You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

satt comments on A simple game that has no solution - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: James_Miller 20 July 2014 06:36PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (123)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: satt 20 July 2014 11:54:18PM 1 point [-]

That's the contradiction right there. If you are player 2 and get to move, Player 1 is not rational, because you can always reduce their payoff by picking X.

Note that "each player cares only about maximizing his own payoff". By assumption, player 2 has only a selfish preference, not a sadistic one, so they'll only choose X (or be more likely to choose X) if they expect that to improve their own expected score. If player 1 can credibly expect player 2 to play Y often enough when given the opportunity, it is not irrational for player 1 to give player 2 that opportunity by playing B or C.