I am firmly in the camp that all petty arguments can and should be decided by rock-paper-scissors. With essentially 50/50 odds of winning, arguments can easily be resolved within seconds. While doing a quick google search about the game, I learned there is some interesting game theory associated with rock paper scissors as well. Because of the nature of the game, there is no dominant strategy for any player, meaning there is no Nash Equilibrium because of its cyclicality.
But why does rock paper scissors work so well? Interestingly, it is because of its intransitive nature. Rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper, and paper beats rock. If you each play the same hand, it is a tie, and you play again. In simple terms, A>B, B>C, and C>A. Imagine if this wasn't the case. What if Scissors beat paper and rock? That would mean A>B and A>C. Therefore, any rational person would choose scissors against their opponent, ruining the game. Contrary to what we talked about with the irrationality of intransitivity in class, the ONLY reason why rock paper scissors is a viable game to solve problems is because of its intransitivity, and although it may not be rational in an economic sense, in my opinion its "irrationality" makes it perfect.
No comments:
Post a Comment