In regards to the tragedy of the commons, I wonder if the Nash equilibrium ever yields such detrimental results that cooperation becomes necessary. For example, over fishing is an example of the Nash equilibrium where fishing companies take all they can get. Yet, once there are no longer enough fish for everybody to benefit, do the companies fish until extinction or scale back and allow multiple companies to cooperate and succeed? I find these problems very interesting because it also applies to what I am learning in political science. Most major world conflicts arise from countries acting for their maximum benefit and refusing cooperation. Similarly, I wonder if free rider problems can solve themselves or if an outside factor such as repercussions are needed to alleviate the problem. Or, once all others of the group realize how the free rider is benefiting then nobody benefits because no-one is there to do the work. I also believe that some people do not cooperate strictly out of stubbornness. It can be difficult to give away what could have been yours to see somebody else- usually a competitor- walk away with what you gave. For example, watching free riders benefit off of your hard work or throwing some younger fish back and watching the next fisherman pull them in. I understand the authors point about issuing threats and needing them to be capable, but it think that in many cases the issuing of threats is what limits communication and cooperation. Overall this piece was very interesting and I look forward to applying it to real world situations.

This reading serves as an extremely interesting overview of the six main variations of the prisoner’s dilemma and Game Theory. Currently, I am taking Rational Choice and Political Theory for PPEL, where we reviewed several of the topics discussed in this chapter literally today in class, when we were introduced to theories of decisions in which the decisions of others impact the choice options. In this reading, one of the forms of dilemmas that particularly interested me was the Battle of the Sexes dilemma. This is the situation that I related to the most, as there are often times that I collaborate with others seemingly against my own preferences due to the worse alternative of doing things alone. The best example of this I can think of is eating meals with friends, to which case I often eat at inconvenient times or unnecessarily spend money food because doing so with friends is better than eating when and what I prefer by myself. I am certain my fellow students can relate to this scenario.

I was also particularly interested in this reading’s discussion of how to break many of the discussed dilemmas, by adding a third option that falls outside of the cheat-cooperate matrix. The author here gives the example of a kindergarten teacher offering ice cream to students who help clean up toys contrary to their defecting fellow students. This idea may have profound implications for issues of international affairs, specifically when it comes to the tragedy of the commons. If international organizations can create incentives of the type discussed, resource depletion could be slowed. For example, if the UN somehow rewarded countries that do not overuse fisheries in international waters, there would be less of an incentive to overfish out of fears of all countries doing the same. By making all dilemmas more like the game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, in which there is no dominant strategy, many problems could be solved.

In Rock, Paper, Scissors, I was interested by the game of chicken. A dangerous game where two individuals hold out until one loses. The author revealed the difficulty as there is not an apparent solution if two parties are unwilling to give up. The example of the Cuban Missile Crisis highlighted how even the brink of nuclear catastrophe rested on a game of chicken between President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev of the Soviet Union. In less dire instances, the author expressed the importance of having credible threats. If the chicken game is to be played on multiple occasions, it will no longer have a matrix with equal strategies and outcomes. The solution the author gave was fascinating because it was coordination and communication. I thought that this seemed simple for complex issues such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. However, I realized that the Cuban Missile Crisis was prevented because each leader backed down from an extremely dangerous place. It is ironic that a rational matrix can be used to explain such irrational decisions of two parties. This chicken game occurs because individuals wish to outperform each other. What is rather worrying about the chicken game is the fact that there is not a definitive solution for more than two parties. If three parties are in contention with each other, coordination and communication is harder to achieve. I found that this thought experiment was fascinating as I recognized it in my own life as well as in multiple historical examples.

I have heard of Prisoner’s Dilemma before this reading, but never thought about the Seven Deadly Dilemmas that society faces. The idea of the free rider dilemma struck me the most and I feel like it is because we do not know the damage it can cause unless it is a large amount. It reminds me of the situation Wikipedia faces. Even though it is not a reliable source, many people still use it, myself included. We do not pay to access the site, yet we benefit from the information that we find there. Wikipedia pages sometimes ask for donations now, is this because of the free rider dilemma or some other corporation issue?

I also believe that the free rider dilemma is potentially the most consequential. Since we do not see its damage until after the fact, it can cause some serious issues in our society. Absolute cooperation I believe is impossible in our society because we have many beliefs systems, wants, and desires as humans. Maybe not having absolute cooperation is what drives us to have varying opinions and ideas for decisions.

This reading was my first exposure to game theory and the two the caught my eye the most were The Free Rider and The Stag Hunt. I was most interested in The Free Rider because I always see discussion about them (and have, personally, been recited the classic counterargument), but never ways to solve the dilemma. I agree with their proposal for a solution…”make it progressively more risky, or more costly, for each additional free rider to enjoy the benefits of their ride”, BUT I wish there were more examples of this in action! Not because this dilemma is more important than the others, but it is the most common one I have trouble counteracting. As for The Stag Hunt, I had never heard the dilemma outlined in this way but it makes logical sense. I am fascinated by people’s motivation to make this trade-off of freedoms- beyond the motivation of a bigger payout. There has to be more factors than the traditional “bigger reward = better = hunt stag”, especially since this option holds greater risk compared to hunting the hare.

Of the final two chapters, I greatly enjoyed the reference to Swiss-style chess tournaments. In my family, we have a tradition of learning chess as soon as possible (in my case, I was 4 years-old). I competed in tournaments growing up and have seen many tournament styles. The Swiss format is my favorite and it surprised me when I read this, because I had never considered the impact of throwing the first match! Granted, it is something my grandfather would never forgive and something I would never want to do. However, these readings are making me analyze all board games I play through a new lens.

In the past, I have learned about Game Theory and the Prisoner’s Dilemma through my other Jepson classes such as Dr. Von Reuden’s Leadership and the Social Sciences and Dr. Coestee’s Justice and Leadership Class, however the in depth analysis of numerous concepts and premises for Game Theory in Rock, Paper, and Scissors was interesting and eye opening. One of the first major points Len Fisher makes that struck me was the idea that in a sense, all the dilemmas discussed are the same dilemma and the only total solution would be absolute cooperation (Fisher 56). This solution seems so simple, however based on the number of opinions and actions performed by each and every person, total cooperation seems impossible. Aside from this idea, I found the Volunteer’s Dilemma, and the single word description of “mamihlapinatapai” to be very interesting and quite relatable. In order to describe the prisoner’s dilemma, the Yagán Indians of Tierra del Fuego invented the term “mamihlapinatapai,” which literally means “looking at each other hoping that the other will offer to do something that both parties desire to have done but are unwilling to do themselves” (Fisher 76). To further prove how accurate and relatable this definition is, the 1993 Guinness Book of Records labeled it as the “most succinct” word in any language. Game theorists view this dilemma as a multi person version of the prisoner’s dilemma. Fisher used relatable examples to allow readers to further understand the Volunteer’s Dilemma including siblings who must choose who cleans up or has to take the garbage out. Through the introduction of the word “mamihlapinatapai” and engaging examples, Fisher helps readers understand the Volunteer’s Dilemma surrounds us, and various new social pressures.

The first article that was assigned to us for reading was extremely interesting to me. It argued that prescription drug laws violate patients’ rights to self-medication. It began by discussing two ideas called risky refusal and risky access. Risky refusal is where a doctor can strongly recommend that you get a procedure or take a certain medication to help with an ailment. Doctors do not have the ability to force you into doing anything. Whereas risky access is where a patient feels as though they need medication to help with their ailment whereas a doctor believes that is not the case.  The author believes that this is in violation of the Kantian principle of treating people as rational autonomous agents. He believes that if a patient has the ability to not take medication then another individual should have the option to take medication if they want to. I completely disagree with his viewpoints. The main reason being that if drugs were made over the counter people would have the ability to abuse them or misdiagnose themselves. This would cause another major problem in the US, a country that already struggles with drug use. In addition, these drugs could be sold on the black market if made more accessible leading to more misuse of the drug.

The next article discusses how preventing immigrants from coming into our country is unjust. They believe it interferes with liberty and maintains this problem of global poverty because people are unable to escape. The author compares this to someone already living in the US and preventing them from moving to another state. The only issue that I have with this argument is that the woman is a US citizen who pays taxes and works. Whereas with illegal aliens they are not taxed on their income and are not guaranteed to work. I am all in favor of legal immigrants and understand how hard it is to come into the US legally.

I thought the reading from Rock, Paper, Scissors was an extremely interesting introduction to Game Theory, as I’d never been familiar with its premises before. I had heard of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, the Tragedy of the Commons, and the Volunteer’s Dilemma from Dr. Harwell’s Leadership and the Social Sciences (102) course, but I am happy I got a more in-depth look into the concepts to see how they apply to real life. I really liked that the author provided examples that we exhibit in our everyday lives; for example, the Free Rider dilemma occurs when someone leaves a mess for others to clean up in a shared space. These are things we do all the time, but they can be analyzed through a Game Theory lens. The Free Rider dilemma is the one I am most familiar with because in my 102 class we played the public goods game, where we saw the Free Rider dilemma come into play when people did not contribute resources. Furthermore, in Leadership and the Humanities we talked about groupthink and how it impacted Kennedy’s decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis; brinkmanship (Chicken) was also present here. The Soviet Union and the United States were about to engage in a nuclear war, but Kennedy refused to lift the navy blockade. The groupthink drove Kennedy and his colleagues to make these poor decisions and brinkmanship occurred where both parties both faced unfavorable outcomes regardless of their actions. The threats being made in this historical example lacked credibility, so the two parties were stuck in a stalemate. I am excited to learn more in class about the Seven Deadly Dilemmas and about game theory!

Anna Marston

I found this piece very interesting because it is very relevant in today’s political and social climate. Before reading this piece, I personally did not agree with the idea of open borders, but I thought viewing it from a moral and ethical standpoint was a very interesting perspective to take rather than the usually economic or judicial. With a topic such as immigration, I think this is where ethics/ morals and reality tend to conflict. On one hand, the economic and social pitfalls of illegal immigration can be easily pointed out and defended. Yet, I agree with Hidalgo’s points that barring somebody from entering the country is unjust and can promote global poverty. They point that I think Hidalgo neglects to address is the actual “rights” of illegal migrants. She commonly references the “rights” of migrants that citizens must respect, but speaking through legality, illegal immigrants don’t have rights in a country they are not a citizen of. They are not given the same rights because they are disregarding the law. On the contrary, if Hidalgo is simply talking about ethical human rights, then I understand where she is coming from talking about the duties of citizens to disobey unjust laws.

Flanigan’s article presented an argument that I have never come across before, I had never heard of DIC before and reading about it was interesting. Although in the end, I concluded that I disagreed with the conclusion (as a result of my view of the medical profession, personal experience, and biases), I did think the argument was very convincing and clear. I  completely agreed with the importance of being completely informed.  The first example of risky access vs risky refusal made sense to me the way it was laid out. People should be able to decide to or not to go down the medical path the doctor prescribes/recommends and should definitely be given all accurate and complete information to make an informed choice. By the logic laid out, I understand the inequity in the risky access. But then why do we have doctors? Their job is to be able to conclude and explain the best solution for their patient. It is just so subjective, and I would hope that all doctors have the best intention and accurate knowledge to make an informed decision.

Like I said in the beginning, I think that even though this argument was very strong, my experiences have built my view on the topic and I don’t think it will be easily changed. I know that dermatologists can prescribe people medications meant for high blood pressure for people with hormonal acne to use as an acne solution. It is easy to get this prescription with one trip to the dermatologist, and that is still important so one can be informed about possible impacts or side effects. The same thing with ADHD meds, from my experience, it is easy to gain access to them through medical professionals. What I am saying is that the types of medications that are low-risk are fairly easy to get, they are almost self-prescribed. (This is completely my own opinion, this has happened to me where I research medication for acne/skin and asked my doctor about it and I was able to get the prescription, emphasis on personal experience). But when it comes to more serious medications, for example, SSRI’s (the type of medications that are given to people with personality disorders), it is so important that they are prescribed by a medical professional. Not only because it has a big impact on brain function but also because it might be crucial to take medication and also enter into therapy treatment. I just don’t think self-medication can be viewed objectively. All in all, I think it is important to be prescribed by a medical professional, no matter what the medication. I do understand that I believe this because of my personal experience because I have never been in a place where the prescription process served as a barrier.