Chapter 5 - 7

07 Sociology

listen to a discussion in a sociology class. Fill in the diagram with the information that you hear.

M: We’re going to talk about something that is pretty complex, but it’s also an important part of sociology.

So, the topic today will be game theory. And if you’re wondering, yes, it is a theory all about games, but don’t let that fool you into thinking that it isn’t very important and complex sociological theory.

Anyway, let me go ahead and define the theory first.

Game theory is basically just a series of observations about the way people play games: typical games that we play, like chess or sports.

Game theory looks at all the possible scenarios for how the game could be played, and then identifies the best course of action.

That is, the um, the best course of action if each player employs a certain strategy.

So, in essence, game theory is a study of the strategies that people use in games, but it applies to real life too− um, to many situations, not just games.

Games, then, are just a good way to see how people use strategies. Understand?

W: No, I don’t get it. Wouldn’t it just be a big list of good strategies?

Where does the theory part come in?

M: Well, players in games use different strategies, right?

I mean, a strategy has to change. Let me give you an example. If you were playing tag, and two people went off to the left, while only one person went to the right, the best course of action would be to go left.

You know, because you have a higher chance of tagging someone.

But if two people went right instead of left, the best course of action would change.

The best thing you could do in that case would be to adjust your strategy and go right.

So your best strategy changes according to the strategies of other players.

So, you can’t say “the best strategy in tag is to go left” because that wouldn’t always be true.

W: OK, I understand. So game theory is really about tailoring your strategy to the strategies of other players.

But what happens if you can’t beat them, only match their strategy?

M: Yeah, there’s another theory for that−a part of game theory.

The Nash equilibrium, deals with – well, um, it’s kind of like a different theory, but it’s important to understand game theory.

Basically, when every player chooses their best strategy, there is an equilibrium, where no one has a superior advantage.

This equilibrium idea had been around for a while.

It was first mentioned in the early 1700s.

But the equilibrium wasn’t very applicable to again theory in general, until John Nash figured out how it applied more universally.

Here’s an example of how this applies.

One of the most famous examples is called the prisoner’s dilemma.

Basically, the game simulates a set of interactions in a prison.

Let’s say two prisoners are planning to escape. The example says that they have two different choices.

They can stay loyal to each other and keep the plan a secret, or they betray the other and reveal the plan, in exchange for a lighter sentence.

So, there are advantages and disadvantages of each choice, so you can’t really say that one is better than the other.

The equilibrium is achieved if both decide to betray the other.

Neither choice has adverse consequences, and neither prisoner is really affected by the betrayal.

On the other hand, if only one of the prisoners betrays the other end is caught… neg… negative consequences ensue.

The first prisoner−the one that committed the betrayal−has the upper hand.

W: What if neither of the prisoners betray the other?

Like, if they both stay loyal? Isn’t that equilibrium, too?

M: Actually, the theory says that what you’re describing isn’t equilibrium, because as long as both stay loyal, there is the fear of betrayal−the situation is completely unstable.

They’re probably both wondering if each prisoner is going to betray the other… so really, there’s the possibility that they’ll change their strategies at any time.

Both prisoners opting to betray his completely stable, and stability is key to the Nash equilibrium.

Now, not all of these little games have a Nash equilibrium, only some of them.

The Nash equilibrium is really useful in analyzing the way that people react to things.

For example, in sociology, we use it to help predict how people will respond to different actions on the parts of the people around them.

You see, these games are not just about the game: they’re all… they really are about people and understanding them.

1) How does the professor organize the information in the lecture?

2) How does the professor explain game theory?

3) How does the professor introduce the Nash equilibrium?