I’ll check it out. Here’s an interesting game theory thing that won a guy a Nobel Prize.
A and B are volunteers for an experiment. They’re playing a game. Here are the rules:
a) If you both play fair, you both get $50.
b) If you cheat, you get $75, and the other guy gets $25.
c) If the other guy cheats, you can get your $25. Or you can get only $10, and the cheater will get only $25.
Conventional game theory said that in the c) situation, everyone would take the $25, because it maximizes their personal gain. But we all know what the real life volunteers did. The jabbed the cheater and took the $10. Because the emotional satisfaction of jabbing the jerk was worth it to them.
Amazingly, this revelation shocked the crap out of economists, around 2012 or so. And the new Irrationality Theory theory of Economics won a Nobel Prize. You mean, they really thought people always make the most rational decision to maximize their own benefit? I always thought that part of conventional economics game theory was bollocks. The economists had never heard of cigarettes, tequila, or sex without birth control before?
(Edit: Oops, a similar test, I should have played the linked game before posting. But maybe the post about a variation will trigger some discussion).