Re: Survivor - game theory
The players on "Survivor" may not have been smart enough, but the players on "The Price is Right" pursue the correct strategy all the time (bids of $1 if they think everyone has overbid or bids of $1 higher than the highest bid if they think everyone has underbid.) James
Re: Survivor - game theory
The first player is at disadvantage when he has to pick first. If he is smart then he would pick a number that lines in the middle. The second player will then pick the same number that is one less or more depending which side has more numbers. I wonder what kind of strategy is taken when it comes to marriages/divorce? --- Alex Tabarrok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyone see survivor last night? When asked to pick > a number between 1 > and 1000 (presumably the closest number to the one > in the questioner's > head would win her vote) the first contestant chose > 3 and the second > chose 886! Incredibly poor strategy on both > contestants part especially > when a million dollars was at stake. > > (For students and others on the list wondering > what the correct > strategy is note that this game is the same as the > median voter theorem > or Hotelling's two firm location problem. If the > first person chose 3 > the second person should have chosen 4 thereby > winning if the number was > 4 or more. Thus, what should the first person have > chosen?) > > Alex > -- > Dr. Alexander Tabarrok > Vice President and Director of Research > The Independent Institute > 100 Swan Way > Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 > Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
Re: Only Economists Tell the Truth?
Here is another reason, that just occured to me, why survey questions may not help us as much as we would like even on those questions where they are relevant. In economics we are typically interested in what matters at the margin and this may be difficult to discover in a survey question. Take Robin's question about why people go to school. The answer could truthfully be because my friends are going/because my father said I should etc. while at the same time it could be also be true that an increase in the wage rate reduces the number of people going to school. It seems to me that this may be difficult to pick up in survey questions though I suppose we could ask questions like - What factors would raise the probability that you would attend/not attend school? - this sort of counter-factual, however, is a more difficult question to answer than the factual about why you did what you did but the answer to the latter question is an average while we are interested in the marginal. Alex P.S. Yes, economists are inconsistent. -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Only Economists Tell the Truth?
So, the question is in the LEVEL of inquiry firms are in it to make money-Firm Level the results of their actions maybe be "No firm intends to push price to marginal cost"-Industry Level? -Original Message- From: Alex Tabarrok [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only Economists Tell the Truth? I think Robin exaggerates the extent to which social science would be easier if we could just ask people why they do things. To be sure, there is a tradition in economics that survey results about intentions and ideas (as opposed to age and income!) are not to be trusted. I agree this tradition is overdone and am happy to see work such as Bewley's on why firms hold wages fixed etc. Much of economics, however, concerns effects which are no part of anyone's intention - hence Adam Smith's metaphor of the *invisible* hand. For macro effects of micro behavior there is no point asking people what they intend. No firm intends to push price to marginal cost, no firm intends to use inputs in just such a way that social value of those resources in alternative uses is minimized, no investor intends to impart his knowledge into prices - but this is what happens. Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Only Economists Tell the Truth?
Am I correct in detecting a *hint* of facetiousness in your reference to age and income as more trustworthy? I remember reading that asking what year a person was born is more likely to yield an accurate answer than asking age - math aptitude really is not what it could (should) be, is it... As to income, I would imagine that definitional issues have an impact (do you mean BEA or Census income?) As far as the general thread goes, I could see the case for lumping perceptions and intentions into a similar ethereal realm where the cost of taking a hard look at one's own perceptions and intentions is not worth the value of giving better survey answers (even ignoring the strategic value of lying to respondents in many cases). Following along the line of the how would you rate ___ in the US today, what about __ in your neighborhood - type questions and the finding that people think their own neighborhood is better than the average (the lake woebegone effect) - if nothing else it explains why they haven't moved... Salutations, Brian Moore - Original Message - From: "Alex Tabarrok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:35 AM Subject: Re: Only Economists Tell the Truth? >I think Robin exaggerates the extent to which social science would be > easier if we could just ask people why they do things. To be sure, > there is a tradition in economics that survey results about intentions > and ideas (as opposed to age and income!) are not to be trusted. I agree > this tradition is overdone and am happy to see work such as Bewley's on > why firms hold wages fixed etc. Much of economics, however, concerns > effects which are no part of anyone's intention - hence Adam Smith's > metaphor of the *invisible* hand. For macro effects of micro behavior > there is no point asking people what they intend. No firm intends to > push price to marginal cost, no firm intends to use inputs in just such > a way that social value of those resources in alternative uses is > minimized, no investor intends to impart his knowledge into prices - but > this is what happens. > > Alex > -- > Dr. Alexander Tabarrok > Vice President and Director of Research > The Independent Institute > 100 Swan Way > Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 > Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Only Economists Tell the Truth?
Alexander Tabarrok wrote: >I think Robin exaggerates the extent to which social science would be >easier if we could just ask people why they do things. To be sure, >there is a tradition in economics that survey results about intentions >and ideas ... are not to be trusted. I agree this tradition is overdone >... Much of economics, however, concerns effects which are no part of >anyone's intention ... Fair enough. I guess many of the questions I'm most interested in, including many "armchair" type questions, are about why people do the things they do. For example, why go to school or hire someone from school, why go to the doctor, why so risk averse regarding stock investments, etc. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Only Economists Tell the Truth?
I think Robin exaggerates the extent to which social science would be easier if we could just ask people why they do things. To be sure, there is a tradition in economics that survey results about intentions and ideas (as opposed to age and income!) are not to be trusted. I agree this tradition is overdone and am happy to see work such as Bewley's on why firms hold wages fixed etc. Much of economics, however, concerns effects which are no part of anyone's intention - hence Adam Smith's metaphor of the *invisible* hand. For macro effects of micro behavior there is no point asking people what they intend. No firm intends to push price to marginal cost, no firm intends to use inputs in just such a way that social value of those resources in alternative uses is minimized, no investor intends to impart his knowledge into prices - but this is what happens. Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Survivor - game theory
Anyone see survivor last night? When asked to pick a number between 1 and 1000 (presumably the closest number to the one in the questioner's head would win her vote) the first contestant chose 3 and the second chose 886! Incredibly poor strategy on both contestants part especially when a million dollars was at stake. (For students and others on the list wondering what the correct strategy is note that this game is the same as the median voter theorem or Hotelling's two firm location problem. If the first person chose 3 the second person should have chosen 4 thereby winning if the number was 4 or more. Thus, what should the first person have chosen?) Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Only Economists Tell the Truth?
I detect something of a tension in academic economics. Social science would be vastly easier than economists make it out to be if we could usually just ask people why they do things. But economists are generally skeptical of this approach, and so try to infer reasons from behavior, rather than from verbal explanations. Yet within academia economists seem to rely heavily on what other economists say, including about why they do things. We seem to largely accept economists explanations for why they take on certain research projects, for why they make the choices they do in modeling or regressions, and for why they reject or accept papers or people, etc. Do we in fact rely on economists' explanations of their own behavior as little as we rely on other people's explanations of their behavior? Do we really think economists are more honest than others? Or are we just inconsistent? Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
On the CRA and "narrow" interests
Bill is right about the role of "narrow but important" constituencies, and right to use the CRA as a case in point. During drafting of the Financial Services Modernization Act (the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill), the Hill saw heavy lobbying on this act. The banks see CRA as extortion by community groups such as ACORN. The community groups see CRA as essential to promoting lending in low-income areas. Towards the end, the stakes got so high (read: fear that Gramm was going to impose real limits on the CRA) that Jesse Jackson started showing up and twisting arms in person. > >But politicians spend a lot of energy working on issues that no one has > >ever lost an election on. To take one tiny example, both Bush and Gore > >made a loud point about their support for the Community Reinvestment > >Act. Who votes on that? > > A _lot_ more people than vote on adoption laws. In particular there are a lot of >Hispanic community development organizations that can deliver a lot of votes for whom >this was a touchstone issue. Look deep enough at any issue that gets a lot of >attention and you will find either a broad interest in the issue or a narrow but >important constituency. Otherwise the issue would be ignored. > - - Bill >
