This example is about: there are two pigs, a big pig and a little pig in the pigsty. There is a pedal on one side of the pigsty. Every time you step on the pedal, a small amount of food will fall on the feeding port on the other side of the pigsty far from the pedal. If one pig steps on the pedal, the other pig has a chance to eat the food that has fallen on the other side first. As soon as the pig steps on the pedal, the big pig will eat all the food just before the pig runs to the trough; If the big pig steps on the pedal, there is still a chance for the little pig to run to the trough and compete for the other half before eating the fallen food.
So, what strategy will the two pigs adopt? The answer is: Piglets will choose the "hitchhiking" strategy, that is, they will wait comfortably in the trough; The big pig ran tirelessly between the pedal and the trough, just for a little leftovers.
What is the reason? Because, little pigs can get nothing by pedaling, but they can eat food without pedaling. For piglets, it is always a good choice not to step on the pedal whether the big pig does or not. On the other hand, the big pig knows that the little pig can't step on the gas pedal. It's better to step on the accelerator by himself than not to step at all, so he has to do it himself.
The phenomenon of "the little pig is lying down and the big pig is running" is caused by the rules of the game in the story. The core indicators of the rules are: the number of things falling each time and the distance from the pedal to the feeding port.
If we change the core indicators, will there be the same scene of "pigs lying down and big pigs running" in the pigsty? Give it a try.
Change scheme 1: reduction scheme. Feeding is only half of the original weight. As a result, neither the little pig nor the big pig kicked. The little pig will step on it, and the big pig will finish the food; If the big pig steps on it, the little pig will finish the food, too. Whoever pushes means contributing food to each other, so no one will have the motivation to push.
If the goal is to make pigs pedal more, the design of this game rule is obviously a failure.
Variation scheme 2: incremental scheme. Feed twice as much as before. As a result, both the little pig and the big pig can pedal. Anyone who wants to eat will kick. Anyway, the other party won't eat all the food at once. Piglets and big pigs are equivalent to living in a materialistic society with relatively rich materials, and their sense of competition is not very strong.
For the designer of the rules of the game, the cost of this rule is quite high (providing two meals at a time); Moreover, because the competition is not strong, it has no effect to let the pigs push more.
Variant 3: Decreasing plus shifting scheme. Feed only half the original weight, but at the same time move the feeding port near the pedal. As a result, both the little pig and the big pig pushed hard. Those who wait will not eat, and those who work hard will get more. Every harvest is just a flower.
This is the best solution for game designers. The cost is not high, but the harvest is the biggest.
The original story of "Smart Pig Game" inspired the weak (pigs) in the competition to wait for the best strategy. But for the society, the allocation of social resources when piggy hitchhiked is not optimal, because piggy failed to participate in the competition. In order to make the most efficient allocation of resources, the designers of rules don't want to see anyone hitchhiking, so does the government, and so does the boss of the company. Whether the phenomenon of "hitchhiking" can be completely eliminated depends on whether the core indicators of the rules of the game are set properly.
The Classic Model of Game Theory: Deterrence Model
The full name of the deterrent game is to enter the deterrent game, which is a game mode in which participants want to enter a certain field and have competitors in that field. Suppose there are two participants, one who wants to enter a certain industry and is called an entrant, and the other who has already occupied a place in the same industry and is called a pioneer. For entrants, regardless of whether the first entrant sets up barriers or not, their optimal goal is to enter. For the first batch of entrants, setting up barriers needs to pay a huge cost, otherwise it is better to acquiesce. The enlightenment of entering the deterrent game mode is that if you want to do something, you must set a feasible goal, not afraid of difficulties, and work hard towards it, and the goal will be realized. In addition, not all deterrence is useless, and deterrence that pays a huge cost is effective. If deterrence is effective, it must pay a huge cost. At the same time, entering the deterrent game also raises a question, that is, the credibility of threats and promises, and threats are actually a promise. Whether threats and promises are feasible depends on their costs and the comparison of their costs and benefits. Generally speaking, threats and promises with huge costs or costs higher than benefits are more credible, and vice versa. In real life, some systems have little effect, just because the punishment is too small, which makes the illegal income of offenders higher than the illegal cost.
The Classic Model of Game Theory: Cockfighting Model
Chicken game. In the west, chicken is a symbol of cowardice, and the chicken game is that whoever is timid loses first in the competitive relationship. Now suppose two people want to cross a wooden bridge. This bridge can only pass one person at a time. Two people walked to each other at the same time and met in the middle of the river. The first result of this game is that if two people move on, both sides will fall into the water and lose face. This is a combination. The second is that both sides retreat, and both sides lose face, but they cannot fall into the water. The third result is that Party A retired, losing face, and Party B went. The fourth result, B retired and lost face, and A passed smoothly. Among these four results, the first one is that both sides lose; Three, four, two is one win and one loss, and two losses are harmless. This is a chicken game. In this model, there are two optimal strategies, namely, the third and fourth options, namely, A retires and B goes first, or B retires and A goes first. Because the two options have the greatest benefit and the least loss to the whole society. How to deal with the relationship between two tigers in the competition? Generally, there are four ways: the first way is negotiation, where both parties agree on a condition, and one of them will step down first; The second is the system, which stipulates that those who go from south to north will retreat first, or those who go from north to south will retreat first, or those who get on the bridge later will retreat first; The third is time. The two sides are deadlocked for a period of time, and whoever bears it first will retreat first; The fourth is compromise. Compromise is not necessarily the optimal strategy, but at least it can guarantee the suboptimal result. In work and life, even when dealing with international relations, we should forgive others, forgive others and give in.
Classic Model of Game Theory: Husband and Wife Game
Couple game. Suppose a couple who are in love meet once every weekend, and they must meet, otherwise they can't get along. Men like watching football, while women like watching movies. After meeting, we are faced with a choice, watching the ball or going to the movies? Lovers in love will sacrifice their hobbies to satisfy each other because of love. If you go to watch football, men's satisfaction is four units and women's satisfaction is two units; Going to the movies, women's satisfaction is four units, and men's satisfaction is two units. In this game, three variables are very important. One variable is the order, that is, who brings it up first, for example, the man brings it up first. Although the woman prefers to go to the movies, the man has already proposed it. She didn't want to go against him, so she agreed. As a result, they went to watch football. or vice versa, Dallas to the auditorium Second, one or more games. If it is multiple games, the two sides will generally form a tacit understanding, watching movies this week and watching the ball next week. The third depends on the depth of feelings. The party with a high degree of dependence is more obedient and concerned about the other party. Generally speaking, the game between lovers is a dynamic process, because love is a long-term running-in and understanding process between the two sides. If we assume that the game between lovers is dynamic, and men always make decisions first and women make decisions later, then a very interesting decision-making scene will appear. As far as the woman is concerned, no matter whether the man chooses football or movies, her decision is four: one is to obey the decision, that is, she will choose whatever the man chooses; The second is confrontation strategy, that is, what the man chooses and what she doesn't choose; The third is the preference strategy, that is, no matter what a man chooses, she chooses movies because it is her preference; The fourth is the fulfillment strategy, that is, no matter what a man chooses, she chooses football, because football is a man's preference, and she would rather sacrifice her preference to fulfill a man. Lover games are everywhere in real life, which makes people think about how to care for others, understand others and handle interpersonal relationships well.
Expanding the sky step by step is a truth that can be summarized from the game of eating chicken.