, and that is it let everyone live, and all walk away with some money. That's what they should have done anyway, but they were too tempted by greed.
So this movie is pretty tight. Regarding the same topic, the opening scene of the film is an example of game theory, because all of the other robbers are telling about how if they succeed in the heist, they will have to split the earnings between the five of them. They talk about not giving any to the joker since he didn't take part in the robbery, already introducing the mindset of someone working in a mode of game theory, and only concerning with himself. When the robbers decided to take each other out, they were concerning themselves with their own singular benefit, further reinforcing the prominence of game theory in this scene. Little did they know, as they all killed off each other, the joker himself was increasing his shares one by one by one by one, regardless of the well being of the others, for sending them all in to kill and rob was his dominant strategy. The robbers should have equally shared the money, so that they all would profit. Today is my birthday.
The bank robbery scene is an example of game theory because each robber has a dominant strategy and each is looking out for themselves. If each robber had decided not to kill each other they each would have gotten an equal amount but their dominant strategy was to kill off all of the other robbers to make their share of the money greater. The best decision would be for all of the robbers to collude and they all get an equal share but since they can't trust each other this is impossible and in the end they all are killed of and they got nothing
This scene is so sick, Mr. Long! Glad you chose it. Conveniently, it’s a perfect “real-life” example of game theory. See, the robbers (under the careful instruction of The Joker, who is totally badass) have this crime planned out to a T. It’s like a twisted version of a relay race, where instead of handing off batons, they shell out bullets.
Each goon has a choice between killing the next guy in line and thus decreasing the amount of people with whom he has to split his cash, or letting the poor guy live, and walking away from the situation with a slightly smaller bag of dough. It’s pretty clear which strategy is the dominant one, because it makes more sense to take out those who may pose a threat to your best interests. Each robber chooses to kill and save his own skin instead of relying on the others to practice mercy – let’s face it, criminals (especially those in league with psychopathic clowns) aren’t the most trustworthy of bedfellows.
The driver in the beginning suggests that since The Joker isn’t participating in the crime itself, he doesn’t deserve any of the hard-earned loot. He seems unwilling to designate any share at all to the man in charge. This fool clearly underestimates The Joker, who is not only playing along with the other robbers the whole time, but he's also the only one who uses this strategy to exercise the best form of game theory yet. The last relay runner in the race, The Joker makes sure each member of his team bites the dust before making away with all the cash himself. Needless to say, he’s probably the coolest villain of all time.
Each robber’s strategy follows the same guidelines: wait for your partner to do the dirty work, then kindly place a bullet in his back. This way, they maximize their chances of reaping more and more profit. Now, if they were a true criminal gang and not just a collection of petty goons with clown masks, they probably wouldn’t have killed each other. That’s gotta be against gang rules or something. If they expect to work together in the future, they can’t very well kill each other, can they? Their best option then is to rely on each other and split the profit evenly, ‘cause in the long run, they’re bound to enjoy more benefits that way.
What should they have done? Killed each other. Seriously, that’s the best option in this kind of situation. Granted, it’d be a lot easier if their ringleader wasn’t a psychopathic genius who outwits them at every turn, but they couldn’t have known that. Well, okay, I guess it’d be a good plan to keep it classy and split the profits amongst themselves at the end… their incentive being that they’d get to live and be rich, too. But that’s no fun, so I’m sticking with my first answer.
This bank robbery is a pristine example of Game Theory because it presents a clear dominant strategy for every robber as well as an optimum strategy. Every robber has two options: to kill the clown their working with and take all the profits, or to work together and split the earnings. Clearly every clown see's that they can make more money if they kill their innocent clown bretheren but unfortunately the other clowns are thinking the same thing. If every clown follows the dominant strategy, everyone but the joker will die; however, the optimum strategy, if properly executed, will offer the "optimum" solution for everyone invovled. If every clown decides to spare the other's life, everyone will survive and walk away with money, but in reality people aren't moral beings and unfortunately follow their own self interests without thinking of the strongest solution for the group. If this were a true gang, there would be an understanding between all involved that the collusion shouldn't be broken. In drug cartels, collusion is able to occur without anyone going with their dominant stately b/c the fear of death lingers over anyone who tries to one-up the cartels.
ohhh.........(i missed one point)
->The clown in the car suggests that the joker isn't involved in the actual robbery but is merely overseeing the entire operation and shouldn't receive the same compensation.
PHEW I finally remembered to do one of these blog posts. Anyway, this scene gives me a lot of hope for the future. After taking films and history, I learned that huge movie producers like Warner Bros. only made movies for their own selfish profit. However, who would have thought that Warner Brothers intended to teach its loyal audiences a lesson in game theory?
First, the Joker assembles his team of robbers to, well, rob a bank. I supposes he then establishes the idea that each will receive an equal cut of the immense moo-la they steal. Some of the robbers even complain that the Joker gets a cut even though he's not even part of the job (so the believe). Sure, each robber could be content with their share, or they could, as the Joker suggests, eliminate the competition!! Too bad none of these simple minded thugs can apply economic principles to their dilemma.
This heist simulates the idea of game theory just like our class' struggle for extra credit. Each robber's strategy was to kill the other in order to gain the extra money. Their miniature share of $(insert equal share of money stolen here)just wasnt enough compared to sharing the money with just two people, themselves and the joker. So, their dominant strategy was to get rid of each other just like how one group (not going to mention any names) decided that 2 points was unacceptable, so they royally screwed the rest of the class. If they were a real rowdy group of ruffians, then they should have embraced each other's teamwork and colluded to accept the equal share. However, in deciding to shoot each other, thereby playing X, they all lost because little did they know the Joker was among them, waiting to see game theory in effect. Heath Ledger, Economic Mastermind, RIP
Post a Comment