On 20 January 2014 22:39, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> The point about acting randomly is that clearly you are not optimising > your utility. You a choosing something other than the optimum action, > so are behaving irrationally by definition. Yet, it could be a > beneficial strategy to do so, for all the reasons raised (fooling your > opponents, making a timely decision, and so on). > > Sorry to be dense, but I still don't see this. When I say "acting randomly", I assume we don't mean just doing anything, deciding to go swimming in the arctic or declaring yourself to be Napoleon, I assume we mean picking one of a number of options that appear to have equal utility. Let's say we're playing scissors-paper-rock. The best strategy - the one that gives you the best chance of winning at least half the time - is to choose randomly. Anyone who doesn't choose randomly is open to having their moves predicted, and losing more often than they otherwise would. So in this case acting randomly is rational... isn't it? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
