Note:
* * * * * *
Advance Manual : 226-B Speaking to Inform
Project # 5 : The Abstract Concept
Title : The Judges' Dilemma: Game Theory Application
Delivered at : PICPA Riyadh Toastmasters Club
Evaluated by : ACB/ALB John Erick Tapales
Target Norm : Advance Communicator Silver
* * * * * *
<<Slide 1>>
Few days ago, I attended a competition here in Riyadh. Like any competition that I’ve been, the fight was fierce, emotional, and full of color! When the winners were announced, mixed reactions echoed in the floor. Some booed saying the judging was bias… while others silently agreed that the judging was fair.
John Von Neumann established the Game Theory in his book “Theory of Games and Economic Behavior”. This field of applied mathematics became essential in predicting behavioral response in the field of social science, economics, biology and more importantly military applications. Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher noted a fundamental problem “why two people of set of people may not cooperate even if it is far more beneficial if they do cooperate”? Albert William Tucker formalized the problem statement as the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
To illustrate what is the Judge’s Dilemma, allow me to quantify the statement.
Assuming you play this only for one time – single game.
For multiple games, the strategy changes dramatically, particularly, if the number of games played is unknown. What is the best choice? Bias all the time.
In real life, however, staying Bias rarely exist. Even in the harshest competition, the participant, being a rational being, considers the following decision making factors:
- Similar to what I have done while working ACB, I started three Advance Manuals at the same time; two intended for ACS and the other for ACG.
- The reason why I opted to start multiple manuals is to break the monotony of working on a single manual.
- This is my graduation speech for the Educational Award of Advance Communicator Silver
* * * * * *
Advance Manual : 226-B Speaking to Inform
Project # 5 : The Abstract Concept
Title : The Judges' Dilemma: Game Theory Application
Delivered at : PICPA Riyadh Toastmasters Club
Evaluated by : ACB/ALB John Erick Tapales
Target Norm : Advance Communicator Silver
* * * * * *
<<Slide 1>>
Few days ago, I attended a competition here in Riyadh. Like any competition that I’ve been, the fight was fierce, emotional, and full of color! When the winners were announced, mixed reactions echoed in the floor. Some booed saying the judging was bias… while others silently agreed that the judging was fair. Good evening, fellow Toastmasters. Guests, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to PRTC!
While all of this things were happenings, I was there in a corner smiling. The situation reminds me of a game theory application called the Judges’ Dilemma. You may ask, what is this theory all about and what is its impact to human behavior?
<<Slide 2>>
John Von Neumann established the Game Theory in his book “Theory of Games and Economic Behavior”. This field of applied mathematics became essential in predicting behavioral response in the field of social science, economics, biology and more importantly military applications. Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher noted a fundamental problem “why two people of set of people may not cooperate even if it is far more beneficial if they do cooperate”? Albert William Tucker formalized the problem statement as the Prisoner’s Dilemma.In 2010, TM Nathan, renamed it as Judges’ Dilemma. Seriously, TM Nathan just renamed it. All the principles and concepts belongs to the mathematicians, not that handsome cute guy over there.
<<Slide 3>>
To illustrate what is the Judge’s Dilemma, allow me to quantify the statement.Say we have two judges – A and B. They are given two choice: Fair Judging and Bias Judging. The possible decisions would yield with the following results:
- If judge A chooses Bias and judge B chooses Fair = judge A gets a trophy, while judge B gets nothing
- If judge B chooses Bias and judge A chooses Fair = judge B gets a trophy, while judge A gets nothing
- If both judges chooses Bias, both of them get nothing
- If both judges chooses Fair, both of them receives a ribbon
If you are a judge, what will be your decision? Let’s take a look.
<<Slide 4>>
Assuming you play this only for one time – single game. Obviously, with the given, the best choice would be to play Fair – that is, both of the judges gets a reward. The payoff may not be greater, but the salient implication is … both judges will be happy! Is it? Well, that is the theory!
However, in real life, experiments shows that human has 40% tendency to maximize his/her benefit regardless of what the other would choose. Hence, in this single game, the rational choice is to choose Bias! Is this statement familiar: “I’m better off with both of us ending nothing, than you having everything”?
<<Slide 5>>
For multiple games, the strategy changes dramatically, particularly, if the number of games played is unknown. What is the best choice? Bias all the time. Allow me to illustrate. Let say Judge A chooses to stay Bias all the time. If in game 1, Judge B chooses Bias, both of them gets nothing. If along the way, Judge B made a mistake of choosing Fair, Judge A will have a reward. Assuming both judges stayed Bias, Judge A already wins. Greedy, isn’t it?
Theoretically, that is the juxtaposition of best possibilities.
<<Slide 6>>
In real life, however, staying Bias rarely exist. Even in the harshest competition, the participant, being a rational being, considers the following decision making factors:- Previous decision
Is this the first time? Does he/she does this all the time?
- Negotiation
You talk to the opponent and try to achieve common ground
- Level of Trust
Confidence that your opponent will honor the negotiation
- Big Brother
Is there someone who can force the players to choose a particular option
<<Slide 7>>
Using these four factors, you strategize your play as follows - Nice
You play FAIR.
When your opponent plays BIAS, your decision strategy will be: Revenge and Forgive.
- ·Revenge
Revenge is an action that retaliates to the defection done. In our case, Judge A will now decide to be Bias, until Judge A retort back to nice or Fair. If the both judges continues to choose Bias, the game became useless and the little gain that Judge B achieved becomes insignificant.
- Forgive
During negotiation, a player may forgive the opponent depending on the gravity of the defection. Possible, it was unintentional, miscommunication, or lapse of judgment… all of which can be forgiven as long the offending player promise not to repeat the defection.
- Non-envious
The player chooses to be nice all the time. This is considered a weak strategy because he/she can be manipulated by the other player and is particularly dangerous during multiple players games. One may choose to lose so one particular player get undue advantage.
<<Slide 8>>
Just a quick look. This is a simulation of multiple games showing several playing strategies. The game matures with Nice strategy adopted by both players.<<Slide 9>>
You may ask: With all this analysis of Judges’ Dilemma, is it applicable to the TM competition? Certainly!- Is TM competition a multiple n-games scenario?
We just concluded our 9th annual competition, and certainly there are more competition to come… perhaps even after our lifetime.
- What is our Rational Choice when selected to participate as judge?
Choose Fair!
- What if they other judges are bias?
Strategize!
o Negotiate and inform the offending judge about the Bias choice, then forgive
o If offense is continued, use “Big Brother”, then forgive
o Continue to Nice Strategy
- Who is our “Big Brother”?
Chief Judge, Club Officers, Area Officers, Division Officers, District Officers, TI Officers
In parting my fellow Toastmasters, next time we participate in any competition check if this is a single game or multiple game event. If this is a single game, then expect biases or unfair competition. If this is a multiple game event, then be glad! Even if there are biases, unfair competition during your time, the players will mature eventually as the games progresses.
TM competition? It is fair. This is proven in science and not a wishful thinking.
Back to you evening master
