That is exactly what he’s talking about though. It’s manipulative ... never definitive. Obviously a double negative, so your brain locks on that and moves on...never defining HOW CERTAIN, AND REALLY SAYING,.. I AM CERTAIN, I mean why can’t they say this?
Dollar Bill is my favorite character for the screen time he gets. My favorite is in season 3 wherein he stands by a newspaper dispenser and waits until someone opens it, sticks his hand on the door and steals a newspaper. Then he's seen paying a few cents for street parking for his minivan while the ex-FTC guy valets his spanking new Porsche. The cheapest millionaire in America. Oh, and he has two families.
@@mcatherinew4779 Not sure if you watch the show or not but this phrase is Dollar Bill's way of telling Bobby that he has rigged the results in his favor without actually saying it. It's a breakdown of their process of setting up big wins that are technically illegal without leaving a paper trail to convict them of wrongdoing. It goes back to the trust among thieves concept that is talked about in the video. This is truly a great show in how well they structure these themes of human behavior.
Showtime really got their moneys worth with this sponsored video. I immediately started binge-watching Billions because of this take on the show, and I was not disappointed.
David Costabile has proven his greatness in my mind because I love his character on Billions but hated his character on Breaking Bad. Shows how much range he has as an actor, lol.
I've been watching "Billions" since it first aired. It's been a fascinating show to watch. This video analysis takes it to a whole new level for me. Thank you, Showtime, for commissioning this analysis!
after lunch, during is to informal, but game theory publications on judges and their tendency to be lenient after their lunch implies a person who is biologically satisfied is more amenable to something beneficial to a plantiff
@@MoeBulle I see what you're saying but are you going to take your boss outside the office on working hours (after lunch)? Might look uncommitted to the job you want a raise for.
Mohamud Bulle It shows that someone who has more energy is less likely to take the easy way out to a problem. In thecase of parloe requests, denial is the easy path, so the judge is more likely to deny parole while they are hungry, but in some cases, the easy route could also be beneficial to the other party.
So this video is about two things, game theory and ethics, but it seems like it misunderstands game theory. It's true that game theory is all about winning, or at least doing the best you can possibly do in a specific game. That means achieving your best payoffs. However, if you are making rational choices then payoffs include everything you care about. If payoffs don't include everything you care about, you open yourself up to taking losses you failed to consider. If a person has ethical values, and those morals become relevant in a game, they must be included in some way in the payoffs. For example, let's say two people are playing a game for fifty bucks. Each player has 25 bucks to start with, and the only way to get 50 is to steal from the other player. If both players refuse to steal they'll each keep 25 dollars, or whoever steals first wins the 50. However, you the player know that stealing is wrong; you may or may not know how your opponent feels about theft, but that's irrelevant in this case. Maybe you have Kantian deontological ethics and believe that stealing is always wrong, or you're a virtue ethicist and believe it is usually wrong and not worth 25 or 50 bucks. Your commitment to your moral values is factored into your payoffs. So you "win" by not stealing regardless of what your opponent does, because that's how you achieve your best possible payoff when you total your different values into one payoff. Maybe your opponent steals your money and thinks they win and you loose. If they care less about theft than they do about money it's true they won, but you didn't lose, you also achieved your best possible payoff. You both won in the sense that you both achieved your best possible payoffs, though you couldn't win in the sense of getting your optimal outcome. For you, the optimal outcome would consist of not stealing or being stole from, but it wasn't possible to avoid being stolen from in this game if that's what your opponent decided to do. Maybe your opponent is somewhat bothered by committing theft and doesn't feel like their victory is a perfect victory since they made themselves uncomfortable. Game theory is really just math, so in that sense it doesn't have a moral dimension on its own, but when you start applying it in real life, ethics should considered if you value them. The problem isn't that game theory is intrinsically amoral, as lots of things in life have no moral implications taken in isolation. The problem is that Bobby and Chuck are amoral. They don't factor ethics (and often don't even factor treating their loved ones decently) as heavily into their payoffs as a good person would. And it's often not enough for them to win, they want their opponent to lose. Of course, that desire to crush their enemies is factored into their payoffs, the problem is that their actions often become unethical when they factor this competitiveness so heavily into the payoffs. I suppose when you're using game theory, you may be tempted to downplay or abandon your morals in favor of achieving a purely monetary victory. This can lead to people like Taylor losing their morals over time. If that's the case, the problem only exists if you give into that temptation, and if you did you perhaps don't value ethics as much as a someone who is trying to be a good person should. Someone subscribing to Kant's views would say their is no excuse for going down this slippery slope, right action should never be sacrificed in the first place and can't be excused, so you either play games "correctly" always doing the right thing, or you play them wrongly and do wrong. A virtue ethicist would say that if you go down this slippery slope, it's because you aren't virtuous enough. The only way to avoid going down the slippery slope is to always ask yourself what would some virtuous role model of yours want you to do in that situation, and keep practicing being a good person along the way. If you fail do that it may be difficult to learn to be a good person again. A utilitarian would probably not find game theory incompatible with their philosophy as long you consistently remembered to employ utilitarian moral logic, otherwise like a Kantian they'll say you are flatly doing the wrong thing and need to correct your course, which you can do at anytime as long your remember to employ utilitarian moral logic.
This assumption makes ethics and ethical ideas rational and somewhat measurable, so that you can add to your payoff. Game theory is solely based on the knowledge of players being rational and acting accordingly by knowing the other player is also rational. So the question is, can someone really make a proper adjustment to his/her payoff by including their ethic values? Would that be rational?
I think it's worth pointing out that Black Jack's zen koan, seemingly throwaway, line has a lot more weight to it than it seems. I recently watched all of the show, and it's become increasingly apparent the primary philosophical debate is between cold calculus, game theory plays and contrasting it with something that's completely out of left field: classical Japanese warrior and monk codes. They reference the latter a *lot.* Not even close to as much as game theory, but it's definitely the second leading ideal that is fighting with it. That's probably why the show works the way it does despite the seemingly tired premise of cop vs. robber. This is played with a lot with the American Wild West metaphors, as it and classic Japanese philosophy have quite a lot in common as well (e.g. Seven Samurai --> The Magnificent Seven).
Lou Bloom is just an unhinged ’by any means necessary’ type of dude. A narcissistic sociopath without the social competence or care to not appear like a creepster. He says stuff he’s seen on TV to seem smart. I really don’t see him as a philosopher. The movie itself however is rather brilliant. IMO it isn’t really about Lou, but about a news media culture in which a person as twisted as Lou would excel.
Billions is a fantastic series, incredibly well written with some great acting on display. I'm shocked you hadn't seen it or covered it already. Glad you have now.
Billions is without doubt the best quality show around today and maybe of a generation and maybe even ever. I would never have believed that such subject material could be so compelling and pretty much the whole cast are superb. I put special shout-outs to Costabile and Dillon. Screenwriting and production are nothing short of genius, in my opinion. I love this show.
6:44 - The line does not "devolve into a state of anarchy". It may or may not exist in a state of anarchy. It devolves into chaos. Precise language matters. ESPECIALLY in philosophy.
"Bordering on sociopathy". no, chuck is straight up a sociopath. because of the way the story is told, he is an engaging antihero, but indubitably a sociopath and i love em'.
@@achintyanaithani889 right, good question. although i try to live my life as a conscientious force for good, i do have a penchant for evil, but only in theater or literature. i am drawn to dark characters, but repelled by narcissistic, sociopathic, antisocial or even just plain selfish flesh and bone humans. i like the mythology of the shadow, not the reality. thanks for asking.
Chuck is not a sociopath. He still cared his wife's career and feelings when dealing with Axelrod. He exaust his trauma through masochism play but not deliberately hurting others unless the subject is evil or is in the way of dealing with Axelrod. Most importantly he has a sense of social justice, so he considers the criminals crime and their effect on society. he is bordered, but not one.
I literally just listened to a podcast with one of the show runners on the “The Right Time” with Bomani Jones and was gonna ask you guys to do a philosophy of Billions. Apparently Wisecrack reads minds now. 😂😂😂
billions is one of the most brilliant white collar shows I've ever seen. the only downside is i hate the fact that all of the characters, especially taylor mason love to quote too many pop culture points as to tell us (audience) that they don't just do law n wall street stuff, they still watch movies n listen to music on the side lol. nonetheless, other than that, everything about the show is very well thought out
Oh my god, finally you guys cover this show. This is one of my favorite shows to watch. From the themes of order vs chaos, ends justify the means, and my favorite Axe is always right.
Thank you for this. I told everyone that this was basically a posting co test between two powerful people, but this is a much better explanation. Love this show and now this channel!
What I really love about this series is it shows how morals and sense of justice are all fluid everyone has there own reasons and perspectives and justification for doing what they do, wether it’s “good or bad” btw good and bad are just social constructs created by humans. Get rid of humans and there would be no such thing. Everyone has there own morals and perspective on the world. Ex. More technical people have more of a black and white factual view, while feelers have more of what feels right to them. You also have someone like Wendy who sees all perspectives without judgement and finds a middle ground and helps people individually become a better them. This is why when chuck implies that Wendy is a criminal through his questioning she kicks him out. He started to forcefully project his morals onto her, making her in his mind look like a criminal and blaming axe leading to his own (marital) destruction and why he thinks when axe is arrested it would all be solved.
I'm on Season 5 and this is the comment section I wanted to come across. These are the questions roaming in my head the whole damn time while watching. The higher up the corporate ladder you are, the more likely you are to encounter decisions that really put your morals/ethics under the microscope. It seems, if your major motive in life is to climb the corporate ladder, inevitably, it becomes quite difficult to be as competitive as the rest without compromising various aspects of whatever moral system you started your climb. If that system was rigid, slowly one finds themselves loosening their leash because there's so much to "gain" or "lose". Another fascinating thing about the series is it depicts how our ego's are such a major part of our persona development and decision making. How having a lot of Power and or money can enable aspects of your ego to come to life and see a side you never imagined would be motivated purely by ego.
I don't understand why anybody thinks Lou Bloom has such an interesting philosophy to talk about. The movie might, but Lou Bloom does not. He's not a "game theorist", he's just an extremely shrewd and sick person who will stop at nothing to achieve his goals. He is an _actual_ sociopath, in the most clinical sense of the word. Chuck is only a "sociopath" in the pop-psychology sense. He's shrewd, but he still feels guilt for the people he hurts, and he still has a sense of justice. Which probably has something to do with his masochism fetish... Chuck is a complex guy. Lou... Lou is just sick. TL;DR: They can't do "the philosophy of Lou Bloom" because it would just turn into "the mental health diagnosis of Lou Bloom" - (which gets into icky territory because mental illness is already stigmatized enough as it is). He's not some super deep thinker... he's just the personification of capitalism.
@@totallynotjeff7748 Philosophy of Nightcrawler, sure... but you can't really do "the philosophy of Lou Bloom" because it would just be "the mental health diagnosis of Lou Bloom". He's extremely selfish, extremely shrewd, and extremely sick... what else do you need? As for the movie, however... it does have some interesting philosophical themes. Renegade Cut has a good video about it.
There's a little caveat in Game Theory argument here. The best strategy in a repeated Prisoner's Dilemma is "forgiving tit for tat" or "delayed tit for tat". You either wait until two betrayals or enter the chance of cooperation after you're being betrayed. In a 'regular' environments it's the best strategy in a long-term Prisoner's Dilemma. And then you go and explore all of the complications for this theorem when you have short number of game rounds, mistakes and errors, different "meta" of strategies...
Your description of Game Theory and the social dilemma was pretty accurate. Well done educating your viewers on strategic behavior and its' limits! Thanks
At first, I thought that this video was going to be a twenty-minute rant against MatPat. Then I watched the video. I gotta stop being so quick to impressions...
Another solution to the stick question might be answering, " that is not a stick". This solution kind of more fits better with the idea, but either way its essentially the same thing... you are rejecting something fundamental about the question.
Playing Go changed the way I approached life. It showed me that connections, relationships can be stronger than what any one person can do and that sometimes it is more valuable to leave a competitive situation unresolved. 😎
I loved this show so much, I’ve rewatched it more times than I care to admit The edge in Chuck’s voice, Axe playing everything out. This show is amazing
Love the video overall, it echoes much of how I think about game theory and particularly about people who (often, and loudly) make a point of trying to apply it in real world scenarios. It seems like you’re a pretty thoughtful channel so I think might be useful for you guys to check out the actual meaning - particularly the historical and political meaning - of the word “anarchy” before you use it as you did in the video here. What you describe as anarchy - a system breaking down and becoming chaos - is quite the opposite. The queue itself is anarchy, it’s people self-organising into a system without outside coercion to solve a problem, creating order from chaos naturally at a personal level. Very very roughly speaking, anarchy is when people are free and empowered to work with each other without outside interference, which is when you generally expect to see decent results like spontaneously forming queues, or fire bucket lines, or helping get women and children to lifeboats first. It’s not AAAAAA CHAOS. Well, sometimes it is, as are all things. But they’re not the same. Thanks for the vid though! It definitely seems like one that’s a net win for society to have out there, hopefully helping one or two people pump the brakes on going down the “I’m going to game theory the shit out of this” in their lives!
Great brilliant insight. Not just some popcorn stuff but thought put into making the content of the video. Love it. ps : I've never watched billions so I'm trusting that the show is at least a reflection of it
With shows like that - where the spoilers are gonna consist basically of different instances of the same philosophical basis - you could make a video with "spoilers for season 1" so we can watch the video to decide if it's worth watching the show or to watch after the end of the season to see what we missed, (and to the people who don't mind spoilers, or the people who don't plan on watching, it doesn't make any difference). That opens you up to make another video later to say "see? these were the facts and that's how they manifest the philosophy we diagnosed with the first season". I just finished the first season so I could come here and the only spoiler I got before 10:00 was the books thing.. wich is not a big one. So it seems really doable. I'd say that that would be more complicated with shows where the philosophy is unveild with how the ending relates to the start instead of different escalations of the same thing, but you did a season by season approach to Breaking Bad and talked about just the end of GOT, so you can do it to anything. I think you should.
I was a Philosophy major. I think it is critical to have peace within yourself first, and continually work at this daily. Our intuition is very important in making sound decisions. In my opinion it is probably more important than all the information you can find anywhere in the entire world.
I saw something about game theory on the internet and it got my attention, than i saw the beginning of this video on the they it was published and became aware of the existing of a tv series about the game theory, making me wonder how good this show could be, so i waited till i have watched all the seasons so i could watch this video, it took me 3 months (because i had college, work and stuff) and i can say it was worthy. Only the firsts 2 minutes of video already made me want to see the show, so congratulations to everyone involved here.
I got here from a montage of Bill Stern clips including "Pretend we're having an argument" -- ua-cam.com/video/N21R9cPXYBs/v-deo.html -- and now this spoiler-filled analysis has... convinced me even more to watch this series!
Not having seen the show I'm not sure if mentioning this this just didn't fit in your analysis of it, but from the iterative Prisoner's Dillema tournaments, among the strategies that evolved from the basic variations on the Tit for Tat in later versions were ones that would occasionally employ a "forgive" move if caught in a vicious defection cycle (punish for a few rounds, forgive without retaliating a round, then resume as normal). A similar version is one that attempts a sort of "redeem" move if it was actually the initial betrayer. Basic Tit for Tat I think performed slightly better directly against versions of either of these two (if they include a betray test move) because it relies on them to make the first move to forgive, but overall they perform better against other strategies that occasionally defect because they can break free of of the vicious cycle once it starts. In either case, if memory serves, these proved to be among the most effective universal strategies that succeeded basic Tit for Tat. So while they somewhat mimic empathy and guilt, I've always seen it as part of a more complete Game Theory, rather than illustrating a problem with it. At least it's one I think behavioral economists tend to subscribe to more over more traditional economists, accounting for the fact that humans are not perfectly rational actors, yet evolution has imbued us with instincts that somewhat reflect what Game Theory predicts. Curious if this or similar strategies appeared in your research for this vid.
You are right, Anarchy isn't synonymous with chaos it means chaos, and even if it didn't, anarchy will unavoidably lead to chaos, It's just common sense.
@@artyomalekseyevich5927 it's common sense that if people work together with as little hierarchy as possible it will be chaos? I find that hard to believe.
@@DeeDee-zu2pv If people work together, there will necessarly be some kind of hierarchy as mentioned, and It's natural that it will grow further and expand into something like capitalism. Expecting things to stay the same forever is foolish, and even then, saying "people working together with as little hierarchy" is not anarchism, there is no hierarchy in anarchism. And yes anarchism will inevitably lead to either the end of humanity or back to something similar to capitalism, we humans are selfish (just like every other being on earth, I don't say that in a bad way) even if we have empathy, not everyone has as much empathy as the next guy. If there is no order people will naturally go towards the laziest thing to do, and society won't advance, unfortunately, and as flawed as capitalism may be, It is the best sytem in place, because It's competition, and competition means progress.
The problem with the show? Mentioning game theory too many times. People don't go around talking about game theory even when they actually use it. In fact, game theory is exactly that, a theory; meaning it tries to describe a reality that existed before. People used the same logic before and after it got a name and I don't think a lot of people using it even in a day to day basis brag about its name regularly. This just kills the fun of a show. This much exposition for what? To sound smart?
Soroush Falahati it gets a lot of play in finance. “Oh, are we playing games now? Ok. We can play some games” is usually how it gets tossed around. Formalizing it doesn’t change the discussion, just makes it so the audience doesn’t have to work a 40 hour week to keep up.
Hey Wisecrack! Great video (on par). I was wondering if you guys were considering doing a video that analyzes the classic Twilight Zone series before the new one starts up? I think a lot of the episodes STILL have an impact 50 years later and I'm wondering what y'all's take on it is. Thanks for all the content!
In certain situations your playing the game without even noticing. Most predominately in job interview, say one thing there not happy with you lose, they already had someone in mind but interviews are formalities you lose. Its complex as somethings you cant break without consequences your forced to play. You just gotta hope both parties cooperate. Hell thiefs and people in poverty are forced to play the game cause most of society didnt cooperate with them and returning the favour
I have watched this series from season one and it is even better than presented here. It has great insight into how human nature is what really runs the stock market and law. Also, kudos to Showtime and I hope they sponsor more insights into their programs.
Axe: "How certain are you?"
Dollar Bill: "I am not uncertain"
One of my favorite lines
That is exactly what he’s talking about though. It’s manipulative ... never definitive. Obviously a double negative, so your brain locks on that and moves on...never defining HOW CERTAIN, AND REALLY SAYING,.. I AM CERTAIN, I mean why can’t they say this?
Dollar Bill is my favorite character for the screen time he gets. My favorite is in season 3 wherein he stands by a newspaper dispenser and waits until someone opens it, sticks his hand on the door and steals a newspaper. Then he's seen paying a few cents for street parking for his minivan while the ex-FTC guy valets his spanking new Porsche. The cheapest millionaire in America.
Oh, and he has two families.
Juan Aguilar yeah. His character is awesome
@@mcatherinew4779 Not sure if you watch the show or not but this phrase is Dollar Bill's way of telling Bobby that he has rigged the results in his favor without actually saying it. It's a breakdown of their process of setting up big wins that are technically illegal without leaving a paper trail to convict them of wrongdoing. It goes back to the trust among thieves concept that is talked about in the video. This is truly a great show in how well they structure these themes of human behavior.
Chickenholocast
Showtime really got their moneys worth with this sponsored video. I immediately started binge-watching Billions because of this take on the show, and I was not disappointed.
exactly,me too, as i am interested in math and stumbled across this video, even i binge watched. damn
It’s a great show
well i just did a 4 season binge in these few days since there is a complete lockdown
@@ktolwal it's not entirely out.. I'm waiting until it's all there
I agree 👍🏿 with you 👍🏿
Wags is my favorite character.... he is loyal, intelligent, quick witted, and self-indulgent and a pinch of crazy.
1st s...chef's kiss, then...meh, don't know.
Big pinch of crazy
David Costabile has proven his greatness in my mind because I love his character on Billions but hated his character on Breaking Bad. Shows how much range he has as an actor, lol.
I hated him in Suits, but love him in this.
I really hope people realize how educational this series is...
It's phenomenal
It taught me how important it is to know right people..
@@otisdubey And to know the people who are just your friends or associates for the wrong reasons
I’ve learned so much already and I’m not even 6 episodes in. One of those things I’ve learned is Damian Lewis is a phenomenal actor in this role
I just want to say that Paul Giamatti is an underrated actor.
He is freaking awesome
He was always awesome to me
hes awesome!
Dunno about that he has won a Golden Globe Award, a Primetime Emmy Award and Screen Actors Guild Award.
Giamatti is solid value, not underrated at all.
Im so glad someone finally appreciated Billions!
I wouldn't lie, I'm more excited for Billions than GOT.
@@scarabespada me too. No #
Same....def more excited for this
best show in the investment communities
@@scarabespada 2 years ago that statement would've been blasphemous.
I've been watching "Billions" since it first aired. It's been a fascinating show to watch. This video analysis takes it to a whole new level for me. Thank you, Showtime, for commissioning this analysis!
Me too 🔥
For the raise negotiation
-during lunch
-outside their office
-ask for 10% more
-set a number first
-on a Friday around the end of the fiscal year
after lunch, during is to informal, but game theory publications on judges and their tendency to be lenient after their lunch implies a person who is biologically satisfied is more amenable to something beneficial to a plantiff
@@MoeBulle I see what you're saying but are you going to take your boss outside the office on working hours (after lunch)? Might look uncommitted to the job you want a raise for.
@@WhiteKeys007 he means immediately after lunch, during the espresso
Mohamud Bulle It shows that someone who has more energy is less likely to take the easy way out to a problem. In thecase of parloe requests, denial is the easy path, so the judge is more likely to deny parole while they are hungry, but in some cases, the easy route could also be beneficial to the other party.
@@ciroguerra-lara6747 Well you were anyway not going to get the raise by not asking for it. So what's to lose ?
The channel was wise to approach you to talk about their show. I am interested in watching it now, seems compelling.
it's really good, definitely worth a watch
Same. I think they really hit it with this channel being relevant to their market
same here.
fuck showtime and this video.
Most underated show out there. Amazing writing, but also amazing acting from espicially Paul Giamatti and Damien Lewis
So this video is about two things, game theory and ethics, but it seems like it misunderstands game theory. It's true that game theory is all about winning, or at least doing the best you can possibly do in a specific game. That means achieving your best payoffs. However, if you are making rational choices then payoffs include everything you care about. If payoffs don't include everything you care about, you open yourself up to taking losses you failed to consider. If a person has ethical values, and those morals become relevant in a game, they must be included in some way in the payoffs.
For example, let's say two people are playing a game for fifty bucks. Each player has 25 bucks to start with, and the only way to get 50 is to steal from the other player. If both players refuse to steal they'll each keep 25 dollars, or whoever steals first wins the 50. However, you the player know that stealing is wrong; you may or may not know how your opponent feels about theft, but that's irrelevant in this case. Maybe you have Kantian deontological ethics and believe that stealing is always wrong, or you're a virtue ethicist and believe it is usually wrong and not worth 25 or 50 bucks. Your commitment to your moral values is factored into your payoffs. So you "win" by not stealing regardless of what your opponent does, because that's how you achieve your best possible payoff when you total your different values into one payoff. Maybe your opponent steals your money and thinks they win and you loose. If they care less about theft than they do about money it's true they won, but you didn't lose, you also achieved your best possible payoff. You both won in the sense that you both achieved your best possible payoffs, though you couldn't win in the sense of getting your optimal outcome. For you, the optimal outcome would consist of not stealing or being stole from, but it wasn't possible to avoid being stolen from in this game if that's what your opponent decided to do. Maybe your opponent is somewhat bothered by committing theft and doesn't feel like their victory is a perfect victory since they made themselves uncomfortable.
Game theory is really just math, so in that sense it doesn't have a moral dimension on its own, but when you start applying it in real life, ethics should considered if you value them. The problem isn't that game theory is intrinsically amoral, as lots of things in life have no moral implications taken in isolation. The problem is that Bobby and Chuck are amoral. They don't factor ethics (and often don't even factor treating their loved ones decently) as heavily into their payoffs as a good person would. And it's often not enough for them to win, they want their opponent to lose. Of course, that desire to crush their enemies is factored into their payoffs, the problem is that their actions often become unethical when they factor this competitiveness so heavily into the payoffs. I suppose when you're using game theory, you may be tempted to downplay or abandon your morals in favor of achieving a purely monetary victory. This can lead to people like Taylor losing their morals over time. If that's the case, the problem only exists if you give into that temptation, and if you did you perhaps don't value ethics as much as a someone who is trying to be a good person should. Someone subscribing to Kant's views would say their is no excuse for going down this slippery slope, right action should never be sacrificed in the first place and can't be excused, so you either play games "correctly" always doing the right thing, or you play them wrongly and do wrong. A virtue ethicist would say that if you go down this slippery slope, it's because you aren't virtuous enough. The only way to avoid going down the slippery slope is to always ask yourself what would some virtuous role model of yours want you to do in that situation, and keep practicing being a good person along the way. If you fail do that it may be difficult to learn to be a good person again. A utilitarian would probably not find game theory incompatible with their philosophy as long you consistently remembered to employ utilitarian moral logic, otherwise like a Kantian they'll say you are flatly doing the wrong thing and need to correct your course, which you can do at anytime as long your remember to employ utilitarian moral logic.
This assumption makes ethics and ethical ideas rational and somewhat measurable, so that you can add to your payoff. Game theory is solely based on the knowledge of players being rational and acting accordingly by knowing the other player is also rational. So the question is, can someone really make a proper adjustment to his/her payoff by including their ethic values? Would that be rational?
wtf dude, its a comment section not show us your manifesto
@@dogancanertemiz7769 thats the besr thing you could think of in spite of all your sophisticated reasoning.
Kofi Amoako yes
Can you recommend me some books or anything about game theory might be helpful? I’m totally a layman for this
Wags = one of my favorite media characters ever. Maybe its his conviction for what he does
Pretty good advert. Full disclosure appreciated.
Agree and agree. Finally advertising I like
I think it's worth pointing out that Black Jack's zen koan, seemingly throwaway, line has a lot more weight to it than it seems. I recently watched all of the show, and it's become increasingly apparent the primary philosophical debate is between cold calculus, game theory plays and contrasting it with something that's completely out of left field: classical Japanese warrior and monk codes. They reference the latter a *lot.* Not even close to as much as game theory, but it's definitely the second leading ideal that is fighting with it.
That's probably why the show works the way it does despite the seemingly tired premise of cop vs. robber. This is played with a lot with the American Wild West metaphors, as it and classic Japanese philosophy have quite a lot in common as well (e.g. Seven Samurai --> The Magnificent Seven).
The Philosophy of Person of Interest, entirely underrated in my opinion. Everyone should watch.
POI Is the best show ever!!
@@johnny8dHD its so relevant to what were dealing with today
Philosophy of Lou Bloom from Nightcrawler please. It's highly requested.
THIS
It's straight up ray crocs philosophy from McDonald's
yay yay yayy
Lou Bloom is just an unhinged ’by any means necessary’ type of dude. A narcissistic sociopath without the social competence or care to not appear like a creepster. He says stuff he’s seen on TV to seem smart. I really don’t see him as a philosopher.
The movie itself however is rather brilliant. IMO it isn’t really about Lou, but about a news media culture in which a person as twisted as Lou would excel.
YES
Damian Lewis is fantastic in every show I've seen him in. He needs more Emmys.
Billions is a fantastic series, incredibly well written with some great acting on display. I'm shocked you hadn't seen it or covered it already. Glad you have now.
Billions is without doubt the best quality show around today and maybe of a generation and maybe even ever.
I would never have believed that such subject material could be so compelling and pretty much the whole cast are superb. I put special shout-outs to Costabile and Dillon. Screenwriting and production are nothing short of genius, in my opinion.
I love this show.
6:44 - The line does not "devolve into a state of anarchy". It may or may not exist in a state of anarchy. It devolves into chaos.
Precise language matters. ESPECIALLY in philosophy.
Yeah but unfortunately most of these “The Philosophy of...” aren’t even philosophy, more like an English class.
Yeah, I mean, they themselves have a video on which there's a speech bubble on which V makes a similar distinction on alan moore's comic book
Oh, I thought "The Problem with Game Theory" was about that UA-cam channel hosted by MatPat.
Even I don't agree with what I'm saying hear say!
@@VoxVictus What happened?
Same. I made a cup of coffee ready to hear some dirt on matpat. I don't know if this counts as clickbait but it sure as hell baited me.
That's what I was hoping for.
Same
S/O to Showtime for getting this video done, never thought it would happen
Please do Philosophy Of LOU BLOOM from Nightcrawler.
I back this guy, but I'm also gunna write my own comment so you get the message loud and clear.
@@CAAnmoldeepsingh omg i fricking loved nightcrawler
"Bordering on sociopathy". no, chuck is straight up a sociopath. because of the way the story is told, he is an engaging antihero, but indubitably a sociopath and i love em'.
...why? Why love him, I mean, if he's a sociopath?
@@achintyanaithani889 right, good question. although i try to live my life as a conscientious force for good, i do have a penchant for evil, but only in theater or literature. i am drawn to dark characters, but repelled by narcissistic, sociopathic, antisocial or even just plain selfish flesh and bone humans. i like the mythology of the shadow, not the reality. thanks for asking.
@@christopherschalge9186 thank you for a good, honest answer
Chuck is not a sociopath. He still cared his wife's career and feelings when dealing with Axelrod. He exaust his trauma through masochism play but not deliberately hurting others unless the subject is evil or is in the way of dealing with Axelrod. Most importantly he has a sense of social justice, so he considers the criminals crime and their effect on society. he is bordered, but not one.
I literally just listened to a podcast with one of the show runners on the “The Right Time” with Bomani Jones and was gonna ask you guys to do a philosophy of Billions. Apparently Wisecrack reads minds now. 😂😂😂
billions is one of the most brilliant white collar shows I've ever seen. the only downside is i hate the fact that all of the characters, especially taylor mason love to quote too many pop culture points as to tell us (audience) that they don't just do law n wall street stuff, they still watch movies n listen to music on the side lol. nonetheless, other than that, everything about the show is very well thought out
I never thought I'd be getting this kind of insight from Ed Sheerans' brother
More like American cousin
Low blow, dude.
Hahaha
Billions: Best show in our era
Oh my god, finally you guys cover this show. This is one of my favorite shows to watch. From the themes of order vs chaos, ends justify the means, and my favorite Axe is always right.
Where do you watch it?
NEW SEASON SOON
Thank you for this. I told everyone that this was basically a posting co test between two powerful people, but this is a much better explanation. Love this show and now this channel!
What I really love about this series is it shows how morals and sense of justice are all fluid everyone has there own reasons and perspectives and justification for doing what they do, wether it’s “good or bad” btw good and bad are just social constructs created by humans. Get rid of humans and there would be no such thing. Everyone has there own morals and perspective on the world. Ex. More technical people have more of a black and white factual view, while feelers have more of what feels right to them. You also have someone like Wendy who sees all perspectives without judgement and finds a middle ground and helps people individually become a better them. This is why when chuck implies that Wendy is a criminal through his questioning she kicks him out. He started to forcefully project his morals onto her, making her in his mind look like a criminal and blaming axe leading to his own (marital) destruction and why he thinks when axe is arrested it would all be solved.
Great TV show. The characters are loveable and repulsive at the same time.
yes.
Perfect way to put it!
Philosophy of Doctor Horrible's Sing-along Blog would be much appreciated
Interesting. Thanks for the heads up, this was a good collaboration, Jared. I'm'a have to check this out...
I'm on Season 5 and this is the comment section I wanted to come across. These are the questions roaming in my head the whole damn time while watching.
The higher up the corporate ladder you are, the more likely you are to encounter decisions that really put your morals/ethics under the microscope. It seems, if your major motive in life is to climb the corporate ladder, inevitably, it becomes quite difficult to be as competitive as the rest without compromising various aspects of whatever moral system you started your climb. If that system was rigid, slowly one finds themselves loosening their leash because there's so much to "gain" or "lose". Another fascinating thing about the series is it depicts how our ego's are such a major part of our persona development and decision making. How having a lot of Power and or money can enable aspects of your ego to come to life and see a side you never imagined would be motivated purely by ego.
"Behind every great fortune, there is a crime"
~The Godfather
16:43 this story touched me deep inside my soul "you break that F*&!ing stick"
JARED! Do LOU BLOOM the perfect SOCIOPATH and GAME THEORIST from NIGHTCRAWLER this would make a PERFECT follow up! ❤️
I don't understand why anybody thinks Lou Bloom has such an interesting philosophy to talk about. The movie might, but Lou Bloom does not.
He's not a "game theorist", he's just an extremely shrewd and sick person who will stop at nothing to achieve his goals. He is an _actual_ sociopath, in the most clinical sense of the word. Chuck is only a "sociopath" in the pop-psychology sense. He's shrewd, but he still feels guilt for the people he hurts, and he still has a sense of justice. Which probably has something to do with his masochism fetish... Chuck is a complex guy. Lou... Lou is just sick.
TL;DR: They can't do "the philosophy of Lou Bloom" because it would just turn into "the mental health diagnosis of Lou Bloom" - (which gets into icky territory because mental illness is already stigmatized enough as it is). He's not some super deep thinker... he's just the personification of capitalism.
Hello Internet! Welcome to Ga- Oh wait, it's the other type...
Love Billions. Just started my 7-day trial to watch Season 4 🙌🏼
Philosophy of Lou Bloom from night crawler would be a big W
You're the third person in a row who I saw asking for this, they'd be fools not to make that video!
@@totallynotjeff7748 Philosophy of Nightcrawler, sure... but you can't really do "the philosophy of Lou Bloom" because it would just be "the mental health diagnosis of Lou Bloom". He's extremely selfish, extremely shrewd, and extremely sick... what else do you need?
As for the movie, however... it does have some interesting philosophical themes. Renegade Cut has a good video about it.
*Do you recommend to watch it?*
Yes. Each season gets better. Especially during Taylor's introduction.
He was paid to by Showtime, of course he does.
@@mzaite at least he stated so. I'm okay with paid promotion when they declare it
online Wouldn’t hurt if it was in the thumbnail or head of the description.
There's a little caveat in Game Theory argument here. The best strategy in a repeated Prisoner's Dilemma is "forgiving tit for tat" or "delayed tit for tat". You either wait until two betrayals or enter the chance of cooperation after you're being betrayed. In a 'regular' environments it's the best strategy in a long-term Prisoner's Dilemma. And then you go and explore all of the complications for this theorem when you have short number of game rounds, mistakes and errors, different "meta" of strategies...
Your description of Game Theory and the social dilemma was pretty accurate. Well done educating your viewers on strategic behavior and its' limits! Thanks
Could you do the philosophy of code geass?
At first, I thought that this video was going to be a twenty-minute rant against MatPat.
Then I watched the video.
I gotta stop being so quick to impressions...
I love this show so much! Glad to see it getting the recognition it deserves!
Another solution to the stick question might be answering, " that is not a stick". This solution kind of more fits better with the idea, but either way its essentially the same thing... you are rejecting something fundamental about the question.
Wouldn't that answer get you beat?
That choice was accounted for and would also get you beat
He is true, there is a difference between stick not being real, and the stick not being "stick"
Playing Go changed the way I approached life. It showed me that connections, relationships can be stronger than what any one person can do and that sometimes it is more valuable to leave a competitive situation unresolved. 😎
I love how the lawyer called out the other guy for saying he came up with the Game Theory name. 😂🤣😂🤣 I got to watch this show.
Do the Philosophy of Courage Cowardly Dog
Philosophy of “Vikings” would be a great video
Outstanding analysis. Both technical and accessible. Kudos!!
But this is only a theory.... A GAME THEORY!
I loved this show so much, I’ve rewatched it more times than I care to admit
The edge in Chuck’s voice, Axe playing everything out. This show is amazing
You need to an episode of the philosophy of Reggie "My body is ready".
This is the video that led me to watching the series 'Billions'. So as I wait for the next episode to be released I just wanna say, thanks :)
Damn, Major Winter seems even younger nowadays, good for him!
Love the video overall, it echoes much of how I think about game theory and particularly about people who (often, and loudly) make a point of trying to apply it in real world scenarios.
It seems like you’re a pretty thoughtful channel so I think might be useful for you guys to check out the actual meaning - particularly the historical and political meaning - of the word “anarchy” before you use it as you did in the video here. What you describe as anarchy - a system breaking down and becoming chaos - is quite the opposite. The queue itself is anarchy, it’s people self-organising into a system without outside coercion to solve a problem, creating order from chaos naturally at a personal level.
Very very roughly speaking, anarchy is when people are free and empowered to work with each other without outside interference, which is when you generally expect to see decent results like spontaneously forming queues, or fire bucket lines, or helping get women and children to lifeboats first. It’s not AAAAAA CHAOS. Well, sometimes it is, as are all things. But they’re not the same.
Thanks for the vid though! It definitely seems like one that’s a net win for society to have out there, hopefully helping one or two people pump the brakes on going down the “I’m going to game theory the shit out of this” in their lives!
Definitely thought this was a diss on Matpat.
Finally! I’ve been waiting for you guys to go over this epic series! 👏🏾
Great brilliant insight. Not just some popcorn stuff but thought put into making the content of the video. Love it.
ps : I've never watched billions so I'm trusting that the show is at least a reflection of it
OMG you finally did Billions. I asked for this in an email like 2 years ago. You guys rock
Love this show. Watching for years. Still don't understand what hedge fund is. 🤦🏽♀️
Thank you for doing one on Billions. A great and underrated show.
"... sometimes explicitly." What, like naming a character Axelrod? Yeah, that's quite explicit.
Showtime was smart in asking you guys to do a review. Because I never heard of it but now I'm dying to see Billions
Philosophy of Joss Whedon or Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, please.
What philosophy? Just wisecracks over there.
No
Finally!!! i Love the show. And a philosphy about their facets and protagonist is something i was expecting.
Thaaanks!
Jared your beard is misaligned! what's up with that!
EasilyDelighted maybe he wanted a good side and bad side.
Lockdown hair cuts mate
With shows like that - where the spoilers are gonna consist basically of different instances of the same philosophical basis - you could make a video with "spoilers for season 1" so we can watch the video to decide if it's worth watching the show or to watch after the end of the season to see what we missed, (and to the people who don't mind spoilers, or the people who don't plan on watching, it doesn't make any difference).
That opens you up to make another video later to say "see? these were the facts and that's how they manifest the philosophy we diagnosed with the first season". I just finished the first season so I could come here and the only spoiler I got before 10:00 was the books thing.. wich is not a big one. So it seems really doable.
I'd say that that would be more complicated with shows where the philosophy is unveild with how the ending relates to the start instead of different escalations of the same thing, but you did a season by season approach to Breaking Bad and talked about just the end of GOT, so you can do it to anything. I think you should.
I was a Philosophy major. I think it is critical to have peace within yourself first, and continually work at this daily. Our intuition is very important in making sound decisions. In my opinion it is probably more important than all the information you can find anywhere in the entire world.
I saw something about game theory on the internet and it got my attention, than i saw the beginning of this video on the they it was published and became aware of the existing of a tv series about the game theory, making me wonder how good this show could be, so i waited till i have watched all the seasons so i could watch this video, it took me 3 months (because i had college, work and stuff) and i can say it was worthy. Only the firsts 2 minutes of video already made me want to see the show, so congratulations to everyone involved here.
I got here from a montage of Bill Stern clips including "Pretend we're having an argument" -- ua-cam.com/video/N21R9cPXYBs/v-deo.html -- and now this spoiler-filled analysis has... convinced me even more to watch this series!
Not having seen the show I'm not sure if mentioning this this just didn't fit in your analysis of it, but from the iterative Prisoner's Dillema tournaments, among the strategies that evolved from the basic variations on the Tit for Tat in later versions were ones that would occasionally employ a "forgive" move if caught in a vicious defection cycle (punish for a few rounds, forgive without retaliating a round, then resume as normal). A similar version is one that attempts a sort of "redeem" move if it was actually the initial betrayer.
Basic Tit for Tat I think performed slightly better directly against versions of either of these two (if they include a betray test move) because it relies on them to make the first move to forgive, but overall they perform better against other strategies that occasionally defect because they can break free of of the vicious cycle once it starts.
In either case, if memory serves, these proved to be among the most effective universal strategies that succeeded basic Tit for Tat. So while they somewhat mimic empathy and guilt, I've always seen it as part of a more complete Game Theory, rather than illustrating a problem with it. At least it's one I think behavioral economists tend to subscribe to more over more traditional economists, accounting for the fact that humans are not perfectly rational actors, yet evolution has imbued us with instincts that somewhat reflect what Game Theory predicts.
Curious if this or similar strategies appeared in your research for this vid.
But hey, that's just a theory, a GAME theory !
This channel has grown so well over time.
this video deserves a disclaimer that it is not about the youtube channel "game theory"
I just finished watching Season 5.. can't stop
Wow ! I haven’t gotten past ep 4 but I’ll be back after a week of binging
worth it, a consistently well written and well acted show, it's like game of thrones but without the violence and better cars
It's the show that just keeps getting better
It is some serious quality drama, stellar writing and acting throughout all three seasons so far.
Great video! How do you think the show affects how we look at specific asset classes and commodities?
Do Philosophy of Damon Lindelof (especially The Leftovers), in honor of the Watchmen tv show
Ok I can't be the only one that clicked thinking it had something to do with MATPAT 😂😂😂. Love ya Jared!!!
That hand sign at the End =Wasn't= 'Peace' ( ! ) ?
I have watched these show twice now.. it is that good. Awaiting new season.
Welcome everyone who’s new to this show, you won’t be disappointed 😊
Great video. But, in the spirit of Wisecrack: in your model, you could point out that Nash Equilibrium is C:C
The title is going to push down the other results you'd find for "The Problem with Game Theory"
I watched the first season, but after this I am caught up and interested in watching the next now that I understand the game.
Anarchy is not synonmous with chaos
Chaos is unavoidable when it come to Anarchy
You are right, Anarchy isn't synonymous with chaos it means chaos, and even if it didn't, anarchy will unavoidably lead to chaos, It's just common sense.
@@artyomalekseyevich5927 it's common sense that if people work together with as little hierarchy as possible it will be chaos? I find that hard to believe.
@@DeeDee-zu2pv If people work together, there will necessarly be some kind of hierarchy as mentioned, and It's natural that it will grow further and expand into something like capitalism.
Expecting things to stay the same forever is foolish, and even then, saying "people working together with as little hierarchy" is not anarchism, there is no hierarchy in anarchism.
And yes anarchism will inevitably lead to either the end of humanity or back to something similar to capitalism, we humans are selfish (just like every other being on earth, I don't say that in a bad way) even if we have empathy, not everyone has as much empathy as the next guy. If there is no order people will naturally go towards the laziest thing to do, and society won't advance, unfortunately, and as flawed as capitalism may be, It is the best sytem in place, because It's competition, and competition means progress.
@@artyomalekseyevich5927 That sounds like a lot of assumptions made. Care to back it up with some facts?
But that was just a theory, a GAME THEORY
I'm impressed with the restraint of not referencing Mat Pat at all in this video.
The problem with the show? Mentioning game theory too many times. People don't go around talking about game theory even when they actually use it. In fact, game theory is exactly that, a theory; meaning it tries to describe a reality that existed before. People used the same logic before and after it got a name and I don't think a lot of people using it even in a day to day basis brag about its name regularly. This just kills the fun of a show. This much exposition for what? To sound smart?
Soroush Falahati it gets a lot of play in finance. “Oh, are we playing games now? Ok. We can play some games” is usually how it gets tossed around. Formalizing it doesn’t change the discussion, just makes it so the audience doesn’t have to work a 40 hour week to keep up.
Why are you here?
I'm real excited to talk to my boss about this. He loves game theory.
He also introduced me to this channel, but I don't think he reads comments.
Can you guys do philosophy of Happy! That shit is wack...
Hey Wisecrack! Great video (on par). I was wondering if you guys were considering doing a video that analyzes the classic Twilight Zone series before the new one starts up? I think a lot of the episodes STILL have an impact 50 years later and I'm wondering what y'all's take on it is. Thanks for all the content!
Why is this guy's beard uneven?
That video was amazing. I recently told a friend that Billions - my fav TV show of all time - is Game Theory as a TV show. you explained it perfectly.
In certain situations your playing the game without even noticing. Most predominately in job interview, say one thing there not happy with you lose, they already had someone in mind but interviews are formalities you lose. Its complex as somethings you cant break without consequences your forced to play. You just gotta hope both parties cooperate. Hell thiefs and people in poverty are forced to play the game cause most of society didnt cooperate with them and returning the favour
Iain Debono what!?... you need to rewrite your statements for those bag of words to make any sense
made sense to me
I have watched this series from season one and it is even better than presented here. It has great insight into how human nature is what really runs the stock market and law. Also, kudos to Showtime and I hope they sponsor more insights into their programs.
Game Theory: Make your move...
Me: Kobayashi Maru
Game Theory: 😱
bbr64 bbr64 NANI?!?