okay. there is an office job and a manual labor job. they are honestly of similar difficulty. the manual labor job is more appealing in every way.
who gets which?
we can cross our fingers and hope that every job has a volunteer who likes it more than every other job. but how about radio tower technician or sewage tunnel repair? surely you would want to be a anything-else technician or a anything-else repair if the compensation is the same. who gets the short straw?
Don't know dont care I don't do thought expirenente
I think I have a philosophy class. I'm just going to ruin their day every time.
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need"
This is completely nonsensical. Explain what your deluded concept of Nash equilibrium is so I can explain why you are wrong
Women would prefer the office job
Yes We Must Make This About Women
Yeah if you ignore the other 99 bad faith posts per hundred I'm really not that bad
I said earlier that when you want to, you can actually engage and have a productive discussion, whereas that's impossible with asoul and hbotz
nash equilbrium is when no player in a game has an incentive to play a different strategy.
in my model of the 100-man communal labor, the nash equilibrium is for everyone to be working not-very-hard. why should you work hard if everyone is working not-very-hard? your contribution will be divided by 100 before arriving back to you. everyone working hard is not a nash equilibrium because i have an incentive to slack off instead, because my lack of contribution will be divided by 100 before arriving back at me.
If there's one thing we can say -- it's that this thread is almost at 2000 posts. Which means black lives really do matter.
not-working-very-hard being the nash equilibrium is the canonical explanation for why centralized institutions like RMV, the post office, etc. are slow and unpleasant. because nobody has an incentive to work hard because they cannot be fired and are not trying to turn a profit. maybe you have a different explanation though.
You did it electrowizard. You made black lives matter
it was the noble effort of the canadians for making this thread
It's not incentive: it's an ability to increase their benefit above all other players by changing their strategy while the other players maintain a uniform strategy
Now, what is a game in game theory? What is a strategy? Your example demonstrates a lack of understanding of those basic concepts
hbotz isnt ever gonna stop using concepts extremely loosely and in figurative fashion while ignoring their rigorous defintions; it's just how he thinks
at this point ur just intellectual-signaling. i know game theory. i dont need to write down the rigorous mathematics to make it more complicated for no reason. do you want me to write down the mathematics to prove a point?
you're definitely stretching the definition and scope of nash equilibrium lol
what? by applying it to a labor market game in a tragedy of the commons scenario? do you want me to make up some numbers and calculate the nash equilibrium directly?