In games, what you do depends on what others do, and what they do depends on what you do; each player is looking for the best outcome even when they do not have the sole say in the process.
How can one evaluate their outcome in a situation like this? This is where game theory comes in.
Game Theory is a process for figuring out what happens when everyone is trying to be clever at the same time.
To put it more formally, Game theory is a mathematical study of strategic decision-making that examines how you and others behave when the outcome (risk or reward) of a situation depends on the choices of everyone involved.
Game theory introduces different strategies for achieving the best result,
- Zero-sum game vs Non-zero-sum game
- Cooperative vs Non-Cooperative
The non-zero-sum and cooperative game strategy offers the best and rational move, but this is not always the case; in certain situations, no player can improve their outcome by changing strategy while others stick with theirs. This is known as the Nash Equilibrium.
Even before I knew about the term “Game theory” I have always leaned towards the cooperative and non-zero-sum game.
I have always operated within this ideology
It is easier to collaborate with people who shine in your weakest areas than to spend time improving those weaknesses yourself. The idea was that the time spent improving the area of weakness will be well spent to build on the area of strengths.
This exposes a blind spot: the ideology only works if the other person is
- Playing to my strength; and
- Not trying to undercut you
But, I sojourn through life, I have come to realise that people will always do what is best for them and what is best may not necessarily be what is good for me.
In situations like this, if I don’t change strategy and continue to make what I presume to be a rational decision, my outcome will not be in my best interest.
So, the question: How do I guarantee the best outcome while remaining true to myself?
The danger of “Good” people - Religion
It is not unreasonable to look at religion for answers. Religions (Christianity) give a good framework on how to play the game, but this itself can introduce a complex.
I could limit my gameplay to only people who share the same faith with me. This in itself fails on so many levels and is not a statistically good strategy.
It is easy to turn to religion as a framework for decision-making; Christianity solves game theory by altering the payoff matrix. It uses incentives (promise of a better life after death) to reward good behaviour and eternal condemnation to punish evil.
This incentive structure gives a false narrative that being a believer makes one an inherent “good” person.
When people believe that they are “good” by virtue of a label, they often justify their own terrible behaviours as righteousness or acting based on obeying the voice.
Irrespective of religion or race, humans will always do what is best for them.
Religion solves the problem of “being true” to oneself but makes it possible to completely lose sight of the human condition.
It is very easy for one to fall into the illusion that they are not capable of evil because they are a believer. The Bible warns about this - Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is the whole premise for this.
I strongly believe that for one to be considered a true believer ( or a “Good person”), one must be fully aware of their ability to cause harm.
Me I am dishonest; It is the honest ones you should always look at for, because you don’t know when they will do something stupid - Captain Jack Sparrow
The Dominant Strategy
This is the strategy that gives the best possible outcome, no matter what the other side or party decide to do.
To always get the best of the game of life,
- I must clearly define what success means to me at every stage of my life
- I have a choice. Who is defining the rules of the game? Do I want to play? And how does it contribute to my grand scheme (my life)
- Never play solely on trust; incentives are a far better strategy than trust.
Cooperative and non-zero-sum games still remain a good strategy; It is a very slow process, but it guarantees an optimal outcome as long as they are passed through the lens of the aforementioned list.
Many will argue that Tit-for-tat is the best strategy; I see why, but make sure you don’t die after the first “Tat” - That was a cheap attempt at humour.
Tit-for-tat guarantees ruthlessness but can cascade into an endless retaliation which can possibly lead to mutual destruction; it does not sound like a good outcome to me.
Although game theory gives room for forgiveness, I still believe that this buttresses my point about collaboration, only this time with some consequences for bad behaviour.