Over the last few days, the status of coronavirus has changed rapidly. Santa Clara County, along with many others, has declared a “shelter in place” order. People are now flocking supermarkets and trying to stock up on supplies as soon as possible. Because everyone is buying more than their usual amount, the store shelves are emptying at an alarmingly fast rate and show no signs of stopping as lines grow longer and longer. Although most news sources and the government say that hoarding is bad, why do people continue to do so?
Everyone, whether they know it or not, is following some basic rules of game theory. During this time, the dominant strategy (best strategy regardless of what others do) is to get the food, supplies, and medicine you need to survive. However, when one person starts to buy much more than they need, other people also have to start changing their tactics. This demonstrates Nash Equilibrium (when one chooses the best strategy if other’s strategies are unchanged) since other people are going to start stockpiling no matter what, the best strategy for the other people is to do the same or lose all their resources to others.
Although it seems extreme, most people view the world as a zero sum game where whatever is gained by one party must be lost by another and no one wants to be on the losing side. Knowing this, can we truly blame those individuals that are hoarding? Or is this something that is fundamentally ingrained in our individualistic society that needs to be changed?
https://sm.mashable.com/mashable_sea/photo/default/singapore-panic-buying-cover_fp2p.png
This was a cool read. I think its interesting that the dominant strategy always wins in these sort of situations, but I wonder if there is a way to collaborate. There was an interesting theory someone put out there that people buy toilet paper in particular because it is bulky and makes people feel like they are making in impact on there own situation. I just thought you might find that interesting.
ReplyDeleteEven though most people view the world as a zero-sum game, is it truly like that, I feel like in most interactions with people, a lot of them end with both people gaining something. If the world is a sum game, then do the ideas of game theory still hold true?
ReplyDeleteThis article was an interesting read. Going to stores now, most shelves are going empty and it's harder to find the items needed as many people are buying significant amounts of goods (some hoarding even). However, there are those populations who are most at risk–elderly and sick people–who don't necessarily have access to those materials because of the issues at stores. Is there a way to limit the amount of items people buy at stores? Is there a way to make access to these supplies more fair?
ReplyDeleteOn the last day of class before we went on quarantine, Mr. Randall showed us a graph comparing the curves of infection between a community where everybody ignored quarantine orders and one where more people followed the quarantine order. The difference in these curves showed that it was in the best interest of everyone to stay quarantined in order to not exceed the maximum capacity of our hospitals. However, to an individual, the better option would be to utilize this time to spend time with family and friends and go out and have fun. Besides the hoarding of goods, I think this is another significant choice people have to make where game theory applies in a similar fashion.
ReplyDelete