This is a question I pose to my Economics students when we study Game Theory. There are a couple of reasons behind the question - the first is to apply the theoretical to a real-life scenario. The second is to point out that the theory really breaks down when you put it in these terms (Game Optimization vs human intricacies). Game Theory is interesting, and helpful in some situations, but useless in others.
As an aside, these questions (Economics discussion questions) are tough to ask. You need to have enough controversy to make the question interesting, and you need to be sure the student's can't see your position in reading the question.
By the time you're his
Shivering and sighing,
And he vows his passion is
Infinite, undying
Lady, make a note of this:
One of you is lying.
~Dorothy Parker
As an aside, these questions (Economics discussion questions) are tough to ask. You need to have enough controversy to make the question interesting, and you need to be sure the student's can't see your position in reading the question.
By the time you're his
Shivering and sighing,
And he vows his passion is
Infinite, undying
Lady, make a note of this:
One of you is lying.
~Dorothy Parker
Never get married in the morning, because you never know who you'll meet that night. ~Paul Hornung
One of the recent Nobel Prize winners for economics was Oliver E. Williamson, for his work on economic governance and limitations of firms, including the concept of asymmetric information. The link below is to a somewhat humorous, yet applicable, article that relates this concept to monogamy and offers ways to overcome it. Using Chapter 11 of the text and other sources, discuss the issue of asymmetric information as posed in the article cited in the following.
Some people sincerely like monogamy; other people sincerely don't. Under the circumstances, it seems wise for everyone to just reveal their proclivities and pair up with people who share their expectations. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening. There is a fundamental flaw with monogamy, but it's not human nature. It's asymmetric information.
My key assumption: Most people - even most commitmentphobes - prefer a person who will be true to them. When you announce your religion, you make yourself less desirable to people who reject your religion, but more desirable to people who share it. When you announce your rejection of monogamy, in contrast, you make yourself less desirable even to people who share your rejection.
In a world of symmetric information, this wouldn't matter. People would know as much about your proclivities as you do, so there'd be no reason to pretend to be something you're not. But in the real world, no one knows your own preferences better than you do. The result: People pretend to be more monogamous than they really are.
My key assumption: Most people - even most commitmentphobes - prefer a person who will be true to them. When you announce your religion, you make yourself less desirable to people who reject your religion, but more desirable to people who share it. When you announce your rejection of monogamy, in contrast, you make yourself less desirable even to people who share your rejection.
In a world of symmetric information, this wouldn't matter. People would know as much about your proclivities as you do, so there'd be no reason to pretend to be something you're not. But in the real world, no one knows your own preferences better than you do. The result: People pretend to be more monogamous than they really are.
This leads to two kinds of dissatisfaction. First, people who are monogamous feel abused and betrayed. Second, people who are not monogamous feel like they "can't be themselves. Taken together, I think these two complaints explain most of the bitterness people feel about the institution of marriage.
Based on the Game Theory you studied from the text, and your own research, discuss the issue, citing appropriate, peer-reviewed sources.
Your forum response needs to be posted both here and in the Assignment Folder.
