Game Theory Essay example

In order to evaluate my role within the group it is important to identify what makes a group. A group must

the five personality factor theory, as well as the theories on which it is based.

Specifically, this paper will address the following topics: the definition of a group, the roles played within the group, a description of the group member personalities, the intended focus of the group, how the group worked together as a team and the process that was involved, how conflict was resolved, and how the group emerged as a group at the end of the situation.

We all played a game to get to know each other. We took a piece of paper while the instructor gave us an example,

Personality can be defined through the model used in Parker’s et al. (2004) study which includes agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, neuroticism, and extraversion. Agreeableness is getting along with other people, conscientiousness is the ability to stay on task, openness is how a person adapts to change, neuroticism is a predisposition to negative emotions, and extraversion is the need for sensation-seeking. Together those personality dimensions describe individual differences. To measure these dimensions, a common tool used was the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. This was a self-report questionnaire containing 60 items, and a score is calculated to indicate the level of each dimension.

The prisoner’s dilemma is a game theory in which two men are caught drug running and are imprisoned in different cells unable to communicate. They each have their own lawyer and both are confronted with the choices to stay silent or to confess. They are told that if they both choose to stay silent, then they will each serve one year with a lesser offense of possessing dangerous weapons due to no evidence of the major crime. If one confesses and the other stays silent then the one that confesses will be freed for turning in evidence and the other will be imprisoned for 10 years as well as be charged for the major crime. If they both confess, they will both serve 5 years. They both want to serve the least amount of time for their crime and are both rational. There is no opportunity to change the decision after it has been made and neither of them knows what decision the other will make. This dilemma is a type of dominance principle, where the best plan will gain the prisoner a larger benefit or payoff than the other strategies with the least amount of risk. In this case, the payoff would be the time spent in prison; the less time in prison, the larger the payoff is.

As I looked around the room, I saw thirty boards being set up. Around each board sat two players who despite being friendly, were at war with each other. As I watched all thirty battles progress, I listened to the room; ripe with conversation.

After taking the Big 5 Personality inventory exam I have discover quite a lot about myself. From greatest to least my scores fell as followed; Agreeableness (34), Conscientiousness (32), Extroversion (30), Openness to Experience (29), and Neuroticism (25). Viewing my scores and reflecting on them I have made many discoveries and revelations about my personality that I had never considered before. Each one of the scores told me something different about myself.

The purpose of this self-evaluation letter is to consider and evaluate myself as one of group 24 members. So, I set three significant main criteria of attributes and skills, which are based on two group projects and three presentations, that they are definitely important in a group member. They are time management skill, participation, and effort.

Group formation has always been a challenge as it involves bringing individuals with different personalities and opinions together to get a common goal achieved. (Forsyth,1999). The difficulty lies within the disposition of each individual and the way they interpret and approach a situation to get the end result. Gustav Jung has identified twelve different personalities, which he calls primary archetypes that symbolize basic human motivations. Each type has its own set of values, meanings and personality traits.

you posses. Two of these tools are the DISC and Jung Typology personality assessments. These

Being successful is always challenging as part of a group or team. There are number of reasons why this is challenging, such as a number of people involved and everyone’s cooperation, agreement, commitments, contribution, combined effort and shared values are required (McClean & Collins, 2011). Group work demands common goals and agreements, mutual understanding, more discussion which is sometime hard to manage to some extent (Détienne, 2006). Recently, I got the opportunity to become a part of MGT210 assessment group of four members. Personally, I feel that our group work was successful to some extent. We managed to develop relationship which is a criteria that indicates successful group work (Ismail Al-Alawi, Yousif Al-Marzooqi, & Fraidoon

The origins of Game Theory trace back to a letter written by Francis Waldegrave in 1713 which proposed a minimax mixed strategy solution to a two-person card game named le Her. In the following century Charles Darwin acted as one of the pioneers in broadening the realm of this theory into the biology of evolution as he applied the theoretic strategy in his argument of natural selection power to equalize the sex equilibrium ratio in nature. Game Theories initial applications were restricted to two person zero-sum games where the pay-off matrix was symmetric, or in other words that the sum of the payoffs to the two participants maintains a constant value. However, modern adaptations of game theory came into play after John von Neumann

In “Game Theory Models and Methods”, the prisoner’s dilemma is said to be the most widely known example of game theory. This dilemma was invented by Albert Tucker of Princeton University in 1950. In this dilemma, one is to imagine two people arrested under suspicion of having committed a crime together. The police do not have sufficient evidence to convict the criminals. They are placed in two separate rooms and the police visit each suspect, offering a deal. The deal is basically, whoever gives up evidence on the other person will go free. If neither suspect takes the offer, they are working against the police and both will receive a small punishment because of lack of evidence. Both suspects appeared to have won because neither took the offer, but were given a small punishment. However, if one suspect takes the offer and betrays the other, the one who gave up the evidence will gain more because he will be set free and the one who remained quiet will get the full punishment. However, if both suspects betray each other, they will both receive punishment. From this example, we learn that each suspect was given “a choice between only two options, but cannot make a good decision without knowing what the other one will do” (Game Theory Models and Methods). This strategy is still used today not only be police officers and detectives, but it is also used in some of the criminal television shows,

In algorithmic game theory, it is easy to find the Nash equilibrium if one can derive the default strategies of each player from the instructions/parameters of the algorithm. It is also not particularly hard to find the optimal solution to an algorithm either. In algorithmic mechanism design, it would be the goal of the algorithm designer to fashion the algorithm in such a way that causes the Nash equilibrium to be the same as the Pareto optimal (or at least close to optimal) result. This would mean that it would be impossible to make any player better off in the game without hurting another player at the same time (optimal), while it also being impossible for any one player to improve their situation by altering only their strategy (Nash equilibrium). It is the goal to make these two circumstances exist simultaneously.