🧵 According to game theory why does organizing work?
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 16:30:05 UTC No. 16113863
Why do industry cartels get better prices for their products?
Why do unionized workers get better wages?
Why are cohesive armies better in combat than a bunch of independent soldiers acting independently?
Some of this sounds obvious, yet i want to read about what SCIENCE has to say about it. I want both studies done as theory, as experiments and as simulations.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 16:35:47 UTC No. 16113874
>>16113863
Mass actions average the below averages to way better averages.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 16:39:47 UTC No. 16113879
>>16113874
ok but why.
Put that in SCIENCE terms.
I want some studies with SOURCES. This topic is too important to let it to intuition, moreso in a society obsessed with science
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 16:46:25 UTC No. 16113893
>>16113863
well most people are looking for the principles behind this when they ask "why X and Y", but you seem to be looking for examples/evidence?
i just want to understand what you're looking for
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 16:49:46 UTC No. 16113898
>>16113893
>well most people are looking for the principles behind this when they ask "why X and Y", but you seem to be looking for examples/evidence?
For all of it.
The simples would be case studies with control groups like its done in psychology studied.
The more abstract would be game theory theorems
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 16:54:24 UTC No. 16113906
>>16113879
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most
Organization become superglue for individual making everybody acting in same way or for one goal, incrementing the probability of changes with small coordinated actions.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 16:57:42 UTC No. 16113914
>>16113906
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_L
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 17:10:44 UTC No. 16113935
>>16113906
Im pleased because i already read this material by Taleb. Im not sure if its directly related to what im asking, yes, intolerance wins, is that related to organization tho?
>>16113914
=
suggestive name, will check it
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 17:14:47 UTC No. 16113947
>>16113863
Superrationality.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 17:17:04 UTC No. 16113954
>>16113863
They aren't/don't.
Organization "works" only while the marginal advantages of the utility function continue to outweigh the overhead of the organization itself. Even then, if the organization is not very heterogeneous then you're not going to get the benefits since you can't get specialization either.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 17:29:12 UTC No. 16113970
>>16113954
>Organization "works" only while the marginal advantages of the utility function continue to outweigh the overhead of the organization itself.
Fair enough, but do you have a theoretical model to back that up? What you wrote sounds as common sense which is the opposite of what im looking for.
Yes, theres a cost in organizing, and if the benefits are so small that they are no greater than this cost, it failed. An example would be a workers union where union dues exceed any improvement in salaries or working conditions (if you could put that in terms of money).
But my question is why does organizing at all lead to any improvement, and common sense isnt good enough of an answer. This needs to be dressed as science, the simplest science to address this would be in the form of psychological experiments
>>16113947
I dont know what superrationality is. Sounds like a tag or banal labeling of something else, masquerading as knowledge
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 17:32:10 UTC No. 16113974
>>16113970
>I dont know what superrationality is.
Then look it up, it's what it's called in game theory.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 17:34:49 UTC No. 16113979
>>16113974
Can i get a QRD?
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:04:44 UTC No. 16114013
>>16113979
It means you pick the best overall strategy, rather than an individual choice.
For example:
Let's say that if we both cooperate, we both get $100 each. If one of us defects, he gets $200, and the other gets nothing. If we bothe defect, we only get $1 each.
The best for me is that I defect while you cooperate, but you get nothing from that so you would also defect, and we would only get $1. The next best for me is when we both cooperate, and I get $100. It's also the second best for you, and that makes it the best option for both. If I know that you are superrational, I know that you come to the same conclusion, and cooperate.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:05:36 UTC No. 16114014
>>16114013
Rattle. Cattle.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:07:22 UTC No. 16114017
>>16114014
You have a rattle installed for its natural effect only and nothing more. Don't be too hasty, you're probably having your usual tard moment.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:08:28 UTC No. 16114018
>>16114017
See: perfect installation
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:10:39 UTC No. 16114021
>>16114014
Are you retarded?
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:11:42 UTC No. 16114026
>>16114017
You allow others to rattle it at will, it fights back causes tension and relapse.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:12:30 UTC No. 16114027
>>16114013
>The next best for me is when we both cooperate, and I get $100. It's also the second best for you, and that makes it the best option for both.
Perhaps better would be: and you don't have a better choice that wouldn't make ME defect.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:15:28 UTC No. 16114034
>>16113970
>But my question is why does organizing at all lead to any improvement, and common sense isnt good enough of an answer.
>This needs to be dressed as science, the simplest science to address this would be in the form of psychological experiments
What are you even talking about? If I define a rigorous mathematical utility function you don't get to say "I want to read popsci, preferably with evopsych speculation instead". If I put it in terms of money, are you going to pretend that you get to reject it? If I line up the Bayesian equations do you imagine you can say "that's only 99.9999434% likely to be true given the studies results" and think I'll let you off like that?
At least give me an excuse to develop something for you.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:20:19 UTC No. 16114044
>>16114034
>If I define a rigorous mathematical utility function you don't get to say "I want to read popsci, preferably with evopsych speculation instead".
I accept both types of arguments.
You can make a mathematical argument if it can be made. I dont know if game theory has any actual math in it, all i have seen of it are cutesy multiple selection games like prisoners dilemma. To me, that isnt math.
I prefer a math approach,if possible. However from an utilitarian perspective some psychological study slop is almost as good since its "a study"
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:20:42 UTC No. 16114045
>>16114034
He got his answer, but refuses to look it up. You are wasting your time.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:25:29 UTC No. 16114053
>>16114045
I didnt refuse to look up anything
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:43:37 UTC No. 16114080
>>16114053
Superrationality is the answer to your question.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:48:49 UTC No. 16114090
>>16114080
Ok.
Unrelated, is game theory an actual field of mathematics? What little i have seen of it its just these games like prisoners dilemma.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 20:31:45 UTC No. 16114217
>>16114090
>Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in many fields of social science, used extensively in economics as well as in logic, systems science and computer science.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 21:11:14 UTC No. 16114271
>>16114217
OK but how is it a field of mathematics? Are these games and their analysis formal mathematical objects ?
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 21:16:43 UTC No. 16114282
>>16114271
you keep moving the goalpost. if you fail to understand how game theory and mathematics are related then maybe try something else
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 21:31:59 UTC No. 16114309
>>16114282
i asked a different question, that isnt moving a goalpost. Im allowed to ask more than one question in a thread
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 21:36:00 UTC No. 16114313
Anyway, i think i got enough sources from this thread. Game theory is as good as it gets as an argument.
My motivation was in having thoughtful and scientific arguments against corporate shilling, that went beyond intuition and common sense, but also to understand social structures such as dictatorships or the jews
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:04:04 UTC No. 16114503
>>16114309
No you are not! *swings you by the arms around the room until you vomit, swinging quick enough the vomit and now poo go back into your face through their launch trajectories*
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:26:30 UTC No. 16114540
>>16114503
>*swings you by the arms around the room until you vomit, swinging quick enough the vomit and now poo go back into your face through their launch trajectories*
I don't see how this system conserves angular momentum, can someone draw a free body diagram?
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:52:05 UTC No. 16114561
>>16114503
/thread
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:54:41 UTC No. 16114566
>>16114503
kek
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 13:11:48 UTC No. 16115151
>>16114013
>>16114027
I still feel that something is missing there, though. It isn't entirely like that.
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 13:23:34 UTC No. 16115162
>>16115151
It isnt entirely clear what "the best" means here. Best for me or best for everyone?
Thinking only about yourself is what leads to red terror types of situations where you do everything you can to survive like throwing people under the bus to save yourself.
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 13:26:58 UTC No. 16115163
It's a no
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 15:01:54 UTC No. 16115278
>>16113863
Organizing resists entropy
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 15:05:18 UTC No. 16115280
>>16115278
so what? Thats an empty truism. Organization defeats non-organization? Duh
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 20:10:03 UTC No. 16115691
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 00:03:26 UTC No. 16116080
>>16115691
See, that's what puzzles me: how is the vomit and poo still moving in a circle when anon is no longer exerting any torque on it? By Newton's first law, it should be moving in a straight line, at least.
Appreciate the effort though.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 00:13:35 UTC No. 16116090
>>16116080
anon is way faster, the shit barely moves
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 01:01:10 UTC No. 16116150
>>16116090
>anon is way faster
I guess that's possible, but then he's essentially implementing a sprinkler system right?
So the shit should be spraying away from them at high velocity, not remaining in place.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 06:39:57 UTC No. 16116493
>>16115162
No. I think it's just hard to define because of the lacking frameworks. And it was the pseudorational individualistic "rational" choice that resulted in the extreme ideology that we are forced to live in, in some kind of misguided attempt to either breed people to be more rational, or otherwise create a better society, not realizing that normal people can be quite a bit smarter about their relationships that these simplistic math ideas suggest. If I remember correctly, it was only called "superrational" because the author disagreed about what choices are actually rational, and didn't want to argue over it.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:06:33 UTC No. 16117134
>>16116150
its a spiral path, the radius increases with the angle
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:38:22 UTC No. 16117317
>>16116150
As the projectiles escape from the initial body, the force exerted upon the projectile is not consistent throughout. As the projectile further extracts, the force curves relatively to the connected to the initial bodies momentum and the forces exerted on the current sized projectile. Once the projectile escapes, if it made it past the threshold of conserved angular momentum, it continues on a curved trajectory. Any projectile that does not meet past the force and size required skews such as in your posted diagram, likely the secondary and tertiary effects of the primary projectiles.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:04:03 UTC No. 16117550
>>16114271
Yes.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 08:00:15 UTC No. 16118280
>>16113863
Economy of Scale
Price Fixing
Strategic Design
Supply and Demand