RPS 4 & 5

In chapter 4, Fischer expands on on the idea of the simplistic game of rock, paper, scissors. It’s a game we use in everyday life when there is a disagreement about what to do, how to do it, etc. Using two players will result in one who dominates and one who loses. However, the introduction of a third party causes an equilibrium. Although one player beats the second, they end up losing to the third, thus making it impossible to win or lose. Real life examples, in the case of the orange, yellow, and blue throated lizards, show just how important the third party is to create the equilibrium. If one of the lizards goes extinct, then so will another because then one species will be able to dominate the other and drive it towards extinction as well, leaving it as the sole winner. The presence of a third party is necessary to keep balance in a place where, without one, would create chaos for one and haven for another.

For chapter 5, I found Coalitions to be the most easily relatable section. In everyday life we have to compromise with each other for a common goal. Whether that’s letting someone swipe your spider card to allow you to get into D-Hall or working together on a sports team to achieve the common goal of winning. We all do it in one way or another without really realizing it because it just feels natural to do form a coalition when the end goal is desirable.

Posted on by Carson Clark
Categories: Uncategorized

8 Responses

  1. James Bachmann says:
    September 16, 2018 at 3:30 pm

    There is always the struggle of finding that equilibrium because of a reason you mentioned, coalitions. If an equilibrium exists between three competing groups and it is a stalemate, a temporary coalition could always be established between two of the groups. This would destabilize the equilibrium and cause an advancement in the conflict and conclude with a winner. So a balance is never permanent and must continuously be worked on.

  2. Micaela Willoughby says:
    September 16, 2018 at 6:37 pm

    I thought ‘Coalitions’ was a very interesting look on daily life. Since, like Fisher assumed, my definition of a Coalition was either political or government-involved. But the definition given on page 112 was general enough to involve marriage, teams (sports), and people moving to pass each other on a sidewalk (strangers!). That last example really shows how easy it can be to work together, how simple, and how natural (common goals = cooperation!).

  3. Ahsan Ahmad says:
    September 16, 2018 at 7:25 pm

    I found the three-player model from Chapter 4 to be really interesting. One would think a game is easier with less players but as Carson summarized, sometimes a third is absolutely necessary to maintain balance—not only to keep one player in check but also to act as the subject who the other player will keep in check. These intransitive, triangle systems have an intriguing balance to them which would be destroyed should any one of the entities have even a bit more or a bit less power. Covering all this like icing on a cake is the beauty of statistics whereby a balanced system falls into a computable ratio over a large enough number of trials. People playing Rock-Paper-Scissors might think they’re losing way more than they’re winning but if you take any experiment with over 10000 trials, they will always showcase an approximately 33% success rate for each choice.

  4. Rachel Helbling says:
    September 16, 2018 at 9:08 pm

    I agree that the perfect balance of the three groups is necessary to keep everything running smoothly and maintaining the equilibrium. However while this is ideal it can be hard to maintain. I found the section about commitment and all the nash bargaining solution quite interesting in chapter 5. All the involved parties must be willing to work together towards a common goal. This normally works because nobody wants to be left with nothing so they agree to try and maximize what everyone gets. In the coalitions examples i think the key is that end goal is desirable for both parties, without this nobody would be able to agree or work together. These principles could also hurt the balance between groups. A divide could be created and the balance could be lost if two groups can agree but the others can’t.

  5. Shanay Amin says:
    September 16, 2018 at 9:29 pm

    I found the idea of adding a third person to rock paper scissors extremely interesting. The idea of creating a equlibrium is pretty cool. A game like rock paper scissors always statistically has a 33.3% success rate but adding a third person changes that which makes the game much more interesting. Fisher’s definition of Coalition really gave me a new perspective as I never thought of it so broadly.

  6. Hyewon Hong says:
    September 17, 2018 at 10:48 am

    Humans are inherently social creatures, (I learned in psychology that if you stick your tongue out at a new born baby they will react and stick their tongue out at you), so it makes logical sense that we as a species would learn how to cooperate with one another. Imagine a world where there was no cooperation and everyone acted for their, and only their, self interest. Sounds like a very trashy dystopian future that no one would be happy living in, and no one wants to happen.

  7. Josephine Bossidy says:
    September 17, 2018 at 12:03 pm

    I was also interested in the portion of the chapter about Coalition. It was fascinating to read how so many choices that we make, big or small, are influenced by what those around us want to do. Whether it’s what time to go to lunch, where to eat, or what time your group is going to the library we all communicate with one another and adjust our schedules to fit there’s. When making these decisions we have consideration for other people and never second-guess accommodating to their schedule, it’s just what were use to doing.

  8. Joseph Sterling says:
    September 17, 2018 at 1:02 pm

    When Fisher was explain how a “truel” would work, and despite using the example of marksmen, she never actually mentioned the phrase “Mexican standoff.” I found this weird, because if she had used this phrase, I would have understood how the third option would effect the equilibrium of the situation; no one could focus on a single opponent while not leaving themselves wide open for an attack from the other. I understood it eventually, but it would have helped to be able to make the immediate connection and then build off of it later in the chapter. Going back to the marksmen example, I didn’t realize what the best solution for the least skilled marksman was until Fisher pointed it out, and then it made perfect sense. By reducing the odds of being shot by the second best shot from 2/3 to 1/3, it dramatically improved his odds of survival. It was simpler to the game where the contestant picks 3 doors, 2 with no prize and one with, and the one of the false prizes is reveals, and the contestant is offered the chance to switch. If the contestant stays, they have a 1/3 chance to win, but if they switch they have a 2/3 chance to win.