Whatever game theories can tell us, a mutual understanding within the gaming body is the momumental presumption. However selfish people want to or have to be, they can at least try to understand each other's selfishness first before they try to arrive at any equilibrium solutions. Whether the solution fits some ethical ideals such as equality is a matter of interpretation, and the very pursuit for such ideals can hinder the effort to understand each other, without which games become more asymmetric and we will be farther away from whatever we were seeking.
Don't forget that all reasonable considerations (such as the need for equality) should be included in the payoff matrix of the game as to make it self-contained...
ReplyDeletejj, now I know, social preferences :P they don't even have to understand each other and there will still be equilibrium, like in learning theory (strategies like imitation or experience based), and I think they have to check superiority by case, and NE playing doesn't have to be optimal (for example when corporation is needed - I'm thinking of battle of sex - it might be better if one person is sophisticated and can manipulate some experience-learning others to play a fixed strategy rather than both randomizing all the time). Anyway, rather than attacking equality, I think I was more detesting ideology-driven decisions :P
Delete