The Liberal Paradox

[vulturesrow]

I thought the liberal paradox was that liberals hate America but continue to keep living here instead of moving to Canada? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The "libertarian" solution, if you can call it that, would be for the two people to talk about what they want and make a decision based on that. This would obviously result in them both going.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this "obviously" result in them both going?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we're assuming they differences in ranking are of equal value.

* Alice wants: both to go > neither to go > Alice to go > Bob to go
* Bob wants: Alice to go > both to go > neither to go > Bob to go

For Alice, both go = 4 points, neither = 3, Alice = 2 and Bob = 1

For Bob, Alice goes = 4, both = 3, neither = 2 and Bob = 1

So the winner would be both of them going.

Of course, it could be something more like:

Alice: Both go = 10, neither = 9, Alice = 8, Bob = 1

Bob: Alice goes = 10, both = 5, neither = 2, Bob = 1

In this case, Alice going would be the "right" pick, but this also assumes a lot more information than we have from the scenario and I was just going with what we had.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because they both think both go > neither go, and neither of them will go alone?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true only under the assumption that they both create a binding contract (sanctions) which is not part of the scenario. As both go is not a nash eqilibrium this isn't a simple coordination game. bob would simply deviate and stay at home. Obviously the scenario of Bob and Alice is a mere placeholder and allows for Bob to deviate without Alice knowing before arrival at the movies.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's true under the scenario that they are in a relationship and in love, which is pretty much assumed from the scenario. Being in a relationship means making decisions that are the best for both parties combined rather than making decisions for yourself alone. Obviously, if Bob doesn't love Alice, he won't care what she wants and won't go, but that makes the whole analogy even dumber than it is.

[maxtower]

Obviously

Bob wants a piece > not going to a stupid movie
and
Alice's dependency issues > allowing Bob to do something he would like

so they both go

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]


Just try tricking Alice into going to the movie and then "defecting" and not going. See how many more dates with Alice you get to play your game.



[/ QUOTE ]

I thought chicks love douchebags.

[Borodog]

OP did not specify Alice is a crazy insecure bitch with self esteem issues because Daddy molested her.

[Felz]

Deleted

and @ borodog i'm aware of all that - no point in discussing iterated games, backward induction and the likes on this politics forum - waste of time for me

and of course a guy like sen is super concerned about alice and bob and how they spend their nights out

[Borodog]

Uh huh.

[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's true under the scenario that they are in a relationship and in love, which is pretty much assumed from the scenario. Being in a relationship means making decisions that are the best for both parties combined rather than making decisions for yourself alone. Obviously, if Bob doesn't love Alice, he won't care what she wants and won't go, but that makes the whole analogy even dumber than it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a very last attempt to get through to you. If what you assume would be the case this would ldo be reflected in bob's preferences. If the assumed preferences lead you to the conclusion that bob doesn't love our wonderful alice so be it.

but i'm afraid you won't really get my point anyway coz u rather prefer to tell me what a relationship is all about and whatnot.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
megalol @ alexm - you'd make an a+ socialist and a very poor academic too - you'd probably call urself an ac'ist but ur clueless to the max

[/ QUOTE ]

Random personal attacks are always quite convincing. Always a sure sign that someone has lost the argument and isn't man enough to admit it.

Also, which do you think is true, that I call myself an ACist or that I should call myself an ACist but am too clueless to do so?

Also...

"ur clueless"

ROFL @ irony