Author: Kong Xiangyun Wang Yurong
People who learn management or economics must know some knowledge in game theory. There is a classic case in the game theory - the prisoner's dilemma, very intriguing.
---- "Prisoner Dilemma" is the story of two prisoners. These two prisoners did bad things together, and the results were discovered by the police, respectively, and the two independent cells were not interoperable. In this case, two prisoners can make their own choices: or to provide his association (ie, in cooperation with the police, betraying his accomplices), or keeps silence (that is, cooperate with his association, not Police cooperation). Both prisoners know that if they can stay silent, they will be released, because as long as they refuse to admit, the police can't convict them. But the police also understand this, so they gave these two prisoners a little stimulus: if they betrayed it, I told him that he can be released, and you can get a bonus. . His accomplices will be sentenced in accordance with the heaviest sin, and in order to increase punishment, it is necessary to fined him as a reward for the invisible. Of course, if these two prisoners are betrayed with each other, they will be sentenced to the heaviest sin, and no one will be rewarded.
---- So, what should these two prisoners do? Is it choosable to cooperate with each other or betray each other? From the surface, they should cooperate with each other, keep silent, because they can get the best results: freedom. But they have to carefully consider what options may take. A is not a fool, he immediately realized that he couldn't believe his accomplices would not provide the police to the evidence of him, and then took a rich reward from prison, let him sit alone. This kind of idea is too tempting. But he also realized that his colony is not a fool, and he will make him like this. So the conclusion of A is that the only rational choice is betrayal, telling everything to the police, because if his colony is stupid, it will only be silent, then he will be the luckyer who bless prison. And if his associates are also over, then, the A is also prison, and at least he doesn't have to be fined here. Therefore, the result is that these two prisoners have got the worst retribution in accordance with logic regardless of everything:
---- Of course, in the real world, trust and cooperation have rarely reach such a difficult situation. Negotiation, interpersonal relationship, mandatory contracts and many other factors have left right. But the two difficulties of prisoners have indeed caught untrust and need to prevent this real side of this true side. Let us look at the two super powers during the Cold War to lock themselves in a 40-year arms race, and the results are unable to both parties. There are also eternal tendencies of trade protectionism in countries.
---- However, in nature or in human society, "cooperation" is a phenomenon that can be seen everywhere. Then, the problem will appear: What mechanism does it cause organisms or humans to cooperate with each other?
---- Most of the answers to this question are attributed to a person called Robert Extrae in the University of Michigan. Axlad is a political scientist and has a research interest in cooperation. In order to carry out research on cooperation, he organized a computer competition. The idea of this competition is very simple: Anyone who wants to participate in this computer competition plays a prisoner in the "Prisoner Dilemma" case. They brought their own strategy into the computer program, and their programs will be integrated into different combinations pairs. After the group, participants started playing "prisoners' dilemma" games. Each of them must make choices between cooperation and betrayal.
---- But here is different from the "prisoner dilemma" case: they don't just play this game, but played 200 times over and over again. This is the so-called "repetitive prisoner dilemma" of the game theory, which is more realistic to reflect the frequent and long-term interpersonal relationship. Moreover, this repeated game allows the program to refer to the previous selection of the opponent procedure when making cooperation or betrayal choices. If two programs have only played a round, betray is obviously the only rational choice. However, if the two programs have been handed over, the two sides have established their own historical files to record the interaction with the opponent. At the same time, they also set up or have a good reputation through many times. Nonetheless, how will the other party's procedure will move but still extremely difficult to determine. In fact, this is also one of the things that the organizer of the competition hopes to know from this competition. Is a program always adopted a cooperation attitude regardless of the opponent? Or, can it always take betrayal action? Is it a more complicated initiative to the opponent's move? If so, what is the measure?
- - In fact, there are various complex strategies in 14 programs in the first round of the competition. However, it is the simplest strategy that makes oscorerod and others are the most simple strategies in the competition: Tit for Tat. This is a strategy for Toronto's psychologist Anato Lapplets. The strategy of a report also reported is this: it always works in cooperation, but since then take the strategy of treating their people with its people. That is, the strategy of a report also has implemented the principle of carrots to increase the stick. It will never betray the other party, in this sense it is "goodwill". It will give returns to the previous cooperation of the opponent in the next round (even before this opponent once betrayed it), in this sense it is "tolerant". However, it will take betrayal actions to punish the front betrayal of the opponent. In this sense, it is "tough". Moreover, its strategy is extremely simple, and the opponent program is aware that it is in this meaning, it is "simple and clear".
---- Of course, because only a few programs participated in the competition, the victory of a report also reported that the strategy may be just a luck. However, in 14 procedures for the payment, eight are "goodwill", which will never betray it first. And these kind procedures will easily win 6 non-good programs. In order to decide a result, Axlada held a second round of competition, especially invited to see if he can take a reply from a report. This time, 62 programs participated in the competition, and the result was a report and once again won. The conclusion of the competition is unimaginable. Good people, or more specifically, people with the following features will always be a winner.
---- 1. Goodwill; Tolerance; 3. Tough; 4. Simple and clear.
---- The profit meaning of the victory of a report on the cooperation behavior of human and other organisms is obvious. UNESROTED in "Cooperation Evolution" book, a report also reported to cooperation in various fields of society, including cooperation in the most no desired environment. His favorite example is the principle of spontaneous "self-living, also let others live" in the First World War. At that time, the army in the front line trench constantly did not shoot people, as long as the other party did. The reason why this principle can be implemented is that the parties have been in trouble for months, which gives them an opportunity to adapt each other.
---- The interaction of a report also enables the nature to produce partnerships even without intelligence. There are many examples: fungi draws nurses from the stone, providing food for seaweed, while the seaweed provides photosynthesis for the fungi; gold anthuan tree provides a food for an ant, and this ant It also protects the tree; the flower of the fig tree is the food of the wasp, and the wasp is in turn to pass the pollen for the fig tree, and the tree species is all around.
---- More broadly, a common evolution will make a reported partnership in this world that is full of trip to abandonment. Assuming a few individuals adopting a report on a reporting strategy is produced by mutations in this world. Then, as long as these individuals meet each other, they have formed a stakeholder in the future, they will begin to form a small partnership. Once this happens, they can be better than those of their back hidden knives around them. In this way, the number of people involved in cooperation will increase. Soon, a reported partnership will eventually take up the wind. Once this mechanism has been established, an individual who cooperates with each other can survive. If you don't work together, you want to invade and use their kindness. He will also punish them with a strong policy, let them not prove.
---- Now, the research on game theory is so wide, so that some people say that the latest economics and management science have used the theory and tools of game theory. There are many interesting and philosophical cases in the game theory. One is also reported to one. It is kind of kindness, tolerance, tough, and simple cooperation strategy, whether there is a great guiding significance for individuals or the behavior of organizations.
