As much as we want to deny it, the simple truth is that humans are unreliable and unpredictable. This can be seen in almost  every arena of life, and was abundantly apparent in my 102 class when we played essentially a multi person prisoner’s dilemma where you had to determine how much you wanted to contribute to the collective pot and how much to keep for yourself. Even after working when groups, people would always change their answers because even if cooperation was in our collective best interest, people are unreliable and so to avoid being screwed by other people if they adhere to the group decision and others don’t, they would be the one to back out of the collective agreement first. 

With this game there were only two options: cooperate or don’t. That’s why I thought it was so interesting when the ideal of adding a third option or making it a “truel” was introduced. Game Theory states that if there are three options, there will generally be a balance between them, where with two choices, one group will consistently be at a disadvantage. I had always associated Game Theory with economics – a thing I hate/fear – so I had never considered the potential applicability it might have to my daily life and the usefulness it has in solving difficult situations where people are going to be inclined to not cooperate and thus disadvantage others. This reading definitely opened my mind at least a little to econ. 

I was most intrigued by the concept of the Volunteer’s dilemma which is a concept I had never learned about before. I was most fascinated by the idea of the “great loss” which could result from this dilemma; seeming almost greater than the risks of losses of the Prisoner’s dilemma. Specifically the idea that if one party waits too long to act, then the resulting loss can easily be “devastating.” I think that this Volunteer’s dilemma is maybe even more relevant than the much more mainstream Prisoner’s dilemma and can be applied to more scenarios all across the board. One quote which really resonated with me regarding this dilemma is: “When fear holds us back, it can be others who suffer.” I think that this is too common of a problem and too often holds too many people back from doing the right thing. One example that I personally thought of is the U.S. Healthcare system in which many are afraid to vote for these policies which would promote universal healthcare to ensure people do not die or suffer because they do not have access to adequate healthcare. Those who are too afraid to vote for these policies ultimately by not acting are letting others suffer and die which is as drastic as the “devastating loss” I envisioned. People need to start taking bolder stances and doing this more quickly to avoid the loss which comes with this dilemma.

I found it to be very interesting to learn about the specific types of dilemmas in this reading. Many of them were new to me. I could not help but think of situations that I personally have experienced each one of them. Volunteer’s dilemma was a curious one for me. Sacrificing oneself for the good of the masses is the very noble, but I am not sure how many people would be willing to so. There is always an underlying a mentality of “someone else will do it” for humans. I appreciate that the author explained that this phenomenon also happens for animals, with the migrating wildebeests. I think this shows that moral dilemmas are an instinctual part of life. They often have to do with survival and thriving, not just human characteristics.

I have learned about some specific game theories before in my economic classes before. They have always made me nervous because I do not do well being in situations like that, especially the prisoner’s dilemma. I like to think the best in people, and because of this I have a feeling that I’d be the one going to jail (or receiving the lower utility). I think that this has an interesting connection with the distinction between allowing and doing. I am much more willing to allow something mediocrely bad to happen than to do something worse to a person in order to save myself.

In reading all of these dilemmas, I was thinking of personal experiences that applied to almost every one. The Volunteer Dilemma comes up pretty frequently for me, and I am generally willing to step up, but only if I think that I can do a good job in whatever is needed. I also will not step up if I feel like I am always the one stepping up and bearing an unfair burden. In the Battle of the Sexes, I am typically pretty flexible in general; I don’t care what we do (go to a restaurant, watch a movie), but I want it to be something of quality. If the other person wants to eat Mexican food or watch a comedy, I’m fine with that, but it has to be a good Mexican restaurant or a good comedy.

It is interesting to think about all seven of these dilemmas because we can all think of examples in our day to day lives where we see them happening in front of us, but most of the time they are left unchecked. I can think of this in my own life because I am aware that meat industry is a huge contributor to climate change, but I don’t want to be the one to volunteer myself to stop eating meat or even reduce consumption. To me, this shows that even though as humans we are highly logical, we are still far from perfect. The battle of the sexes dilemma is is another good example of this because the things we can get caught up can be so trivial and yet still prevent us from reaching the best possible outcomes in society.

Game theory was first introduced to me my freshman year when I took a leadership class with Dr.Harwell. We played a game where the object of the game was to optimize how much money you had. In order to so that, the logical way would be to donate everything so that it could be multiplied and then given back. The game required trust and many people would break this trust. Playing the game made me very skeptical of others because it’s so easy to betray someone. I think this is true in everyday life. A lot of the theories can be applicable to everyday life but require trust. Another one that I found interesting was the Prisoner’s Dilemma. This one requires trust as well. I think trust can be a very tricky thing because I personally feel as though humans are naturally greedy. If we are naturally this way, then it would be hard to trust someone or to stay honest.

Fisher discussed the Chicken Dilemma with two options for each actor: to step aside or to not step aside.  This matrix shows the vulnerability of one actor choosing to step aside while the other doesn’t and the “best” solution is for both actors to step aside.  However, because of these vulnerabilities and lack of trust, both actors fail to step aside and aggressions grow.  A real-life example of this was the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I remember learning about different game theory in my Intro. to International Relations class, and I thought it was particularly interesting that Fisher noted, “threats are useless, though, without credibility”.  We saw this in the escalation of the Cold War when the Soviet Union moved nuclear weapons into Cuba to test US threats.  Although these social dilemmas are evaluations of human action, they can be extrapolated to high-stake, international issues, such as the Cold War.  It is important to focus on cooperation rather than stubbornly sticking to one side of an argument, whether at the personal or international level.

Like others have mentioned, the prisoner’s dilemma and other dilemmas manifest themselves in a million+ fields and disciplines. The most impactful way I learned about the Tragedy of the Commons and Freeloading was in relation to international environmental policies. Given the limited and shared resource of oil, let’s say, it would be ideal for the planet if all nations decide to cut down. However, if one more nations don’t cut down, and instead reap benefits and take even MORE of the limited resource, we are left with the limited resource being just as diminished, and the good nations with environmental policies are suffering economically with no ultimate benefit for the planet. It is deeply frustrating, and this reading only made me reminded of it.

I have learned about the prisoner’s dilemma and all of the other dilemmas listed a myriad of times weather it be in econ or political science classes. I think that the biggest thing that always stand out to me is the fact that cooperation and compromise will always make both of the parties involved in the dilemma better off, yet it is never the Nash equilibrium. I think that this has to do in part with the lack of communication, but I think that this says so much about our society as a whole. I think that we have become so self-involved that we do not compromise on anything anymore. For example, politics have become so polarized and one side will not hear the other sides point of view at all, when in reality if both sides were to work together out government would be able to function a lot more effectively. This brings in what Fisher was talking about with negotiations and promises, and how rewards are the best way to set up a negotiation. I think that if the congress people knew the rewards that the entire nation would benefit from cooperation on their part, there is a possibility that there could be less polarization.

I liked how the end of the article addresses how humans are not necessarily reasonable. It is great to discuss all kinds of game theory, however in the moment it is really impossible to predict how people will act. This reminds me of a game we played with Dr. Harwell in my 102 class. In the game, everyone put a certain amount of their money into a pool, the pool was divided by three and then split evenly among the participants. The more everyone donated, the more was multiplied by three, and then was given back to everyone. However, some people could choose to be selfish. I know that I went in with the mindset that yes, rationally it does make sense to give the most amount of money, and if everyone does that, then we will get the most amount back. However, when it actually came time to play the game, I found myself questioning whether or not my classmates would play fairly. Because I was skeptical of my classmates, I myself got greedy and did not donate the most amount of money. Thus, I threw reason out and acted irrationally. This just goes to show that even if a person understands what is best for the common good, they may act not act reasonably in the moment. This is what makes game theory so fascinating.