v******a
发帖数: 45075 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Economics 讨论区 】
【 原文由 viamedia 所发表 】
用game theory来model一下大陆, 台湾的经济外交战.
比如那些小国, 吃完大陆吃台湾.
这是完全可以用game theory来model一下的. | c********y
发帖数: 98 | 2 maybe a war of attrition. the mainland and Taiwan can threaten each other:
don't mess up with me, I'll buy the island back with more money. so it's about
each side's reservation value for the islands, and each side's resources. Jee,
I need to study more game theory. next semester.
Actually, To me it's just not worth while to fight with TW over these tiny
islands. lots of money wasted, and the impression it creates for the Taiwanese
public is not helpful to the mainland either.
Further, what can | r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 3 Game theory paradigm maybe suitable for well defined situations, but
not for a complicated real life situation like this. I suggest politicians
or anyone involved change their mind set. Recent years, stride has been
made on negotiation and joint decision making area and should be much more
helpful. One good book to recommend:
Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating
agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin Books.
about
Jee,
Taiwanese
【在 c********y 的大作中提到】
: maybe a war of attrition. the mainland and Taiwan can threaten each other:
: don't mess up with me, I'll buy the island back with more money. so it's about
: each side's reservation value for the islands, and each side's resources. Jee,
: I need to study more game theory. next semester.
: Actually, To me it's just not worth while to fight with TW over these tiny
: islands. lots of money wasted, and the impression it creates for the Taiwanese
: public is not helpful to the mainland either.
: Further, what can
| c*******s
发帖数: 163 | 4 I agree with you that there are limitations in Game Theory. One may be more
disppointed if he/she learns the micro-foundation of Game Theory through the
venue of Rational Choice.
However, I don't agree with the suggestion you make. Granted, the strategic
interaction in negotiation is vital to political outcomes. However,
negotiations strategy like the ones you suggest can hardly explain the full
dynamics in political spectrum, leaving alone the understanding and conjecture
of potential outcomes. | r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 5
conjecture
Here are some of the problems of game theory that may be addressed by
negotiation framework.
1. Assumption of self-interest rationality. If this were true, then each side
has to protect him/herself because otherwise the other side will take
advantage. This leaves besically no option other than strike first before
learning the other's choice for sure. Furthermore, this leaves no room for
mutual gain or an integrative solution. Roger Fisher's work and many others
including Walton a
【在 c*******s 的大作中提到】
: I agree with you that there are limitations in Game Theory. One may be more
: disppointed if he/she learns the micro-foundation of Game Theory through the
: venue of Rational Choice.
: However, I don't agree with the suggestion you make. Granted, the strategic
: interaction in negotiation is vital to political outcomes. However,
: negotiations strategy like the ones you suggest can hardly explain the full
: dynamics in political spectrum, leaving alone the understanding and conjecture
: of potential outcomes.
| c*******s
发帖数: 163 | 6 I am not sure whether there is some misunderstanding here:
The negotiation strategies are only for engaging parties, allowing them to
achieve their objectives. Game theory, on the other hand, is for both
"bystanders" and "engaging parties" to understand strategic interactions as
well as to posit potential outcomes. The appealing part of using Game Theory
as the tool to analyze a situation, so-called a "game", is the quest for an
equilibrium or equilibria, if there is one. I am not sure if any ne
【在 r******s 的大作中提到】
:
: conjecture
: Here are some of the problems of game theory that may be addressed by
: negotiation framework.
: 1. Assumption of self-interest rationality. If this were true, then each side
: has to protect him/herself because otherwise the other side will take
: advantage. This leaves besically no option other than strike first before
: learning the other's choice for sure. Furthermore, this leaves no room for
: mutual gain or an integrative solution. Roger Fisher's work and many others
: including Walton a
| A****t
发帖数: 69 | 7
It's nonobvious how does your second sentence follow from the first.
There are many many cases where one could stand to benefit from gain
of your "opponent" (a classical case being iterated prisoners' dilemma).
"Nonzero sum games" have certainly been studied extensively in Game Theory.
I'm not certain what's meant here. Multiple outcomes can often (if
not always?) be reduced to single outcome. It's only a matter of
formulation, not a fundamental limitation of Game Theory.
Two points:
1. As po
【在 r******s 的大作中提到】
:
: conjecture
: Here are some of the problems of game theory that may be addressed by
: negotiation framework.
: 1. Assumption of self-interest rationality. If this were true, then each side
: has to protect him/herself because otherwise the other side will take
: advantage. This leaves besically no option other than strike first before
: learning the other's choice for sure. Furthermore, this leaves no room for
: mutual gain or an integrative solution. Roger Fisher's work and many others
: including Walton a
| k***g
发帖数: 7244 | 8 呵呵，看来上面的帖子，有些糊涂，因为各方的观点弄得不是很明白。有几个问题：
【to restless】
1）呵呵， game theory 不是一个paradigm啊，这个好象有几位很著名的政治学家都强调
过的，game theory (或是更广泛的--实证政治理论）只是一种方法（methodology)，它
只是提供了一个deductive的工具。按照Lakatos的那一套东东，Game
Theory可以作为paradigm的辅助工具。首先由几个core assumption，然后利用game
theory deduce出来testable hypothesis，再用empirical的东西验证。举个例子，IR中
的neo-R和neo-L关于relative gains 和 absolute gains的争论都在用game theory，因
为它是 paradigm-independent的。
2）呵呵，还有 game theory的影响好像也不止于negotiation 和joint decision
making，就像1）里说的那样，它的dedective power对于IR整个 | r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 9 My post was pretty clear about my position on this.
The Art of War is the opposite of what I was suggesting. Many people use
sports or war to analog negotiation or joint decision making (e.g, in Taiwan
issue). Essentially it's very different. In war or sports, your foremost
objective is to win, while in negotiation, the most productive mindset is
create a solution that is acceptable to all parties involved.
Game paradigm has its own value in many ways, but not very useful for
realy life multiple
【在 c********y 的大作中提到】
: maybe a war of attrition. the mainland and Taiwan can threaten each other:
: don't mess up with me, I'll buy the island back with more money. so it's about
: each side's reservation value for the islands, and each side's resources. Jee,
: I need to study more game theory. next semester.
: Actually, To me it's just not worth while to fight with TW over these tiny
: islands. lots of money wasted, and the impression it creates for the Taiwanese
: public is not helpful to the mainland either.
: Further, what can
| k****h
发帖数: 944 | 10 Basically, I agreee with you on this arguement.
BTW, the book "getting to yes" Restless recommended is a practice-oriented
book.It is a good book.But dont expect that you can get something for your
theory building. It is generally used in the organizational behavior course of
an MBA or maybe MPA program.
main
judgement).
general
just
WARP).
will
people's
challange
be
the
【在 c********y 的大作中提到】
: maybe a war of attrition. the mainland and Taiwan can threaten each other:
: don't mess up with me, I'll buy the island back with more money. so it's about
: each side's reservation value for the islands, and each side's resources. Jee,
: I need to study more game theory. next semester.
: Actually, To me it's just not worth while to fight with TW over these tiny
: islands. lots of money wasted, and the impression it creates for the Taiwanese
: public is not helpful to the mainland either.
: Further, what can
| | | r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 11
of
Law school, especially for alternative dispute resolution, as well.
Psychological factors are always hard to incorporate in any kind of
quantitative ways. I guess you can say that this book provides a prescriptive
approach rather than a descriptive one.
【在 k****h 的大作中提到】
: Basically, I agreee with you on this arguement.
: BTW, the book "getting to yes" Restless recommended is a practice-oriented
: book.It is a good book.But dont expect that you can get something for your
: theory building. It is generally used in the organizational behavior course of
: an MBA or maybe MPA program.
:
: main
: judgement).
: general
: just
| k***g
发帖数: 7244 | 12 呵呵，都读《孙子兵法》，读出的结果也不一样啊，大家都晓得不要“背水列阵”
，韩信却能读出来“置之死地而后生”；大家都读出“军半渡可击”，谢玄却敢“
半渡”。想起了centipede game，chain -store game，故意装作 "irrational"
， 骗对手玩下去，却能得到比rational play更大的payoff。不过就有一个risk和
uncertainty的问题了。
【在 c********y 的大作中提到】
: maybe a war of attrition. the mainland and Taiwan can threaten each other:
: don't mess up with me, I'll buy the island back with more money. so it's about
: each side's reservation value for the islands, and each side's resources. Jee,
: I need to study more game theory. next semester.
: Actually, To me it's just not worth while to fight with TW over these tiny
: islands. lots of money wasted, and the impression it creates for the Taiwanese
: public is not helpful to the mainland either.
: Further, what can
| k***g
发帖数: 7244 | 13 呵呵，引用克劳塞维茨的一句话：用舌头解不开的结就用牙去咬。
台海这种high politics的谈判不同于贸易或是环境等low politics的谈判，不能和
战争割裂来看，安全的谈判，战争总是浮现在背后的。
【在 r******s 的大作中提到】
: My post was pretty clear about my position on this.
: The Art of War is the opposite of what I was suggesting. Many people use
: sports or war to analog negotiation or joint decision making (e.g, in Taiwan
: issue). Essentially it's very different. In war or sports, your foremost
: objective is to win, while in negotiation, the most productive mindset is
: create a solution that is acceptable to all parties involved.
: Game paradigm has its own value in many ways, but not very useful for
: realy life multiple
| r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 14 war is the last alternative for both sides.
【在 k***g 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，引用克劳塞维茨的一句话：用舌头解不开的结就用牙去咬。
: 台海这种high politics的谈判不同于贸易或是环境等low politics的谈判，不能和
: 战争割裂来看，安全的谈判，战争总是浮现在背后的。
| k***g
发帖数: 7244 | 15 呵呵，背水一战为什么是关于commitment-making的啊？韩信背水列阵的主要目的之
一是故意装作irrational来骗赵军倾巢而出，从而用奇兵攻占赵军的老巢全歼赵军
（当然“置之死地而后生”是另一个方面）。之所以是irrational，是因为common
knowledge是 ～[背水列阵]>[背水列阵]，这点很像一个简化版的Centipede Game
的非SPNE的strategy，第一个player如果rational应该马上结束游戏，但是这样的
payoff比较少，如果他装作irrational欺骗第二个player玩下去，那他可能获得更
大的payoff。
【在 c********y 的大作中提到】
: maybe a war of attrition. the mainland and Taiwan can threaten each other:
: don't mess up with me, I'll buy the island back with more money. so it's about
: each side's reservation value for the islands, and each side's resources. Jee,
: I need to study more game theory. next semester.
: Actually, To me it's just not worth while to fight with TW over these tiny
: islands. lots of money wasted, and the impression it creates for the Taiwanese
: public is not helpful to the mainland either.
: Further, what can
| r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 16 Restating my point:
Prescriptive solutions from game theory are not applicable to complicated real
life events such as Taiwan issue.
Talk is cheap. Why don't you take a shot at the Trust game I provided. You
tell me the best solution from game theory and I'll tell you what behavioral
science says about it. Let examples speak.
Taiwan
【在 c********y 的大作中提到】
: maybe a war of attrition. the mainland and Taiwan can threaten each other:
: don't mess up with me, I'll buy the island back with more money. so it's about
: each side's reservation value for the islands, and each side's resources. Jee,
: I need to study more game theory. next semester.
: Actually, To me it's just not worth while to fight with TW over these tiny
: islands. lots of money wasted, and the impression it creates for the Taiwanese
: public is not helpful to the mainland either.
: Further, what can
| r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 17
behavior
fairly
that
I'd be naive to say negotiation framework or any framework can
explain ALL human behavior. Forcing this argument on me doesn't help
improve your position either.
but
Again, I'm not degrading the value of game paradigm, which has and will
continue to contribute to the accumulation of knowledge.
analysis
as
The key here is empirical. If you read that article by Murnighan and
colleagues, hopefully you will understand the difference between prescriptive
solutions f
【在 c********y 的大作中提到】
: maybe a war of attrition. the mainland and Taiwan can threaten each other:
: don't mess up with me, I'll buy the island back with more money. so it's about
: each side's reservation value for the islands, and each side's resources. Jee,
: I need to study more game theory. next semester.
: Actually, To me it's just not worth while to fight with TW over these tiny
: islands. lots of money wasted, and the impression it creates for the Taiwanese
: public is not helpful to the mainland either.
: Further, what can
| f*****x
发帖数: 545 | 18 这倒不一定.关键是要找到核心的假设. 我相信多数国际关系的专家在思考问题的时候都
是,自觉或者不自觉的用了博弈论的思想. 就好象中国的春秋战国时代. 没有用模型并不
等于没有用思想.【 在 restless (灰狼本色-太善良就没有性格了) 的大作中提到: 】
real
is |
|
