John
F. Nash Jr. was best known for advances in game theory, which is
essentially the study of how to come up with a winning strategy in the
game of life — especially when you do not know what your competitors are
doing and the choices do not always look promising.
Dr.
Nash did not invent game theory; the mathematician John von Neumann did
the pioneering work to establish the field in the first half of the
20th century. But Dr. Nash extended the analysis beyond zero-sum,
I-win-you-lose types of games to more complex situations in which all of
the players could gain, or all could lose.
The
central concept is the Nash equilibrium, roughly defined as a stable
state in which no player can gain advantage through a unilateral change
of strategy assuming the others do not change what they are doing.
While
his friends banter about which of them would successfully woo the
blonde, Dr. Nash concludes they should do the opposite: Ignore her. “If
we all go for the blonde,” he says, “we block each other and not a
single one of us is going to get her. So then we go for her friends, but
they will all give us the cold shoulder because nobody likes to be
second choice. But what if no one goes to the blonde? We don’t get in
each other’s way and we don’t insult the other girls. That’s the only
way we win.”
While
this never-happened-in-real-life episode illustrates some of the
machinations that game theorists consider, it is not an example of a
Nash equilibrium.
A
simpler example is what is known as the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Two
conspirators in a crime are arrested and offered a deal: “If you confess
and testify against your accomplice, we’ll let you off and throw the
book at the other guy — 10 years in prison.”
If
both stay quiet, the prosecutors cannot prove the more serious charges
and both would spend just a year behind bars for lesser crimes. If both
confess, the prosecutors would not need their testimony, and both would
get eight-year prison sentences.
At first glance, keeping quiet might seem the best strategy. If both did so, both would get off fairly lightly.
But the calculation of the Nash equilibrium shows they would likely both confess.
This
type of problem is called a noncooperative game, which means the two
prisoners cannot convey intentions to each other. Without knowing what
the other prisoner is doing, each is faced with this choice: If he
confesses, he could end up with freedom or eight years in prison. If he
stays quiet, he goes to prison for one year or 10 years.
In
that light, confessing is the better option. And he knows that the
other prisoner has the same incentive to confess, so it is less likely
he would stay quiet.
Further,
changing strategy to staying mum would be a bad move — longer prison
term — unless the other prisoner somehow also decided to do that.
Without any communication, that would be a highly risky guess, and thus,
this strategy represents a Nash equilibrium.
The
bar scene, however, does not. With four men chasing four brunettes, any
of the men could be tempted to chase the blonde instead, a more
desirable outcome if his friends did not also change strategy.
Get Hourly Updates From Our BBM : 7F1B43A6