§ in 1928 a 25 year old Hungarian student gave his first public lecture its title was on the theory

of parlor games and it explored features of basic board games that fascinated the young
mathematician the students name was John von Neumann and in the next 15 years he turned
these observations into a new discipline game theory when Neumann realized that the
apparently trivial decisions made while playing games could be used to study decision making
more broadly since the early 1950s game theory has flourished it provides a mathematical
description of situations in which individuals have to make choices it's been used by economists
to study how markets work and also employed by biologists political scientists and software
designers and thanks to film and television game theory scenarios such as the prisoner's dilemma
have become familiar outside the realms of academia with me to discuss game theory iean stuart
emeritus professor of mathematics at the University of Warwick Andrew Coleman professor of
psychology at the University of Leicester and Richard Bradley professor of philosophy at the
London School of Economics and political science he ensured perhaps you could begin by giving
us some idea of why studying games and which games you study is useful in the first place
1928 年，一个 25 岁的匈牙利学生做了他的第一次公开演讲 题目是 "客厅游戏理论"，探讨
了基本棋盘游戏的特点，这让这位年轻的数学家非常着迷 这位学生名叫约翰-冯-诺伊曼，
在接下来的 15 年里，他把这些观察变成了一门新的学科 游戏理论，当时诺伊曼意识到，
玩游戏时做出的看似微不足道的决定可以用来更广泛地研究决策 自 50 年代初以来，游戏
理论得到了蓬勃发展 它对个人必须做出选择的情况进行了数学描述 它被经济学家用来研
究市场如何运作，也被生物学家、政治学家和软件设计师所采用，而且由于电影和电视的
出现，博弈论的情景，如囚徒困境，已经在学术界以外的领域被人们所熟悉。

we all play games all the time in this sense it's about as you said decision making the idea is that
you consider people who are faced with making choices between a small number relatively small
number of different alternatives am I going to buy a car am I not going to buy a car but then
there's another player in the game in this case the car manufacturer who's deciding what models
to produce and what price to sell them at and so this transaction and this decision process can be
seen as two players in this case is a very very simplified version of it each has a certain number of
different choices strategies they can use and the mathematic starts out with the idea that
actually neither of them has any idea what the other one is going to do
我们都一直在玩游戏，在这个意义上，它是关于你所说的决策，这个想法是，你认为人们
面临着在少数相对较少的不同选择中做出选择，我是否要买一辆车，我是否要买一辆车，
但在游戏中还有另一个参与者，在这种情况下，汽车制造商正在决定 所以这个交易和决策
过程可以被看作是两个玩家，在这种情况下是一个非常非常简化的版本，每个人都有一定
数量的不同的选择策略，他们可以使用，数学的出发点是，实际上他们都不知道另一个人
要做什么.

§ so surely somebody manufacturer knows somebody's gonna buy a car they're gonna buy a car
and that's a bit of a start
所以肯定有人制造商知道有人会买一辆车，他们会买一辆车，这只是个开始
but in other examples and other models you would add that sort of detail later and get a more
complicated kind of game but to understand the basic principles you start with the simplest one
which is essentially each knows what the the payoffs are what the win and loss is for particular
combinations of choices but they don't know what choice the other one is going to make
但在其他的例子和其他的模型中，你会在以后增加这种细节，得到一种更复杂的游戏，但
为了理解基本原则，你可以从最简单的开始，即基本上每个人都知道报酬是什么，特定的
选择组合的输赢是什么，但他们不知道另一个人将做出什么选择。
§ I'm intrigued as I think a lot of our listeners would be by the fact that this seems have kicked off
with this young man talking about parlor games now can you give us an example that he chose
from that first lecture he made which parlor game this was all which actually got him going
我很好奇，我认为我们的很多听众会被这似乎已经开始与这个年轻人谈论客厅游戏现在你
能给我们一个例子，他选择了他从第一节课的客厅游戏这就是让他
well I think the the best example to choose and I don't know whether he lectured about it but it's
a game that children play and it has all of the basic ingredients and this is scissors paper stone or
rock paper scissors it's sometimes called
我认为这是最好的例子，我不知道他是否说教，但这是一个孩子们玩的游戏，它有所有的
基本成分，这是剪刀布，有时被称为石头剪刀
§ not only children well you don't election late nine holidays I can tell
我看得出来，不仅是孩子们，你不会晚九个假期
if you don't need any apparatus except yourself so we all know the rules scissors cuts paper
paper rap stone stone blunt scissors so that tells you what wins so you put your hands behind
your back and simultaneously you and the other player make the shape of the scissors or the
paper all the stone and if both of you make the same shape that's a draw but if I make scissors
and you make pay for I've won if I make scissors and you make stone you've won so how do you
play this game and more you think about this
如果你不需要任何仪器，除了你自己，那么我们都知道规则，剪刀剪纸，纸刮石头，钝剪
刀，所以这告诉你什么是赢，所以你把你的手放在背后，同时你和其他玩家做剪刀或纸的
形状，所有的石头，如果你们两个做同样的形状，这是一个平局，但如果我做剪刀，你做
支付，我已经赢了，如果我做剪刀，你做石头，你已经赢了，所以你怎么玩这个游戏，你
更多的思考这一点。
okay I've watched children playing this and they look at each other and they see who's smiling
and they're actually following know trying to to help with the other player but in the simplest
version of this if for example I play scissors rather too often you will notice this and you'll start
playing stone more because that's going to win so I shouldn't play scissors too often I shouldn't
play paper too often I shouldn't play stone too often and you rapidly realize that roughly speaking
I should play each of them about 1/3 at the time and I should also do do this unpredictably if you
know scissors if I did them in order all the time scissors then paper then stone this is a thin paper
then stone you'll spot the pattern so just thinking of the top of your head about this particular
game the best strategy would seem to be to choose at random from the three choices with equal
probabilities and in fact if you do this what happens is to go on in the long run nobody wins
nobody loses the whole thing evens out, so we have the whole thing encapsulated here you have
the structure of the game this is a two-player game, you have the payoff win lose or draw for
each combination of strategies and each player has a certain number of strategies available
好吧，我看过孩子们玩这个游戏，他们互相看着对方，看到谁在笑，他们实际上是在跟随
试图帮助其他玩家，但在最简单的版本中，如果我玩剪刀的频率太高，你会注意到这一点
你会开始多玩石头，因为那会赢，所以我不应该太经常玩剪刀，不应该太经常玩纸，不应
该太经常玩石头，你很快意识到，大致上我应该玩每一个 你很快就会意识到，大致来说，
我应该每次玩 1/3，而且我还应该不可预测地玩，如果你知道剪刀，如果我一直按顺序玩
剪刀，然后是纸，然后是石头，这是一张薄纸，然后是石头，你会发现这个模式，所以只
是从你的头顶想到这个特定的游戏，最好的策略似乎是在三个选择中随机选择，概率相等
事实上，如果你这样做，从长远来看，会发生什么，没人赢没人输，整个事情都是平衡的
所以我们把整个事情概括在这里，你有游戏的结构，这是一个双人游戏，你有每个策略组
合的回报，赢了，输了，或者平了，每个玩家有一定数量的策略可用
§ and we're going to explore how that gets turned to mathematics not I mean not to do this in
future under a comment so what are the origins of the game theory sorry Andrew Andrew
Coleman what the origins of the games theory ?
我们将探讨如何将其转化为数学，而不是我的意思是在今后的评论中不这样做，那么博弈
论的起源是什么呢？
and the theory itself got established as you yourself mentioned in the mid twentieth century but
the idea of strategic thinking that's to say taking into account in your decision making what
decisions other people are making is as old as the hills and if you look at the records of ancient
civilizations there are documents interesting documents which show people not only being aware
of this but also aware that once you once you take into account other people's decisions in your
decision-making it's often quite tricky and paradoxical and a good example comes from Pliny the
Younger this is the first century AD in he was a Roman senator and some people were brought
before the Senate who accused of committing a crime and the Senate was split and in Plenty's
faction they wanted to acquit these people there was a block that wanted to banish them to an
island and there was a block that wanted to condemn them to death so he ABC and Pliny was in
the smallest group and he and the other senators who in that group became aware that if they
just voted by show of hands they get their worst option because they wanted to acquit and the
biggest block was condemned to death so it would be silly them to in fact vote sincerely and
they'd be better off joining the Punishers then they'd get their second best option rather than
their their worst and plenty wrote about this at some length in the letter and it shows that and he
did some we would nowadays call game theoretic analysis and then it in late antiquity the
Babylonian Talmud has got a passage about how to distribute the wealth of somebody who dies
with debtors but not enough money to pay all the debtors and several examples are given that
puzzled rabbinical scholars for centuries and even it was seriously thought there must be
conscription transcription errors that they couldn't have meant what they said and then recently
the Nobel prize-winning game theorist Robert Ullman showed that the distributions that were
being proposed were actually corresponding to a game theoretic system of it's called the
nucleolus 这个理论本身是在 20 世纪中期建立起来的，但战略思维的想法，也就是在你的决
策中考虑到其他人的决定，就像山丘一样古老，如果你看看古代文明的记录，有一些有趣
的文件显示，人们不仅意识到了这一点，而且还意识到，一旦你在决策中考虑到其他人的
决定，往往会相当棘手和矛盾。 一个很好的例子来自于小普林尼，那是公元一世纪，他是
一个罗马元老，有些人被带到元老院，他们被指控犯了罪，元老院出现了分裂，在普林尼
的派别中，他们想让这些人无罪释放，而有一派则想把他们放逐到一个岛上。普林尼在最
小的那一派，他和那一派的其他参议员意识到，如果他们只是举手投票，他们会得到最坏
的选择，因为他们想无罪释放，而最大的那一派则被判处死刑，所以他们真诚投票是很愚
蠢的。他们其实是在真诚地投票，他们最好加入惩罚者的行列，这样他们就会得到第二好
的选择，而不是最差的选择。"大量的信中写到了这一点，他做了一些我们现在称之为博弈
论的分析，然后在古代晚期的巴比伦塔木德有一段话 巴比伦塔木德经在古代晚期有一段关
于如何分配某人的财富，该人死后有债务人，但没有足够的钱来支付所有的债务人，并给
出了几个例子，使拉比学者困惑了几个世纪，甚至有人认真地认为一定有抄写错误，他们
不可能有他们所说的意思，然后最近诺贝尔奖的 最近，诺贝尔奖得主罗伯特 -乌尔曼
（Robert Ullman）表明，所提出的分布实际上是对应于一个被称为 核子的博弈论系统。
it's a quite a complicated game theory and these these old rabbis had somehow got to this
intuitively, the forerunners of the modern movement were particularly in the 18th century James
Walter great food or Wargrave I think he's pronounced who's is an ancestor of Lord Wargrave in
the current House of Lords of all people he did an analysis of the Ganga hair which is a card game
where people the simple card game people select cards and he worked out that the optimal
strategy is a mixed strategy what ian was referring to where you choose between your available
available strategies with a randomizing element and that was a correct analysis that he gave in
the 18th century and did he mean anyone it meant that you wouldn't wouldn't lose that you
you'd maximize your chance if both people adopt the optimal strategy then nobody win this as in
scissors paper stone but if you don't use standard chance of losing ,in the 19th century corner of
French mathematician did an analysis of supply and demand of 2 openly to producers of the
same Goods in his example it was mineral water trying to decide whether to restrict or increase
production optimal strategies of both end up in what we now call a Nash equilibrium which you
might be coming back to later but this was a trunkful runner of the Nash equilibrium idea and
then Charles Lutwidge Dodgson who we usually remember as Lewis Carroll there was an Oxford
on mathematics stone he was very puzzled by problems of voting in his college and he worked
out various voting systems to try to avoid strategic or tactical voting
这是一个相当复杂的博弈理论，而这些老拉比不知何故凭直觉得出了这个结论。现代运动
的先驱，特别是在 18 世纪，詹姆斯-沃尔特-伟大的食物或瓦格雷夫，我想他的发音是，他
是目前上议院中瓦格雷夫勋爵的祖先，他对甘加发做了分析，这是一个纸牌游戏，人们在
简单的纸牌游戏中选择纸牌，他计算出最佳策略是混合策略，即伊恩 他的意思是说，如果
两个人都采用最佳策略，那么没有人会赢，就像剪刀石头布一样，但如果你不采用标准的
失败机会，你就不会输。 在 19 世纪，法国数学家做了一个关于 2 个公开的相同商品的生
产者的供应和需求的分析，他的例子是矿泉水，试图决定是否限制或增加生产的最佳策略
最终达到我们现在所说的纳什均衡，你可能会回来的 然后 Charles Lutwidge Dodgson，我们
通常记得他是 Lewis Carroll，他是牛津大学的数学石，他对大学里的投票问题非常困惑，他
研究了各种投票系统，试图避免战略性或战术性投票。
§ we need him now me
and Sarah Mello a German mathematician proved the first major theorem in game theory in 1913
and then we get into Borel and the French Borel and for Norman in 1928 who you mentioned in
your introduction
我们现在需要他，我
萨拉-梅洛，一位德国数学家，在 1913 年证明了博弈论的第一个主要定理，然后我们进入
博莱尔和法国的博莱尔，以及你在介绍中提到的 1928 年的诺曼。
§ I did in his regarded as the beginning at the start of the modern games here in ocean can you
just tell us a little more under government about John von Neumann and what know what not
about him so much is what he contributed it he Hungarian 25 when he did his first lecture and
then he not very long ago chico wrote a book about game theory the first book about game
theory
我认为他是现代游戏的开端，在海洋中，你可以告诉我们更多关于约翰 -冯-诺伊曼的政府
信息，以及他的贡献，他在匈牙利 25 岁时做了他的第一次演讲，然后他不久前写了一本关
于游戏理论的书，第一本关于游戏理论的书。

in 1928 he proved a very important theorem and I've actually looked up his girl speaking a little
bit of German at least I read a bit of Journal tried to read his his article he proved this theorem is
very long very complicated and impenetrable but it was very important because it was he proved
that strictly competitive games that is to say two-player games in which one players gains are
always equivalent to the other players losses like chess for examples are strictly competitive yet
he proved that strictly competitive games always have a particular kind of solution and he
showed what it is and it was important partly because the mathematician Borella I mentioned
the Frenchman who'd been working a lot on games in the years preceding that had struggled to
do this and it actually conjectured conjectured that this wasn't the case that you couldn't prove
such a theorem so for Nolan was the first to actually prove it he was an immensely influential
mathematician he didn't just work on games he was a very they're one of the most talented
mathematicians of the 20th century and this was rarely well historians of game theory often give
1928 is the birthday of modern game theory because he proved this first really important
theorem
在 1928 年，他证明了一个非常重要的定理，我实际上已经查了他的女孩，说了一点德语，
至少我读了一点杂志，试图读他的文章，他证明了这个定理非常长，非常复杂，难以捉摸
但它非常重要，因为它是他证明了严格竞争的游戏，也就是说，两个- 他证明了严格意义上
的竞争性游戏，也就是说，两个玩家的收益总是等同于另一个玩家的损失，比如国际象棋
就是严格意义上的竞争性游戏，但是他证明了严格意义上的竞争性游戏总是有一种特殊的
解决方案，他说明了这是什么，这很重要，部分原因是我提到的数学家 Borella，这个法国
人在之前的几年里一直在研究游戏，他努力想做到这一点，实际上 他是第一个真正证明这
个定理的人 他是一个非常有影响力的数学家 他不仅研究游戏，而且是一个非常有才华的
数学家 他们是 20 世纪最有才华的数学家之一
§ thank you very much Richard Bradley I'm I read sometimes there can be divided into two times
cooperative and non cooperative can you develop that please
非常感谢理查德-布拉德利，我在书上看到，有时可以分为合作和非合作两种情况，你能介
绍一下吗？
yes so it's a very basic distinction in the class against the cooperative games are the games in
which it's possible to make a binding agreement whether what binds the agreement that the
players make between themselves is something that's enforced or ensured by some mechanism
outside of the game so two players can make a promise to each other to coordinate their
strategies in a certain kind of way and there's something a police force or a conscience or
something like that in the background that makes sure that they stick to their agreements that's
why these agreements are possible and can have consequences in the game so that's why those
are called the cooperative games because it's possible to cooperate through agreements non-
corporate of games are just those games in which it's not possible to or there's no such
mechanism cooperation is possible but there's nothing if there is cooperation it has to be
cooperation that's achieved in virtue of players playing their rational strategies thinking about
what's best for themselves not in virtue of some outside mechanism ensuring that they
cooperate and many game theorists think that you know there's the fundamental class of games
to the non cooperative ones I mean ultimately if there is some mechanism for ensuring
agreement it ought to be explained in terms of a bigger game outside a bigger description if you
like or a richer description in the situation which tells you why people would acknowledge their
conscience or respect the authority of the enforcer
是的，所以这是一个非常基本的区别，在反对合作游戏的类别中，有可能达成一个有约束
力的协议，无论玩家之间达成的协议是什么，都是由游戏外的一些机制来执行或确保的，
所以两个玩家可以向对方承诺，以某种方式协调他们的战略。因此，两个玩家可以向对方
承诺以某种方式协调他们的战略，并且有某种警察部队或良心之类的东西在后台确保他们
坚持他们的协议，这就是为什么这些协议是可能的，并且可以在游戏中产生后果，所以这
就是为什么这些游戏被称为合作游戏，因为有可能通过协议进行合作。 因为有可能通过协
议进行合作，非合作性游戏就是那些不可能或没有这种机制的游戏 合作是可能的，但没有
什么，如果有合作，就必须是凭借玩家的理性策略思考什么对自己最有利而实现的合作，
而不是凭借某种外部机制确保他们的合作，许多游戏理论家认为 许多博弈论者认为，你知
道有一类基本的博弈是不合作的 我的意思是，如果有一些机制可以确保达成协议，那么应
该用一个更大的博弈来解释，如果你愿意，可以用一个更大的描述来解释，或者用一个更
丰富的描述来解释，告诉你为什么人们会承认自己的良心或者尊重执行者的权威
§ can you give us some specific examples about what y'all
你能给我们举个具体的例子吗
yes so there's a so in there is very simple class of games called coordination games in which
players have common interests and in these class of games so here's a very simple example you
and I are walking down the street towards one another and we don't want to run into one
another so we've got to either move to the right or to the left and both of us have a strategy of
moving to the right or to the left and in that's a purely non cooperative game because there's
there's no we can assume that it's a non corporate again let's say we can't talk to each other
before but if I can see you moving in one direction I will coordinate my movement to match that
so that we don't run into one another and so the outcome there doesn't require any policing
there doesn't have to be some third party that ensures that we both move in the same direction
we'll just do so because it's in our interest not to run into one another in and out in other classes
in other kinds of games so let's take her as littering for instance we don't even need to talk about
just a social phenomenon of littering it would be in all of our interests as it were if none of us
littered but left her on devices we know what people do they litter essentially they litter because
everybody else is littering why should I not litter if everybody else isn't littering well why
shouldn't I litter because my little bit of maturing makes almost no difference and in in in that
kind of non cooperative game the outcome was will be a suboptimal one if you look at that
situation as a cooperative game on the other hand you can see that clearly the thing that we
should agree on doing is that all of us should not let her so in a cooperative game the outcome
would be we all agree not to litter because we can make such an agreement in the real world if
you like where it's impossible to police littering all the time the outcome will be that everybody
litters and that's because they nobody can we can promise each other not to litter but as soon as
he ends gone around the corner I'll just check my no agreement can be sustained there unless it's
in my interest to respect the agreement it's not in my interest to respect to their agreement so
the outcome will be that we all litter and you've seen this all over the place actually
是的，所以有一类非常简单的游戏叫做协调游戏，玩家有共同的利益，在这一类游戏中，
有一个非常简单的例子，你和我在街上走着，我们不想碰到对方 所以我们必须向右或向左
移动 我们都有一个向右或向左移动的策略，这就是一个纯粹的非合作游戏，因为没有我们
可以假设它是一个非企业的游戏，再次假设我们之前不能和对方交谈 但如果我看到你朝一
个方向移动，我就会协调我的行动以配合你的行动，这样我们就不会碰到一起，所以结果
不需要任何监督，不需要有第三方来确保我们都朝同一个方向移动，我们只是 这样做是因
为在其他班级和其他类型的游戏中不互相碰面符合我们的利益，所以让我们把她当作乱丢
垃圾的例子，我们甚至不需要谈论乱丢垃圾的社会现象，如果我们都不乱丢垃圾，而是把
她留在地上，这符合我们所有人的利益。如果我们都不乱扔垃圾，而是把她留在设备上，
我们知道人们会怎么做，他们会乱扔垃圾，因为其他人都在乱扔垃圾，为什么我不应该乱
扔垃圾，如果其他人都不乱扔垃圾，为什么我不应该乱扔垃圾，因为我的一点点成熟几乎
没有区别，在这种非合作游戏中，结果将是一个次优的结果，如果你把这种情况看成一个
合作游戏，另一方面，你可以看到，显然我们应该同意的事情是，我们所有人都不应该让
她这样做，所以在一个合作游戏的结果 因为我们可以在现实世界中达成这样的协议，如果
你愿意的话，在现实世界中，不可能一直对乱扔垃圾的行为进行管制，结果会是每个人都
乱扔垃圾，这是因为他们没有人可以，我们可以互相承诺不乱扔垃圾，但是一旦他结束了
我就会检查我的协议，除非尊重协议对我有利，尊重他们的协议对我没有好处，所以结果
会是我们都乱扔垃圾，实际上你已经在所有地方看到这种情况了。

§ some places your downs which is interesting as well isn't it in some places you people make an
attempt not to litter but we'll leave that for the moment which is about in 1951 a 21 year old
mathematician John Nash came an idea in this area that's I'm sure is very very important to
guarantee the Nash equilibrium now where did that take the theory
有些地方的垃圾也很有趣，不是吗？ 有些地方的人试图不乱扔垃圾，但我们先不谈这个问
题，1951 年，一个 21 岁的数学家约翰-纳什在这个领域提出了一个想法，我相信这对保证
纳什均衡非常非常重要，现在这个理论被带到了哪里？
well so the national limits of Nash lent is John Nash was an American mathematician er I mean
famously wrote a dissertation for instance of only 28 pages out of which came four seminal
papers in in in games so that the concept of Nash equilibrium predates him but he lent his name
to because he was the first to prove some very general results rather and the idea for Nash
equilibria is very simple it's a Nash equilibrium in a game so this is a situation in which let's say
two people are independently making choices and the the outcome of the game is is the pair of
choices of the two of them the pair of choices the truth of the make is called a Nash equilibrium
just in case both players on making a choice that is the best response to what the other player's
choice is okay so let me give the let's go back to the example of us walking down the street
towards one another if you step out of the way to your right then my best response is to step out
of the way to my right so that we pass each other and if you move to the left in my best response
to what you're doing is to move to my left so that we pass one another so those two moves
where you go right and I go right and you go left and I go left or both National equilibria in they're
terribly simple game that we face called walking down the street towards winner a name I just
gave to that people so the idea is here is that it's best response on the assumption that the other
player is playing as it were their role in the in the Nash equilibrium that you're looking at
所以纳什的国家限制是约翰-纳什是美国数学家 我的意思是说，他写了一篇只有 28 页的论
文，其中有四篇关于游戏的开创性论文，所以纳什均衡的概念在他之前就有了，但他借出
了自己的名字，因为他是第一个证明了一些非常普遍的结果，而纳什均衡的想法非常简单
纳什均衡的概念很简单，就是游戏中的纳什均衡，所以这是一种情况，比方说两个人独立
做出选择，游戏的结果是他们两个人的一对选择，这对选择的真相被称为纳什均衡，只是
在两个玩家做出的选择都是对另一个玩家的选择的最好回应。好吧，让我举个例子，让我
们回到我们走在大街上的例子，如果你向右走，那么我的最佳反应是向右走，这样我们就
能擦肩而过；如果你向左走，我对你的行为的最佳反应是向左走，这样我们就能擦肩而过
你向右走，我向右走，你向左走，我向左走，或者都是国家均衡，我们面对的是一个非常
简单的游戏，叫做 "走在街上，走向胜利"，这是我刚刚给人们起的名字，所以这里的想法
是，假设其他玩家在纳什均衡中扮演他们的角色，这就是最佳反应
§ can I just say it's very simple and it gets more and more complicated let's start to get a bit more
complicated he insurance but begin again by talking to I think what a lot of listeners will know
about the prisoner's dilemma now only two things haven't got all that much time and I really
really briskly tell us what it is and then I'd like to know where mathematics comes into it, I mean
why we can't talk about it it's like Faraday being bit angry at max or saying I understood you when
you told me about your theories why did you have to turn into algebra and so prisoner's dilemma
please and mathematics
我可以说这是非常简单的，它变得越来越复杂，让我们开始变得更复杂一些，他的保险，
但再次开始谈论我认为很多听众会知道的囚徒困境，现在只有两件事，没有那么多时间，
我真的非常轻快地告诉我们它是什么，然后我想知道数学在哪里出现。我的意思是，为什
么我们不能谈论它，这就像法拉第对麦克斯有点生气，或者说我理解你，当你告诉我你的
理论时，你为什么要变成代数，所以囚犯的困境和数学。
it's the iconic game where exactly this business of cooperation and non cooperation is very clear
so okay movin you and I have been both hauled in by the police we have committed a crime
together but the only evidence that pins it on either of us is basically if one of us confesses the
police haven't got a lot they know we've done it but they don't really have the evidence okay so if
we both keep quiet we'll each be in the slammer for about a month until it's all sorted out and
then they'll have to let us go now if I decide to confess then they'll let me free and you will go to
jail for 12 months if you confess then you get there free and I go to jail for 12 or 12 months if we
both confess them we'll both get six months okay so what do we do and I sit here thinking you
know it's actually rather obvious it doesn't matter what Melvin does I do better if I confess
because if you don't then when I confess you're gonna go in the slammer mode I get set free and
online and if you do confess it's still better for me to confess because if I don't I get a longer
sentence so this is what's called a dominant strategy one of these confession is always better
than staying silent for me given whatever you do but by exactly the same argument confession is
the best thing for you as well therefore we both confess but in fact if we both stayed silent we
would have both got off with the shorter sentence so the game theoretic pursuing the Nash
equilibria in this game leads to a rather paradoxical result we don't end up with what's best for
both of us we think we're working in rationally to work out what's best for me and I don't know
what the other person is doing and there's a very clear argument that says the best thing for me
is to confess it always is better than not confessing but if we both decide to confess it turns out
that we actually do better than the whole of that argument seems not to apply and people have
written over 2,000 research papers on this particular game because it this whole issue of
cooperation non-cooperation what is rational strategy what is not all shows up in this game
这是一个标志性的游戏，合作与不合作的关系非常明确 好吧，你和我都被警察抓了起来，
我们一起犯了罪 但唯一能证明我们俩的证据是，如果我们中的一个人承认了，警察就没有
什么证据了 他们知道是我们干的，但他们没有真正的证据 好吧，如果我们都保持沉默，
我们就会在监狱里呆上一个月，直到一切都解决了 然后他们就会放我们走 如果我决定认
罪，他们就会放我走 而你会在监狱里呆上 12 个月 如果你认罪，你就会得到自由，而我就
会在监狱里呆上 12 个月 或者 12 个月 如果我们都认罪，我们都会得到 6 个月的时间 那么
我们该怎么办呢？ 我坐在这里想 你知道这很明显，不管梅尔文怎么做，如果我认罪，我
会做得更好 因为如果你不认罪，当我认罪时你就会进监狱，我会得到自由，并且上网 如
果你认罪，对我来说还是更好，因为如果我不认罪，我会被判更长的刑期，所以这就是所
谓的主导策略，无论你做什么，对我来说，认罪总是比保持沉默好，但根据同样的论点，
认罪对你来说也是最好的，所以我们都认罪，但事实上，如果我们都保持沉默，我们都会
得到较短的刑期，所以博弈论上对纳什均衡的追求 导致了一个相当矛盾的结果，我们并没
有得到对我们双方都有利的结果，我们认为我们在理性地工作，找出对我最好的方法，而
我不知道对方在做什么，有一个非常明确的论点，说对我来说最好的事情是坦白，它总是
比不坦白好，但如果我们都决定坦白，结果是我们实际上做得更好，整个论点似乎不适用
人们已经写了超过 2。 人们已经写了超过 2000 篇关于这个特定游戏的研究论文，因为这
个游戏中出现了合作与不合作的整个问题，什么是理性策略，什么不是，都显示在这个游
戏中。
§ God will come back two months in a minute can I just take out Gavin well Andrew : why is it
attract it so much interest to thought I mean explain yourself simply a lot of people are saying
well I'm confessing and it's quite simple but why is it where's it intrigued with its complication
上帝会在一分钟内回来两个月，我可以把加文拿出来吗？ 安德鲁：为什么它吸引了它这么
多的兴趣来思考，我的意思是简单地解释你自己，很多人都在说，我正在忏悔，这很简单
但为什么它在哪里被它的复杂性所吸引呢？

I think there are two main reasons one is that it's inherently paradoxical it's very very strange that
there should be a game in which it's clearly rational for both players to act in one particular way
when we define rationality as doing what's best for themselves and yet if they both did
something different they'd have both been better off I mean ever since David Hume and the
Scottish enlightenment we define instrumental rationality as choosing the best option to pursue
your own interests and if both players do that in the prisoner's dilemma game then they end up
worse off than two irrational players who haven't done that in cooperate and don't give the don't
confess to the police so it's deeply and fundamentally paradoxical I think that's one reason it's
intrigued people there three reasons I said there were two the second reason is that it provides a
wonderful way of studying cooperation and competition in the laboratory so experimental games
are an issue initiated by social psychologists but nowadays conducted also by behavioural
economists have often used prisoner's dilemma game because it provides you with a beautiful
laboratory example of a situation in which you can study cooperation competition and very
numerous factors to see what increases or decreases cooperation and so on and the third reason
is that its obliquity us in everyday life ever since it was discovered 1950 at the RAND Corporation
in in California as an as a kind of anomaly and people have began to realize that everywhere you
turn they're prisoners dilemmas I mean an arms race between two countries like a prisoner's
dilemma because it's in both countries interests to increase their arm prompts production
irrespective of what the other does you either get a strategic advantage or you avoid falling back
but they'd both be better off if they didn't in the Cold War the two bloc's spent billions on just
maintaining the balance of terror they could have maintained the same balance of terror by not
doing it but it's a dominant strategy because how the prisoner to the prisoner's dilemma type
structure and it crops up in all over the place in everyday life and that's another reason why
economists particularly are absolutely intrigued by it should
我认为有两个主要原因 一个是它本质上是自相矛盾的 这非常非常奇怪，在一个游戏中，
两个玩家以一种特定的方式行事显然是理性的 当我们把理性定义为做对自己最有利的事，
但如果他们都做不同的事，他们都会过得更好 我的意思是自从大卫-休谟和苏格兰启蒙运
动以来，我们把工具理性定义为选择最佳方案来追求自己的利益，如果两个玩家在囚徒困
境游戏中都这么做，那么 他们的结局比两个非理性的玩家更糟糕，他们没有这样做，在合
作中不向警察坦白，所以它从根本上是矛盾的，我想这是它吸引人们的一个原因，有三个
原因，我说有两个原因，第二个原因是它提供了一个很好的方法来研究实验室中的合作和
竞争，所以实验游戏是一个由社会心理学家发起的问题，但现在行为经济学家也经常使用
囚徒困境游戏，因为它提供了你 因为它为你提供了一个很好的实验室例子，你可以在其中
研究合作竞争和许多因素，看看是什么增加或减少了合作等等 第三个原因是，自从 1950
年在加利福尼亚的兰德公司作为一种反常现象被发现后，它在日常生活中的地位就很高了
人们开始意识到，无论你在哪里，都是囚徒困境 我是说两个国家的军备竞赛就像囚徒困境
因为增加武器符合两个国家的利益 不管对方怎么做，你要么获得战略优势，要么避免倒退
但如果不这样做，他们都会更好。在冷战中，两个集团花费了数十亿来维持恐怖平衡，如
果不这样做，他们也可以维持同样的恐怖平衡。但这是一个主导战略，因为囚犯与囚犯困
境的结构，它在日常生活中到处出现，这就是为什么经济学家特别对它绝对感兴趣的另一
个原因应该
§ Bradley can you take us can you give us something something from the idea of coordination
what's the game element in that can you give us a specific example and then tell us the theory
please
布拉德利你能带我们去吗？你能从协调的概念中给我们一些东西吗？游戏元素是什么？你
能给我们一个具体的例子，然后告诉我们理论吗
sure so I mean we've already seen a very simple example which is the example
当然，我的意思是我们已经看到了一个非常简单的例子，这就是这个例子
§ walking down the street it was said first on this program and
走在街上说，它首先是在这个节目中，然后和
of course the sort of which side of the road you drive on is a very very similar thing there are
more interesting coordination games when there's still an advantage to both parties to
coordinate on some on some kind of some pair of actions but there's somewhat more advantage
to one rather than the so there's a very famous game in game theory called battle of the sexes
which perhaps really should have been called battle of the spouses or battle of the partners
which is a game in which there's a coordination problem but also it's an element of competition
in it so it extends what Andrew was saying about is bringing out some sort of fundamental
features of social interaction so in the battle of the sexes game the idea is the husband and wife
are trying to decide where to go out that evening and the husband would like to go out to dinner
and the wife would like to go to the Opera and they would like to go out with each other this that
phase of their marriage and so what they really want to avoid is going off to some two separate
activities but of course you know the husband would prefer that they both agree to go after
dinner and the wife would prefer they both go out to the Opera well so they're in a coordination
game and and there are two Nash equilibria so I mean it's clearly the husband's best response to
follow his wife to the Opera if she's if that's what she's going to do and it's clearly the wife's best
strategy to go to the dinner if that's what her husband's going to do but in fact I mean this is
really a case in which neither have any idea what the others going to do because it depends on
each other what I do depends on you what do you do and what you do depends on what I do and
serve this now so that's a very sort of clear example of a coordination problem in which there's
more than one magic willow so it's not very clear what people should do
当然，你在哪边开车是一个非常非常类似的事情，有一些更有趣的协调游戏，当双方在某
些行动上协调时仍有优势，但其中一方比另一方更有优势，所以在博弈论中有一个非常著
名的游戏叫性别之争，也许真的应该叫配偶之争或伴侣之争。这是一个博弈，其中有一个
协调问题，但也有一个竞争的因素，所以它延伸了安德鲁所说的是带出社会互动的一些基
本特征，所以在性别之争的游戏中，想法是丈夫和妻子试图决定那天晚上去哪里，丈夫想
出去吃饭，妻子想去看歌剧，他们想和对方出去，这 所以他们真正想避免的是去参加两个
不同的活动，但当然，你知道丈夫希望他们都同意在晚餐后去，而妻子则希望他们都去看
歌剧。妻子的最佳策略显然是去参加晚宴，如果她丈夫要这么做的话，但事实上，我的意
思是，这确实是一个双方都不知道别人要做什么的情况，因为这取决于彼此，我做什么取
决于你做什么，你做什么取决于我做什么，现在为这个问题服务，所以这是一个非常明确
的协调问题的例子，其中有不止一个魔法柳树，所以人们应该做什么不是很清楚
§ can you bristly and I asked to do this before budget where does mathematics come into it I
mean you've been talking about a very eloquent think clearly why do we need mathematics
你能不能？我要求在预算之前做数学在哪里？我的意思是你一直在谈论一个非常雄辩的思
考为什么我们需要数学
okay the mathematics comes in firstly because actually calculating these mixed strategies what
probability do you play which strategy is especially if you have the significant number of options
more than just two you actually need to do some sums to get the numbers right and so for
example that with prisoners prisoner's dilemma we have zero month sentence at one month
sentence a six-month sentence and a twelve months in sitting there in the description of the
game now in that particular case because of these dominant strategies you just get this rather
paradoxical result but in very similar games the strategy that would be adopted would be to play
various of these possibilities with certain probabilities and you need to know what the numbers
are what does I think but how does having numbers help can you just tell us that is that possible
so how does it help it helps because it actually gives you you this is how you play the game you if
for example the calculation says you should use a particular strategy 10% of the time and the
other strategy 90% of the time you can actually do it and take your decision by choosing a
random number between 1 and 10 and if that number is 1 you played the first strategy and if it's
anything from 2 up to 10 you play the other strategy so you can actually you mathematically roll
the dice and use the probabilities in the way that this mathematical calculation tells you
好吧，首先是数学，因为实际上计算这些混合策略的概率是多少，你玩哪种策略，特别是
如果你有大量的选项，而不仅仅是两个，你实际上需要做一些计算来得到正确的数字，因
此，例如，在囚犯的两难处境中，我们有零个月的刑期，一个月的刑期，六个月的刑期和
十二个月的刑期。 在这个游戏的描述中，我们有 0 个月的刑期、1 个月的刑期、6 个月的
刑期和 12 个月的刑期，在这种情况下，由于这些主导策略的存在，你会得到这种相当矛盾
的结果，但在非常类似的游戏中，所采取的策略是以一定的概率来玩各种可能性，你需要
知道这些数字是什么，我认为，有数字有什么帮助，你能告诉我们，这是否可能，它有什
么帮助，因为它实际上帮助你 如果计算结果显示你应该在 10%的时间里使用某种策略，在
90%的时间里使用另一种策略，那么你就可以通过在 1 到 10 之间选择一个随机数字来做决
定，如果这个数字是 1，你就使用第一种策略，如果是 2 到 10 之间的数字，你就使用另一
种策略。
§ presumably they get hideous complicated really complicated as the game has included more
and more people
大概他们会变得可怕的复杂，非常复杂，因为他们加入了越来越多的人
if you have more and more people or more and more strategies more and more strategies than
two people is not too bad it's just too big a table of numbers more and more people and it starts
to get really complex
如果你有更多的人或更多的策略比两个人更多的策略也不算太坏，只是太多的人，它开始
变得非常复杂
so there's another I think of using mathematics in these things is is that it allows you to separate
the particular story that you're telling about again so this prisoner's dilemma starts off with this
nice story in which this sort of number of years that you spend in prison and then once you turn
it into a bit of mathematics we just write down some numbers to indicate the payoffs that's when
you realize actually this game is all over the place because there's lots and lots of social situations
in which those numbers represent payoffs are of a different kind then sometimes their monetary
payoff sometimes their length of prison sentence sometimes their honours that are ordered to
the numbers can stand in for so many different things so it makes the analysis very very general
so I think the generality is really the one of the most important things that you get out of it allows
you to study lots of situations and sort of one goes at were
因此，我认为在这些事情上使用数学的另一个原因是，它允许你把你正在讲述的特定故事
分离出来，所以这个囚徒困境一开始是一个很好的故事，即你在监狱中度过的年数，然后
一旦你把它变成一个数学，我们只是写下一些数字来表示回报，这时你就会意识到实际上
这个游戏是无处不在的，因为有很多和很多的社会情况，这些数字代表的回报是不同的，
有时他们的金钱回报，有时他们的刑期，有时他们的荣誉，这些数字可以代表许多不同的
东西。因为有很多社会情况，这些数字代表的回报是不同的，有时他们的金钱回报，有时
他们的刑期，有时他们的荣誉，这些数字可以代表很多不同的东西，所以它使分析非常非
常普遍，所以我认为普遍性真的是最重要的事情之一，你得到它允许你研究很多情况，有
点像一个去是

§ one of the attractions about this program is the new the new games that have come up there's
a Hawk and Dove game Andrew Coleman can you tell us about that can you tell us how the
British biologist John Maynard Smith who you thought used to be a big feature of this program
John Maynard Smith until his death how he seized on that for his contribution to evolutionary
biology so what's the whole can the Dove about and what did John Maynard Smith do with it in
the 1970s
这个节目的吸引力之一是新出现的新游戏 有一个 "鹰与鸽 "的游戏，安德鲁-科尔曼，你
能告诉我们吗？ 你能告诉我们英国生物学家约翰-梅纳德-史密斯，你认为他曾经是这个节
目的一大特色，约翰-梅纳德-史密斯直到他去世，他是如何抓住这个机会对进化生物学做
出贡献的，那么整个 "鹰与鸽 "是怎么回事，约翰-梅纳德-史密斯在 1970 年代用它做什么？
so he was the one who brought it to prominence but it was actually invented rather interestingly
by a strange American unemployed American scholar who was wandering around London
submitted an article to the journal Nature and it was sent to John Maynard Smith to referee blind
referee and it was completely unpublishable but may not smith recognized that it was a work of
genius nonetheless so very unusually asked the editor to put him in touch with this author who
he didn't know and he was given an address and he went there and it was like a Doss house this
man was living living like a and and he and his gold was rice he was called George Price died
shortly after with cutting his own throat he was a very disturbed man and a biography of him
recently come out but they collaborated together and they produced an article and that's where
the hooked of games was first introduced and what it was intended to do was to solve a problem
about how cooperation could evolve it's very striking that Darwin's theory of natural selection is
based on the early idea of competitive process in which only the strongest survive or the most
successful fittest survive and yet and cooperation abounds in nature and birds give alarm calls to
warn their conspecifics if there's a cat in the garden well although it can only increase their own
chances of being predated on there's animals which have fights with conspecifics usually use or
very frequently used realized forms of fighting rather than all-out aggression where they could
could kill each other very easily and so on so caught there's a lot of cooperation in nature and
this was always a puzzle and always a great embarrassment for the theory of evolution even
Darwin recognized that he was very puzzled by social insects and so on and the hope dubgame
provides a partial solution to this because what it shows is that if there are two ways of engaging
in a combat or a competition with a Cantus if ik another member of your own species one being
all-out aggression and the other being displaying or ritualized some form of ritualized interaction
and then with reasonable assumptions again we need mathematics here and there's quite a lot
of mathematics in the hook tough game if you make reasonable assumptions it turns out that
quite surprisingly that the optimal solution is a mixed strategy in which each individual will play
Hawk with a certain probability depending on the actual payoffs in the game the cost of being
wounded and the value of the prize and so we'll play Hawk with a certain probability in dove with
a certain probability so the evolutionarily stable strategy as John Maynard Smith called it and
arises as a mixed strategy outcome from this game so it had a huge influence on the
development of behavioral biology and it solved a important problem in the theory of evolution
所以是他把它带入了人们的视野，但实际上它是由一个奇怪的美国失业学者发明的，他在
伦敦四处游荡，向《自然》杂志提交了一篇文章，它被送到约翰-梅纳德-史密斯那里，让
他盲审，它完全不能发表，但史密斯可能没有认识到这是一个天才的作品。他给了他一个
地址，他去了那里，那里就像一个 Doss 的房子，这个人生活得很好，他和他的金子是米，
他叫乔治-普莱斯，不久后死于自刎，他是一个非常不安的人，最近出了一本关于他的传记。
但他们一起合作，写了一篇文章，这就是游戏的钩子首次被引入的地方，它的目的是为了
解决合作如何进化的问题。或者说最成功的适者生存，然而自然界中的合作比比皆是 鸟类
发出警报声，警告它们的同种动物，如果花园里有一只猫的话 尽管这只能增加它们自己被
捕食的机会 与同种动物发生争斗的动物通常使用或经常使用实现形式的争斗，而不是全面
的 这一直是个难题，也是进化论的一大难题，甚至达尔文也承认他对社会性昆虫非常困惑
等等。 在合理的假设下，我们又需要数学，而钩子游戏中有相当多的数学，如果你做出合
理的假设，结果令人惊讶的是，最佳解决方案是一种混合策略，其中每个人都会以一定的
概率扮演鹰的角色，这取决于实际的回报。取决于游戏中的实际回报 受伤的代价和奖品的
价值 所以我们会以一定的概率玩鹰，以一定的概率玩鸽子 所以约翰 -梅纳德-史密斯称之
为进化上的稳定策略，它是这个游戏的混合策略结果 所以它对行为生物学的发展产生了巨
大影响，它解决了进化理论中的一个重要问题

§ and it went all over the Lola all over the intellectual waterfront didn't it this theory and moving
on rather briskly and that was a wonderful explanation it was important in economics we more
important in recent years in economics where we do where you would expand what expect it to
be so bitterly and pointedly and precisely
 它到处都是罗拉，到处都是知识分子的前沿，不是吗？ 这个理论相当迅速地向前发展，
这是一个美妙的解释，它在经济学中很重要，我们近年来在经济学中更重要，我们在那里
做，你会扩大它的预期，它是如此尖锐和精确的。
Give one example because one of the places where it really is used in economics in practical
circumstances is in the design of various systems for for economic transactions for example
auctions the one of the big auctions not so long ago in this country was selling off bits of the
radio spectrum for third generation mobile phones the mobile phone companies had to bid for a
particular range of frequencies they could use for their transmissions and the government set the
auction up in a way that actually brought in tens of billions from these companies now not so
long ago in Australia there was an auction just kind of kicked the whole thing up they were
auctioning something very similar radio spectrum and the winning the rule was high speed wins
but you can withdraw your bid after that if you wish and the company that won it put in the first
second third and fourth highest bids and withdrew the first three they were just hedging their
bets and everyone looked at that and said well that's not actually got the taxpayer the best best
amount of money for this so in 1993 when the American government was auctioning off
frequency spectrum parts of it they got some game theorists and some economists in and said
design this auction for us and using game theoretic principles they came up with something I
won't go into details but it involved everyone has to pay a deposit just to be in the game and if
they drop out they lose it and if you have the highest bid and then withdraw there is a penalty
basically you don't gain by doing that and that led to a much better outcome for in terms of the
revenues of the taxpayer.
举个例子，因为在实际情况下，经济学中真正用到的一个地方是为经济交易设计各种系统，
例如拍卖。他们可以使用他们的传输和政府设置的拍卖的方式，实际上带来了数百亿美元
的这些公司现在不久前在澳大利亚有一个拍卖只是一种踢了整个事情，他们拍卖的东西非
常相似的无线电频谱和获胜的规则是高速获胜，但你可以撤回你的投标后，如果你想和 中
标的公司出了第一、第二、第三和第四个最高价，并撤回了前三个，他们只是在对冲他们
的赌注，每个人都看了看，说好吧，这实际上并没有为纳税人争取到最好的资金，所以在
1993 年，当美国政府拍卖频谱部分时，他们找了一些游戏理论家和一些经济学家，说 他
们为我们设计了这个拍卖，利用博弈论的原理，他们想出了一个办法，我就不多说了，但
它涉及到每个人都必须支付押金才能参与游戏，如果他们退出，就会失去它，如果你出价
最高，然后退出，就会有惩罚，基本上你不会通过这样做获得收益，这导致了一个更好的
结果，就纳税人的收入而言
§ and there's a lots of these games they're terrific I could play them all morning I'm gonna just
concentrate into now there's all Richard Bradley the social contract the game theory is being
applied to the social contract that which keeps us a civilized society driving on the right side of
the road etc can you just explain how it figures there
有很多这样的游戏，非常棒，我可以玩一上午，我只想集中精力，现在有理查德-布拉德
利的社会契约，游戏理论被应用于社会契约，使我们成为一个文明的社会，在道路上正确
行驶等等，你能解释一下它是怎样的吗？
yes I mean one of the reasons why people got so excited about the prisoner's dilemma game is
that quite early on political theorists recognized that this was a wonderful way of understanding
why we need a social country the situation described in there looks very much like Hobbes's
vision of the state of nature in which everybody is aggressively attacking one another party to
gain the goods that they have but also to protect themselves and to gain a reputation for being
aggressive and this has the political scientists recognize something of the structure of the of the
prisoner's dilemma because for it it's in everybody's interest to behave aggressively for whatever
the other person is going to do if the other person is going to be aggressive well you better be
aggressive so that you're ready for the fight if they are going to be passive by being aggressive
you can take their goods and acquire a reputation as a bully which can be quite a good thing in
these circumstances and so on and again paradoxical outcome life in the state of nature is in the
sense suboptimal for everybody because everybody is running around attacking each other in life
in Hobbes's frames Rebs is nasty brutish and short ,well so the conditions there are ripe for a
contract in which people can agree to take themselves out of it out of this situation and put
themselves in a situation where they are in the better pair of outcomes with where there's some
corporate like we all agree not to carry guns we all agree not to carry guns we work well in and
inaudible we would all agree to just obey one person and that was the only way of guaranteeing
it other political theorists of course said well we must look at the state of nature more carefully
and we might agree to different things so the problem that that political theorist wants to
address namely what contract should we agree to can be thought about by thinking about the
problem that we're trying to avoid by making such a contract and that's what game theory allows
us to examine
是的，我的意思是，人们对囚徒困境游戏如此兴奋的原因之一是，很早就有政治理论家认
识到，这是理解我们为什么需要一个社会国家的绝妙方法，其中描述的情况看起来非常像
霍布斯对自然状态的看法，每个人都在积极地攻击对方，以获得他们所拥有的货物，但也
要保护自己，获得攻击性的声誉。因为对每个人来说，无论对方要做什么，都要表现得有
攻击性，如果对方要攻击，你最好要有攻击性，这样你就可以准备好战斗了，如果对方要
被动，你就可以拿走他们的东西，获得一个恶霸的名声。在这种情况下，作为一个恶霸的
声誉可能是相当好的事情，等等，再次出现矛盾的结果，在自然状态下的生活对每个人来
说都是次优的，因为每个人都在四处奔波，互相攻击，在霍布斯的框架中，生活是肮脏的
野蛮的，短暂的。 所以签订契约的条件已经成熟，人们可以同意把自己从这种情况中解脱
出来，把自己放在一个更好的环境中，在那里有一些公司，比如我们都同意不带枪，我们
都同意不带枪，我们在那里工作得很好，听不清楚，我们都同意服从一个人，这是唯一的
方法 当然，其他政治理论家说，我们必须更仔细地研究自然状态，我们可能会同意不同的
事情，所以那个政治理论家想解决的问题，即我们应该同意什么样的合同，可以通过思考
我们试图通过制定这样的合同来避免的问题来思考，这就是博弈论让我们研究的内容

§ I was intrigued by the ultimate game Andrew Coleman which I knew nothing about and
actually of all the games I find most intriguing and rather touching in a way could you tell people
about the ultimate game
我对终极游戏安德鲁·科尔曼很感兴趣，我对它一无所知，事实上，对于所有我觉得最有
趣和最感人的游戏，你能告诉人们终极游戏吗
it's almost childishly simple and that's part of its attraction is just alright then - it's a two-player
game one player is given a sum of money let's say for sake of argument it's 10 pounds and that
player that proposed then makes a proposal to how to divide this money between herself and
the other player and the the other player can either accept this proposal or reject it but there's
no other alternative

§ sorry if I'm making it muddy you'll tell me isn't it when two people walk along and there's a ten-
pound out on the pavement one on the picture of and they have to do something about it that
just sort of sharpens it a bit okay yeah exactly so there's two of them now from the start there's
one ten pound note and yeah what happens
它几乎简单得像个孩子，这也是它吸引人的原因之一 那就好--这是一个双人游戏 一个玩
家得到一笔钱，为了争论起见，假设是 10 英镑 然后那个提议的玩家提出建议，如何在自
己和另一个玩家之间分配这笔钱 另一个玩家可以接受这个建议或者拒绝它，但没有其他选
择

§ 对不起，如果我把它弄糊涂了，你可以告诉我 是不是当两个人走在路上，人行道上有一
张 10 镑的钞票，其中一个在照片上，他们必须做点什么，这就有点儿尖锐了 好的，没错，
所以现在有两个人，从一开始就有一张 10 镑的钞票，是的，会发生什么？

so the proposal proposes a division of this money and the responder either accepts the proposal
or rejects it but if the responder rejects it then neither player gets anything so that's you have to
assume that although they picked up this this money it's going to be if they can't agree then
neither of them will get anything now from a purely game theoretic point of view it's clear that
the proposal should offer the responder the minimal amount that makes it worthwhile for the
responder to accept it namely one penny and the responder should accept this because one
pennies better than nothing and we're assuming that players are rational in the sense they
always do what's best for themselves the alternative is nothing it's a accept a penny and that's
trivial however of course that's not what happens what's the interest in this game is not inherent
in any paradox in the game itself it's in the fact that it doesn't correspond to human psychology
and the fact that in practice they've been hundreds of experiments done in this case all over the
world in different locations often with huge endowments as they called because they take
American dollars to very very poor parts of the world and then offer an amount of money it's
equivalent to more than a month's salary and the results are basically the same namely that
proposes very seldom offer less than a quarter of the prize to the responder and if they do even
with these very large prizes it's liable to be rejected
所以提案者提议分割这笔钱，响应者要么接受提案，要么拒绝，但如果响应者拒绝，那么
双方都得不到任何东西，所以你必须假设，虽然他们拿了这笔钱，但如果他们不能达成一
致，那么他们都不会得到任何东西。很明显，提议者应该给响应者提供最小的金额，使响
应者值得接受，即 1 便士，响应者应该接受，因为 1 便士总比没有好，我们假设玩家是理
性的，他们总是做对自己最有利的事情，替代方案是什么都没有，这是一个接受 一分钱，
那是微不足道的 然而，这当然不是发生的事情 这个游戏的兴趣不在于游戏本身的任何悖
论 而是在于它不符合人类心理的事实 在实践中，他们已经在世界各地做了数百次实验 因
为他们把美国美元带到世界上非常贫穷的地方 然后提供一笔相当于一个月工资的钱 结果
基本上是一样的 即提议者很少向回应者提供少于四分之一的奖金 如果他们这样做，即使
有这些非常大的奖金，也很容易被拒绝
§ so if your 425 if you find 100,000 and you want 425 sod now 18% 18,000 people say now I've
been insulted
所以，如果你的 425，如果你找到 100,000，你想 425，现在 18%18,000 人说现在我被侮辱
了。
yes exactly, one way to think of that mathematically is that there's two different kinds of payoff
involved there's the amount of money but there's also honour or prestige or sense of fairness
and if know if one of these players offers one penny the other one looks at and says I would
rather deprive you of the rest of the money that's worth more to me than getting the penny and
up to about two pounds fifty let's say they still feel that way yeah so with the ten pound note up
to some level people are thinking yeah sure I get a bit more than I would otherwise have got but
the other person is getting away with murder here I'm not going to allow that and one of the
ways this is shown up in experiments is if you start playing the game in sequence many many
times observing what happened in the previous one because now you get punishment strategies
if you do something nasty to me this time then the next time we play the game I'm going to do
something nasty to you and both players can then learn don't do that and in a lot of experiments
this is this is what happens
是的，没错。从数学上看，有两种不同的回报，一种是钱的数量，另一种是荣誉、威望或
公平感，如果其中一个玩家出了一便士，另一个人就会说我宁愿剥夺你剩下的钱，这对我
来说比得到一便士更有价值，而到了 2 镑 50 元左右，让我们说他们还是有这种感觉。实验
中显示的一种方式是，如果你开始依次玩这个游戏，观察前一个游戏发生了什么，因为现
在你得到了惩罚策略，如果你这次对我做了一些坏事，那么下次我们玩游戏时，我就会对
你做一些坏事，然后双方都可以学会不要这样做，在很多实验中，这就是发生的事情。
§ what's extraordinary is that this happens all over the world in tribes inthe Amazon and in on
the stock macand that people won't be insulted in that way it shows a whole new spanner into
the works which is just the same to say when we've come to the end of the program so thank you
very much Richard Bradley Institute in Andrew Coleman .
非同寻常的是，这种情况发生在世界各地的部落，在亚马逊和股票市场上，人们不会以这
种方式受到侮辱，它显示了一个全新的扳手，当我们来到节目的最后，这只是说，所以非
常感谢理查德布拉德利研究所在安德鲁科尔曼.