Neural basis of game theory - Essay Example

Neural Basis of Game Theory Introduction The decision making process in the social groups consists of two distinguishing feature: being human factor, and the animal constant change of behavior to suit their physical and social behavior. The situation does not create room for behavior predictions in various circumstances; as the parties making the decisions are subject to change. In the cases of animals, it requires a highly adaptive decision making strategies for one to forecast various outcomes.

Secondly decision makers can have favorites, in relation to consequences. This may result to bias decision towards one individual as opposed to the other, and hence select an action that will develop or degrade the well being of others. Various neurobiologists’ research employs the use of game theory to investigate the neural foundation of decision making; and proposes that the social characteristics of social decision making mirrors the purposes of the brain areas that responds to reward evaluation and reinforcement learning.

The game theory appears as having evolutionary and growth stages that end up affecting the reasoning of different groups of people (Glimcher, 288).Game theory situation involves the process of decision making, where the results depend on the choice made by the players in question. The word game comes from any occurrence with negative or positive outcomes influenced by the choice made by the player; while sometimes the decision is based on chance (Glimcher, 290).Evolution of game theoryThe game theory evolved from different studies done by different researchers over a period of time.

In 1921, a French mathematician named Emile Borel, issued numerous papers tackling the theory of games using poker as exhibition. Later in the year 1928 another paper by John Von Neumann was published. Subsequently, the year 1944, John Von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern collaborated and discovered the theory of games and economic behavior. There appears a significant level of growth in the theory of games when, Prisoner’s dilemma comes into play in the year 1950, which introduced the dominant strategy theory.

The 1953 marks the introduction of the answer to non cooperative games which comes in play as a result of evolution of Nash equilibrium. In the years 1970, the theory gains extensive application and biology with the growth of evolutionary game theory. The year 2007 marks its extensive use in almost field for decision making intentions; the software that tracks down terrorists uses the theory of games (Glimcher, 305).The assumptions of the game theoryThe theory assumes that the player appears rational; acting without any influence.

The players’ preferences influence the outcome of the game, yet individual players contribute partially to the results. Individual decision makers appear as a master of the game and his opposition (Glimcher, 315).Classification of the game theoryThe game theory is classified into -: single players and multi player games; cooperative and non cooperative games; symmetric versus asymmetric games; zero sum versus non zero sum games, simultaneous versus sequential games; cooperative and non cooperative games; symmetric versus asymmetric games; zero sum versus non zero sum games, simultaneous versus sequential games and the perfect information and the imperfect information (Glimcher, 318).

The single player situation occurs in the games against nature. The results and the players’ ultimatum depends on the player’s choice and strategy made by a totally indifference nature. The game against nature forms part of the decision theory; as opposed to game theory; since there appears only one player subject to independent choices and interested in the results (Glimcher, 334).Multiple players, for example, the prisoner’s dilemma traveler’s Dilemma, the battle of the sexes, Dinners Dilemma, Rock paper, scissors, amongst others make independent decisions.

In prisoners’ dilemma, both prisoners are guaranteed to fault regardless of, the actions of the other prisoner. Despite the fault, their efforts reward them of some sub-optimal input. The game occurs when prisoner B stays silent; he/she confesses, cooperates and defects. Prisoner A maintains quite, prisoner A is sentenced to 1 year. Each prisoner serves the sentence for one month and cooperates. Prisoner B is released; prisoner A confesses; he is set free and individual prisoners serve 3 month, defect, Prisoners B serves 1 year (Glimcher, 338).

In the battle of the sexes, a couple agrees to meet up at twilight yet, they have not agreed on the spot, and it appears impossible to communicate now. They have two choices; the opera and the football match. Their outcomes matrix can take the form of football by-Opera given Opera 3, 2, 1, 1 football 0,02,3 (Glimcher, 345).In the dinners Dilemma situation, a grouping of persons decides to go out on a dinner together. They consent on splitting the bill cheque amongst themselves on equal terms. Each person is left with the decision to either make the orders on the expensive dish or chose the cheap dish.

The allegations appear to favor the expensive dish over the cheap dish yet the price differential remains unjustified (Glimcher, 348).The penalty in the dinner’s dilemma appears to add expenses an insignificant amount into their individuals’ bill. This way the group justifies the price of experience opt to a classic dinner experience. In assumption, this appears worse than a situation where each individual orders for their cheaper meals (Glimcher, 350).There also appears two-player zero sum game named the rock, paper, scissors.

In this game no matter the actions of the individuals players the mathematical probability of winning, drawing or losing appears exactly the same. The game possesses a dominant quality; where the same person always wins; and appears in the value revolve championships which take place annually. Child 2 rock paper scissors rock 0, 0-1, 1, 1. –Child paper 1, -1 0, 0-, 1 scissors rock 0, 0-1, 11,-10, 0 (Glimcher, 384).Travelers’ dilemma situation case originally appears as the plans of Dr Kaushik Basu in 1994.

In this situation, every player values their belonging for a price of any amount between $2 and $100. The travelers are refunded the lower amount of the two claims. The lower claimant is rewarded an extra $2 which is refunded by the highest claimant by imposing in him a charge of $2 (Glimcher, 390).The travel dilemmas complexity exists; the independent strategy for the travelers appears as the claim for the lesser which appears as $2. In realism, people opt for $100, to show off their financial ability.

The testing rewards individuals for averting from the Nash stability and acting in imbalance. The reality pauses questions; concerning game theory. Consequently, the reasoning of the super rationality originates from the idea. The argument presented by the theorist views that, under normal strategies, $100 appears as the best answer for the predicament (Glimcher, 408).Strategies that appear applicable in the game theory involve the dominant strategy, which maintains no matter the efforts of the players.

In the minimax strategy, the player aims at maximizing the minimum returns that he achieves. The collusion strategy occurs when the players decides amongst themselves to work together to maximize their total contribution. They operate on the policy of tit for tat; where a player receives an action and bounces back to the action. The backward induction occurs when the player bases his strategy on his opponent’s weakness and then reverts on the strategy. The Markov strategy the player founds their strategy on his present situation whilst ignoring the past experiences (Glimcher, 412).

Works CitedGlimcher, P. W. Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain. London: Academic Press, 2008. Print.