Email this topic to a friend Printer-friendly version of this topic Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)		Archived thread - Read only  Previous Topic | Next Topic
Conferences Survivor Spoilers Forum (Protected)
Original message

Survivorerist 4103 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest" 03-17-03, 00:52 AM (EST) "Revisiting Nash" Remember when Jeff Probst said something at the S5 finale about "studying John Nash's non-cooperative game theory" to find the answer to this season? Does anyone have any thoughts on what this could mean? (Another IceCat original ) The Top 5 FLL Castaways 1. Neleh Dennis (11 weeks at #1) 2. Colby Donaldson (5 weeks at #1) 2. Helen Glover (5 weeks at #1) 4. Amber Brkich (4 weeks at #1) 4. Heidi Strobel (4 weeks at #1) 4. Lex Van Den Burghe (4 weeks at #1)   Top

Subject     Author     Message Date     ID    RE: Revisiting Nash I_AM_HE 03-17-03 1  RE: Revisiting Nash big idiot 03-17-03 2    RE: Revisiting Nash DRONES 03-17-03 3        RE: Revisiting Nash VerucaSalt 03-17-03 5            RE: Revisiting Nash Fast Eddie 03-17-03 7            RE: Revisiting Nash TechNoir 03-17-03 8  What the theory is Fast Eddie 03-17-03 4    RE: What the theory is Chez 03-17-03 6  RE: Revisiting Nash TechNoir 03-17-03 9  RE: Revisiting Nash Yogi 03-17-03 10    RE: Revisiting Nash DRONES 03-18-03 15  Time frame? mavsfan 03-18-03 11    RE: Time frame? TeamJoisey 03-18-03 12    RE: Time frame? tribephyl 03-18-03 13  Something else SurvivinDawg 03-18-03 14    I wonder what Ayn Rand... DRONES 03-18-03 16        Objectivism and Game Theory SurvivinDawg 03-18-03 17            RE: Objectivism and Game Theory buddysmom 03-21-03 18                RE: Objectivism and Game Theory big idiot 03-21-03 19                    RE: Objectivism and Game Theory VerucaSalt 03-21-03 20                        RE: Objectivism and Game Theory Chez 03-22-03 21  Just one other thing... SurvivinDawg 03-22-03 22  Current Nash Theory Status Boilermaker 03-28-03 23    RE: Current Nash Theory Status SurvivinDawg 03-28-03 24  I had a moment of psychotic clarity... SurvivaBear 04-04-03 25    RE: I had a moment of psychotic cla... DoodleBug 04-04-03 26        RE: I had a moment of psychotic cla... VerucaSalt 04-04-03 27    Nash jsanb 04-04-03 28        RE: Nash big idiot 04-04-03 29        RE: Nash Boilermaker 04-07-03 30            RE: Nash DRONES 04-08-03 31                RE: Nash VerucaSalt 04-08-03 32                    RE: Nash jsanb 04-08-03 33                        RE: Nash Loree 04-08-03 34                            RE: Nash Brownroach 04-08-03 35

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

I_AM_HE 6123 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 03-17-03, 01:43 AM (EST) 1. "RE: Revisiting Nash" I can't even tell if that's English! ...so no help from me will be interested to hear some theories on it though, thanks for bringing it up Sir   Top

big idiot 193 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson" 03-17-03, 01:48 AM (EST) 2. "RE: Revisiting Nash" At present, I believe in the "Deena and Matt" final two. As an argument for Deena being the final survivor via Nash's theory: we saw her as part of a tribe that had no leader. No leader would equal no progress. If they all were leaders then there also would be no progress. Instead the tribe chose one leader, Deena, and perhaps that leadership role carried her like a wave all the way to winning survivor. An argument can also be made for Matt being the final survivor via Nash's theory. So far we have seen several Leader prototypes, as well as, non-followers. Matt has never been portrayed as either. The leaders and non-followers will keep voting each other off in a power struggle, leaving Matt all alone when the dust settles. Between Deena and Matt, I'm putting my money on Matt, who Jeff described as "this guy has no idea on how to win survivor", and it is because of this passive role that all others will cancel (vote) each other out, leaving Matt all alone. just some recreation speculation, BI   Top

DRONES 615 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator" 03-17-03, 08:08 AM (EST) 3. "RE: Revisiting Nash" "Between Deena and Matt, I'm putting my money on Matt, who Jeff described as "this guy has no idea on how to win survivor", and it is because of this passive role that all others will cancel (vote) each other out, leaving Matt all alone." The more I think about this quote the more I'm inclined to believe that ther is some foreshadowing going on here. The same can be said for Rob who is a self described Survivor junkie, although that hasn't been brought up as much as the Matt quote from Jiffy P.   Top

VerucaSalt 1580 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Peanut Festival Grand Marshall" 03-17-03, 09:47 AM (EST) 5. "RE: Revisiting Nash" Glad actually you brought this up. Without assigning who the people are the basic contention of Nash's theory is "do what others are not" In terms of Survivor, the chances are getting ahead would be If you have a tribe (or game) that has too many leaders, those who stay in the background are more likely to progress further If you have a tribe (or game) that has too many followers, those who are leading are more likely to progress further So as the game progresses, if the game (merger) has too many leaders, those who stay in the background are more likely to advance and consequently if the game has too many people staying in the background, a leader/leaders are more likely to advance. So for purposes right now we have two situations that go AGAINST Nash's formula for winning so to speak a tribe with too many of one kind: Too many leaders in one tribe will have the butting head syndrome; those who are will more than likely will be its own tribe's downfall. This was apparent in the man's tribe, too many chefs spoiled the soup. Roger, Ryan, Rob etc all tried to be alpha male and the tribe suffered. If you note the women's tribe was in FEAR of this happening as well UNTIL Deena got delegated as the leader, then things fell in place, a hierarchy was established and those who needed the leadership were very happy. Those who wanted to be leader allowed her to do (albiet for their own strategies but guess who is gone now?) Too many laid back members in one tribe is not necessarily a horrible thing but without ANY direction will suffer also, mainly at the hands of another tribe that has a clear purpose with clear leaders. This type of tribe may get along wonderfully but have no structure so if they do merge, they will get sucked in by another stronger tribe which was evident in other Survivors and what we know as Pagonging. This was NOT at the man's tribe this season. This WAS in danger of being the woman's tribe until their pow wow and a leader WAS ALLOWED to be selected. In terms now of the two tribes we now have.... New Jamburu - Deena LEAD her old tribe, ROB wanted to lead his tribe, now in this situation a tribe with multiple leader hogs can self destruct but since two of these types just came from OPPOSITE tribes, they have one ultimate goal that is the same. HOWEVER, once their "goal" is done, there is going to be the possibility of destruction since there is more than one person vying for leader. At New Jamburu, the BEST case scenario would be to "follow" not "lead" New Tambi - This situation was probably the best thing to happen to them. Old Tambi had way too many leaders and power struggles. By introducing a new element, the power struggle has calmed down as Christy is not a leader, Heidi (while has leadership qualities) allowed Deena to take the role as leader and sit back and Jeanne (who fought to be leader) came into a new tribe where she couldnt' POSSIBLY take that role. This is a calmer tribe as a whole BUT we have yet to see who is going to LEAD this tribe yet and the nominations appear that DAVE (who has the charisma and work ethic to do so) and ROGER (who took that role unto himself) will. But what happens when two leaders reside together who DON'T have a common goal; friction (which we may see in the upcoming Heidi vs Christy) Along the lines of being the leader, being the follower are people like Debb, Ghandia, Jed etc who WERE NOT leaders but COULD NOT be followers. They all got screwed because the other forces at work were stronger leaders and once you try to go and lead where they are stronger and more influential forces, you are looked at as obnoxious, bossy and are gone. Currently for Nash's theory New Jamburu - Matt and Jenna are the ones following Deena and Rob will be the leaders Shawna is a follower BUT something might upset her apple cart (the Alex factor) Alex was a leader (in a Tina like way, people came to him, but he allowed someone like Roger to be a bigger voice, he was similar to Dave) Too many leaders in this current scenario, those who are laying low will fare better. In essence with Nash DO what others ARE NOT doing. New Tambi - Butch, Christy are followers Roger and Dave are leaders Heidi is somewhere in the middle Again, unless they win, there may be too many leaders. Dave interestingly was a Tina type but is turning into a more visible type now and there is good reason. HE chose his new tribe, HE "kept" Rog/Butch, HE showed Heidi the plan. This is now HIS tribe so to speak. But where does that leave Roger? When a moment of question happens, one new leader and one self appointed old leader may butt heads. Again, those who lay low should fare better, Butch and Christy; again do what others ARE NOT DOING. Heidi is the middle player which WILL hurt her but it may not now BECAUSE the instability won't come from her just now BUT she could be the victim as a result b/c she is not solid on either fence (leader/follower) When the two tribes merge you have to now look (in terms of Nash) who is in the best scenario? If there ends up being TOO many leaders - those who lay back are in the best position If there ends up being TOO many followers (which I don't see this season) - those who assume leadership are in good shape My assumption with what Nash puts forth based on the "dynamics" that I see (my opinion only) those who LAY BACK are in the better position to win this game.   Top

Fast Eddie 625 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator" 03-17-03, 01:47 PM (EST) 7. "RE: Revisiting Nash" LAST EDITED ON 03-17-03 AT 03:34 PM (EST) Edited to add: What you have described is not Nash's theory but rather the Golden Rule of gaming, bar brawls and international conflicts: DO UNTO OTHERS BEFORE THEY DO IT TO YOU End edit Excellent theorizing about Survivor, though you have misrepresented Nash's theory. See my previous msg below. Or look at another example: the TV game show Friend or Foe. Both contestants choose a secret button, either Friend or Foe. If both choose Friend, they split the prize money. If they both choose Foe, they each get nothing. If they choose differently, the Foe gets everything while Friend gets nothing. "Doing what the other is not" isn't the answer: choosing Friend when your opponent chooses Foe enriches your competitor and impoverishes you.   Top

TechNoir 9741 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 03-17-03, 07:30 PM (EST) 8. "RE: Revisiting Nash" LAST EDITED ON 03-17-03 AT 07:31 PM (EST) This is all very interesting but having taught game theory for a couple of semesters, your analysis doesn't seem to have much relation to John Nash. "Half of Tech's charm is that sometimes I have no idea what she's talking about" -- True Edited so I could practice spelling.   Top

Fast Eddie 625 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator" 03-17-03, 09:18 AM (EST) 4. "What the theory is" Um, I don't know how the above replies are related to the topic, but perhaps it would be helpful to state just what "John Nash's non-cooperative game theory" says. In as-plain-as-possible English: "When everyone’s playing their best move to everyone ELSE’S best move, no-one’s going to move." The idea of this natural "sticking point" is that no single player can benefit from unilaterally changing his or her move. A famous example is the so-called Prisoner’s Dilemma. Mugsy and Spike have just been nabbed for a crime. They have promised each other not to rat on the other if caught. The DA offers them each a deal: Rat on the other guy, and if he stays silent, you get off but he does 10 years. If both stay silent, there's enough to put them away for 2 years. But if both rat, both get 7 years. What should each of them do? Here each is trying to minimize his time in jail. A little thinking shows that each can always do better AS AN INDIVIDUAL by Ratting on the other. From Spike’s point of view, if Mugsy is silent, he should rat, because 0 years is better than 2. But if Mugsy rats he should also rat, because 7 years is better than 10. Whereas if they could both really keep their promise to stay silent, they would only get 2 years each. It's easy to see why many kinds of human organizations (not just criminal) go to great lengths to try to get people to keep promises! What's the application here? Could there be a challenge coming up that involves this kind of game? Don't forget that the players have more than just the game itself to worry about. They then probably have to continue to live with someone they may have ratted on.   Top

Chez 777 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Fitness Correspondent" 03-17-03, 12:32 PM (EST) 6. "RE: What the theory is" Following up on Fast Eddie's explanation of the Prisoner's Dilemma - another way to use Nash's theory is - cooperate with the other person or person as long as you are POSITIVE they won't turn on you first. This maximizes your winnings (in terms of SURVIVOR, it means you should join or stay in an alliance as long as you are sure it is in your opponents' interest to be loyal). But, you have to turn on them hopefully one turn ahead of them turning on you, or at least at the same turn. (Remember Brian had it all planned to turn on Helen at the crucial moment). In this game, it looks like Rob is the one most actively switching alliances, so if anyone can figure that out, they will have to move one step faster than he does.   Top

TechNoir 9741 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 03-17-03, 08:01 PM (EST) 9. "RE: Revisiting Nash" The link that follows is the simplest explanation I could find that also has some information about how to use the theory. It is from a B-school case study. (If you hate math, don't click.) http://www.rh.edu/~stodder/BE/FOGGYBUSINESS.htm Geek.   Top

Yogi 1206 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Politically Incorrect Guest" 03-17-03, 09:03 PM (EST) 10. "RE: Revisiting Nash" This is my take on the John Nash theory. I have included a link to a very good article on the theory. http://www.claycritters.com/map/john_nashs_survivor.htm When you have few leaders (ex. Thailand with Brian and Penny) a leader wins as they will selectively remove players that are either bad for the team or a threat to their position. When you have many leaders (ex. Marquesas / Vecepia ) a follower wins as the leaders spend their time and energy fighting over their leadership position and voting off the other leaders. Do the opposite of the others... briefly means if you have all followers then become a leader, and if you have many leaders then become a follower. Now onto the Amazon crew.. Tambaqui - easy to sort out Roger - leader Butch - follower Christy - follower Heidi - follower Dave - half breed (most dangerous position) Jeanne - follower - she was viewed as being the weakest in the tribe Jaburu Deena - leader Alex - leader Rob - leader Matthew - follower Jenna - follower Shawna - follower Deena, Alex and Rob are in the most dangerous positions. I am thinking that if Alex goes next then Rob may be happy to take the second / following position behind Deena. In this case Deena will want to remove the weakest tribe member (ex. Shawna) as opposed to fighting for control with Rob. After which Rob could use Matthew and Jenna to vote out Deena. Personally I like Butch's position. He has the 'unliked' Roger leading the way and with Christy's vote in his pocket that would leave Dave and Heidi as expendable. If the rumours turn out to be true that Alex and Shawna are the next two boots then this group of 5 could walk to the finish line. Of course with future merges and/or swaps the tribe dynamics can change quite rapidly.   Top

DRONES 615 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator" 03-18-03, 07:18 AM (EST) 15. "RE: Revisiting Nash" I don't think of Butch as a follower at all. Butch and Rodger are acting as a sort of CO-LEADER right now. Dave fancies himself a leader as well, because he was the one who put the new Tambaqui tribe together. Dave is feeling very clever right now for having gotten all of this information from Jenna w/o giving any in return and then used that info to put together what he believes is the better of two tribes. He took the 3 strongest from the womens tribe and his 2 friends from the mens tribe. He must be feeling very powerful right now. He went to the other two men saying that Jeanne should be voted and they agreed, and why wouldn't they as I'm sure that was their idea as well so why not LET Dave be the one to stick his neck out to the women? Jeanne was voted out and as he told Heidi it would be Christy next but the blow up happens when he realizes that Butch and Rodger have other ideas. Heidi in her own way sees herself as a leader, although in a different sort of way. She(Heidi) has been using the term cute girls and refering to the womens tribe(while they were still a tribe) in an us vs them scenerio, and the us is better, because we are "cute". On this new tribe minus Jenna and Shawna she now finds herself w/o peer ie there are no more cute girls around(in her own mind), and is thus the leader of the women. She believes that she can use her leadership ability ie her "cuteness" to move the men in what ever direction she wants them to go. This is why I think this tribe has 4 leaders: Rodger, Butch, Dave and to a lesser extent Heidi and one follower in Christy.   Top

mavsfan 693 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator" 03-18-03, 00:40 AM (EST) 11. "Time frame?" I know the Nash comment was made at the reunion show for S5. Does anyone know where the filming of S6 stood at that point? Day 15? Day 30? Or was filming over? If the comment came at day 30 for example, Nash's game theory may simply be an indication of how strategy was playing out at that time, but not indicate how the game ended up. In the movie "A Beautiful Mind", Nash's Game Theory was shown to be a correction of Adam Smiths theory. Adam Smith says the common good is best served when each person pursues their own best self interest. The movie illustrates the flaw with Adam Smiths theory with a group of men and women in a bar. If all the men pursue their own best self interest, they would all pursue the same single most beautiful women. The result would be that only one (or none) of the men would reach his goal as most of the other men block/cancel each other out. Nash's Theory said Adam Smith was wrong because the best common good would be served if the men agreed not pursue the SAME PERFECT GIRL, but to instead divide the less perfect girls between them. So far S6 a great deal of time has been spent on the "Pretty Girls" and the guys working themselves into a frenzy over them. The guy/guys who pursued the "Pretty Girls" run the risk of blocking/canceling each other out. The men's interest will be better served by aligning themselves with the "less perfect girl/girls". Jeff's comment on Nash's game theory probably tells us SOMEONE does just that, and either Jeff KNOWS it works to their advantage, or if filming was complete, that the strategy WAS WORKING AT THAT POINT.   Top

TeamJoisey 3558 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge" 03-18-03, 02:47 AM (EST) 12. "RE: Time frame?" LAST EDITED ON 03-18-03 AT 02:48 AM (EST) Since I believe JiffyProbe's knowledge of the Nash Theory is probably limited to what he saw in the movie, you are probably on to something here. The winning strategy implied is to avoid the Boobie Alliance cuties while aligning with Christy and Deena. Butch seems to be in the best position to do this. But I don't imagine he'll arrive at this strategy by studying John Nash theories. If he does this it will be because he sees the Boobie Alliance as cannibalistic carnivores. *Edited fto corroect spelllling errers. These reality show contestants need a reality check!   Top

tribephyl 12393 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 03-18-03, 03:32 AM (EST) 13. "RE: Time frame?" Your question...Day 15? Day 30? Or was filming over? Filming was over. JP, MB and all flew back in time (Dec. 13... just before X-mas), to do the live reunion "final show" extravaganza. JP actually did the promos for the last ep. of Thailand, from the Amazon. Cut it kinda close...but they were definitely done filming when JP said his "Nash Game Theory" spiel. As far as Nash's theory?...the best way to put it, in lay terms, is to say, "Adaptation" is the key! When you see the others push than you pull. When everyone wants to cook...go look for wood. When everyone wants to vote for the other "follower", vote for the "leader". And so on... I can also tell you this, when people accuse you of something...fess up to it. Then your "accusers" have to change their opinion of you. In the meantime you still think they are an ass for assuming. How it applies to the show? In these cases, Rob is a good player. But, I think we should look out for Christy and Butch's "Non-cooperative" strategies as well.   Top

SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 03-18-03, 06:27 AM (EST) 14. "Something else" They also teach a variant of this theory at various Army leadership schools, but more to build up the idea of teamwork and trust. So, one thing that I'm perceiving from the Nash Game Theory as applied to Survivor in general is this: At some point, you must decide whether or not to trust someone. And it's true... those who find an alliance that they can trust in and stick with are the ones that do best, to wit: Survivor 1: Rudy and Dicque, and the Tagi alliance. While the Stilman lawsuit alleges manipulation, it is still clear that Rudy doesn't go as far without trusting Dicque, and vice versa. And the Tagi alliance, without any opposition, proved lethal to Pagong (and introduced a new verb to us 'to pagong'). Survivor 2: Alliance v. alliance meant nobody moved. Too bad Tina knew about the Varner extra vote. And here's where Tina, Colby and Keith's trust of each other got them to the final positions, whereas Kimmi's brutal betrayal of Varner and Kucha proved deadly. This trust especially worked for Tina. Survivor 3: The Ethan/Lex/Tom/MamaKim grouping worked, whereas Brandon and Kelly suffered from a perceived lack of loyalty (Kelly was innocent, but you still get the idea). Survivor 4: Showed the game theory very well: John thought he had a strong group... but some turned on the "leader". But there weren't the strong bonds of trust, as Sean found out, and Kathy had to abandon in order to survive (when Vecepia won IC). Survivor 5: Another very strong alliance, and look at the way Brian had people trusting him... very interesting display of the theory there. So there's a lot to it, and JP was essentially right. P.S. While in a closed, microcosm situation the Nash Theory corrects the Smith theory, in the open, macro situations, Smith's theory still holds (because not every guy HAS to go for the best looking girl, etc.) Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged   Top

DRONES 615 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator" 03-18-03, 07:31 AM (EST) 16. "I wonder what Ayn Rand..." thought of the Nash theory? I'm not sure she would have been a proponent since she was such a strong proponent of the capitalists system. I see that you have that quote of her's in your sig line so maybe you might know?   Top

SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 03-18-03, 09:34 AM (EST) 17. "Objectivism and Game Theory" Good question, and I was thinking about that as I wrote my above commentary. Adam Smith's theory is very Objectivist: Look after your molehill and the mountains will take care of themselves. Nash's theory is a correction of Smith's theory... but in a closed environment. The bar example is a good one, but it's a closed system. In the real word, every guy doesn't have to go after just one girl... because there are so many girls out there. Survivor is also a closed system, and a very small microcosm of the larger macro-environment of the Real World. Pure Objectivism would not work very well to win Survivor (as Dave is going to find out, I suspect)... with the possible exception that everyone playing Survivor was an Objectivist. In Survivor, some choices to be made are artificial because of the limitations and closed conditions of the game. A player has to adapt to the game in order to play it. The rules of "right" and "wrong" don't necessarily apply. For example, in Survivor, lying is perfectly acceptable in certain conditions (no, we're not going to tell Jerri we're voting her out next). Also, in the game, people are voted out. In the real world, if you "vote someone out" (i.e. kill them), you get punished. In the real world, it's more open-ended. It's not a zero-sum game, therefore, the choices that must be made in a game don't have to be made in the real world (and vice versa). So the bottom line is that, because of the limitations of the closed game, it's a bit apples-and-oranges to compare Game Theory with larger philosophies such as Objectivism. But contradictions still don't exist either way. Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged   Top

buddysmom 3 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson" 03-21-03, 10:05 AM (EST) 18. "RE: Objectivism and Game Theory" I'm was hoping someone caught Deena saying something to the effect of "I see what others are doing and I'm doing what they aren't doing." Do you think this relates to the Nash Theory relationship? I've been a regular lurker for years now, and this is my first post ever so please, be kind !   Top

big idiot 193 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson" 03-21-03, 11:55 AM (EST) 19. "RE: Objectivism and Game Theory" B.M. Welcome aboard and great first post! That was a stellar catch. I agree with Teamjoisey about Jeff having a pedestrian understanding of Nash's theory (i.e. reference is not from a true game theorist), so what simple thing did a survivor do or say for this connection to be made? Perhaps the quote you noted B.M., and that strategy is what got her in the final two and possibly the win. Welcome again BM, BI   Top

VerucaSalt 1580 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Peanut Festival Grand Marshall" 03-21-03, 05:57 PM (EST) 20. "RE: Objectivism and Game Theory" Welcome as well and Deena's comment is a good call!! My only problem is I don't think necessarily it may work on a merger scenario. She was not doing very well initially with other people trying to lead, she was getting frustrated and some didn't like it. Luckily, once the female tribe "designated" their leader, others (not all but they screwed themselves in their strategy) were happy this happened and she had no obstacles in the sense of too many doing of one role. As we saw, when Christy tried to be of the leader/agressive type, she got shot down and was potentially in a precarious situation; now she is doing wonderfully in a backseat position. If you are going to just take a simplistic view in terms of Survivor as we were saying, if a lot of leaders, lay low, too many sheep, be the leader blah blah (I know very simplistic ) Deena had a good thing with this but come merger though I see some potential problems. In last season Brian was the clear leader, no one else did it or if they did, failed miserably; where there are no leaders, Brian did the right thing and it did very well by him. With Vecepia there were an abundance of take charge people so she benefited by laying low (I'm not going to go back all the way just prefacing my opinion) This season the MAJORITY (not everyone but majority) are doing the outspoken leaderly type thing whether they chose it or whether it is a charisma/personality that people look too Deena, Rob, Alex, Roger, Heidi, Dave all give me a sense of the "leader" persona by either their self appointed view, their charisma, their abilities (some may disagree on who I picked but that's my observation) - 6 people Whereas: Christy, Butch, Jenna, Matthew in comparison have taken the follower type persona - 4 people. When they all get together, there may be too many doing one role and the minority C/B/J/M may be in a better position. If too many are doing of one thing, better results may be for those who don't. With an abundance of these "leaderly" types, the potential for major combustion is foreseeable; those who stand to avoid the fray would be those doing the opposite.   Top

Chez 777 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Fitness Correspondent" 03-22-03, 03:56 PM (EST) 21. "RE: Objectivism and Game Theory" LAST EDITED ON 03-22-03 AT 04:31 PM (EST) Interesting thoughts on Nash's Theory - regarding doing what others are not. Makes me think about another principle I've often heard -- "Nature abhors a vacuum". It has a very similar meaning -- if a role in a team is not being filled, it is natural for someone else to step in and fill the role. If a puzzle piece is picked out from a puzzle that is all interrelated, all the other pieces rearrange to fill the hole. If all the guys go after the cutest chick, you are more likely to get at least some reward if you go for the less cute one. You get the idea. I'm not sure what this has to do with Survivor though, or how it casts light on JP's view of the Amazon game, when he made the remark at the Thailand reunion. Edited to add: Maybe Matt is the person of interest here. Remember the TC where he got this funny look on his face when JP asked how long he had been fishing that day and Matt said about an hour. This led to Matt's new strategy of becoming the provider. Now, he seems to be someone not to vote off -caught 2 fish per day for teammates last time. Definitely a case of doing what others are not. Remember, CO indicates Matt gets to the F2.   Top

SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 03-22-03, 05:37 PM (EST) 22. "Just one other thing..." Correct me if I'm wrong; I might not have caught the whole quote from JP... ...but the impression I got was that JP was talking about Nash's Game Theory applying to Survivor in general, and not talking specifically about the theory to Survivor VI. Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged   Top

Boilermaker 260 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star" 03-28-03, 04:25 PM (EST) 23. "Current Nash Theory Status" I love this theory and wanted to bump it. Furthermore I think alot of analysis on this year can be drawn from it. According to the interpretations of Nash theory I have drawn after only one leader remains, then the followers will begin to be picked off. Furthermore this season has worked very well according to the Nash Theory. We need to remember that a follower can become a leader and vice versa. Episode 1: Ryan and Roger were leaders and neither was willing to be a follower to the other. Ryan is voted off. Episode 2: Noone was willing to assume leadership in the women's camp. A follower Janet is voted off. Episode 3: Roger was a leader. Daniel was/became a leader due to his precarious situation with Ryan. He tried to lead Dave, Matthew, and Alex against Roger. Daniel a leader was voted off. Episode 4: Deena is the recently crowned leader of her tribe. Yet Joanna is not willing to let her lead and stands out as a strong personality that will not be lead. Joanna - Deena leaders. Joanna voted off. Episode 5: Tribes merge creating new leaders/followers. Jeanne's tribes consist of Butch (follower), Roger (leader), Dave who has changed with his ambassadorship to a weak leader, Jeanne (leader), Heidi (follower), and Christy (follower). Jeanne tries to lead the women and assume a role that she hasn't before. Dave, Roger, and Jeanne make three leaders. Jeanne a leader is voted off. Episode 6: This is the most difficult epsiode to analyze according to Nash. Jaburu's new merged tribe is interesting. It consists of Deena (leader), Shawna (follower), Jenna (follower), Alex (follower), Matthew (follower) and Rob who I believe is a follower at this point (he is willing to follow although he is a strong influencer of Deena). 1 Leader no followers means a follower, Shawna is voted off. Alternate Episode 6: Another analysis is that their are two leaders Deena and Shawna because Shawna won't follow Deena's lead and decides to lead a vote for Matthew. 2 Leaders means one has to go which would be Shawna. Episode 7: The merge will almost always produce too many leaders because one has to emerge eventually when there are none. Leaders are Deena, Rob, Roger, and Dave. Rob and Dave although they are leaders are willing to be led by Deena and Roger respectively. Too many leaders means one has to go. Bye-Bye Roger. Epsiode 8 Speculation #1: Dave is no longer a leader since his faction was destroyed by the other leader. Noone else assumes a leadership role. A follower must go. Dave how doesn't follow the leader is voted off. Episode 8 Questions: Is Rob still willing to be led by Deena? Do any other leaders emerge? How will Dave and Butch try to assimilate back into their tribes as leaders or followers? Or will everyone submit to Deena?   Top

SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 03-28-03, 07:52 PM (EST) 24. "RE: Current Nash Theory Status" Nothing personal here, Boilermaker (cool logo, btw), but it appears to me that you're working very hard to make the facts suit the theory, not the other way around... which, as Conan Doyle tells us, is a "capital mistake." There are other things to consider, including trust and relationships (alliances). Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged   Top

SurvivaBear 2634 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Survivor-themed Cruise Spokesperson" 04-04-03, 11:02 AM (EST) 25. "I had a moment of psychotic clarity last night!" Just like Nash's tie pattern= the punch bowl thing. I saw in the IC that the powerful members, using strength against strength knocked each other out. This is a metaphor for the end of this game and may explain how a Jenna/Matt F2 is possible. Matt is clueless but this works to his advantage. Since Rob, Deana, Heidi, and Alex are all concentrated on the same goal and will cancel each other out. In the end, Butch, Christy, Jenna, and Matthew will be the only ones left standing. I know I am not explaining this well, but I think in hindsight we will see that the next few episodes are what Jiffy was referring to. Beware the Bear! An IceCat Original, © 2002   Top

DoodleBug 5133 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 04-04-03, 11:30 AM (EST) 26. "RE: I had a moment of psychotic clarity last night!" I totally agree. I saw the leaders axing each other which left the UTR folks still standing. That's how Neleh and Vee made it to the final two.   Top

VerucaSalt 1580 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Peanut Festival Grand Marshall" 04-04-03, 11:47 AM (EST) 27. "RE: I had a moment of psychotic clarity last night!" The power struggle is gonna reach it's head. Too many leaders in a smaller group - ouch Watch the low key ones emerge when the Alpha Battle starts. Personally, I think Alex will be the least affected of the supposed three chiefs; Rob's comments privately were about Alex; Alex is playing leader? If so, he is doing a great job of it, IMO I think the cocky crap by Deena is going to affect Rob; his prior obessession with Dave is done. I also think that he'll utilize the men (including Alex) and Deena will do her I am woman hear me roar and she Christy H/J will opt to take out a man which is NOT Butch b/c Butch is a pancake. Either we are going to see the two OUTWARD Alpha's prepare for the war of the genders again OR someone like Alex or Heidi (w/Jenna uh huhing) will stage their own coup. Matt/Butch/Christy have YET to formulate their own alliances, and I don't see that happening from their personalities but they will be able to certainly sit back and watch the Big Kahuna's self destruct.   Top

jsanb 178 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson" 04-04-03, 11:53 AM (EST) 28. "Nash" I agree that way too many people are trying to fit leader/ follower and detailed stuff into Nash's theory. But last's night IC and the vidcaps indicate that what is about to happen is similar to a gunslinger's show down, and the last one standing is not the best player or gunslinger as the top marksmen all take each other out. Very much like S4. While it makes for great drama and tv, the winner will be very unsatisfying. Last night was very telling that the women possess the power, and that there is a very strong alliance in Jenna/Hiedi. If Deena or Rob goes, the other is next. Rob and Deena did a great job of hiding their alliance. Butch, Christy and Matt are all safe because no one is threaten by them as game players, but right now they compose 3/8 of the votes. Soon they will be able to exert their will on the rest of the group. Alex, Deena or Rob will be the next to go. Peanut Butter Jeff A disciple of Nash   Top

big idiot 193 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson" 04-04-03, 12:13 PM (EST) 29. "RE: Nash" The gunslinger analogy fits my post #2 in this thread: "An argument can also be made for Matt being the final survivor via Nash's theory. So far we have seen several Leader prototypes, as well as, non-followers. Matt has never been portrayed as either. The leaders and non-followers will keep voting each other off in a power struggle, leaving Matt all alone when the dust settles. Between Deena and Matt, I'm putting my money on Matt, who Jeff described as - "this guy has no idea on how to win survivor" - , and it is because of this passive role that all others will cancel (vote) each other out, leaving Matt all alone." BI   Top

Boilermaker 260 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star" 04-07-03, 03:01 PM (EST) 30. "RE: Nash" OK some people might have criticized my usage of the Nash theory following Episode 7 with the cause and effect arguement. I admit that many of the leader/follower characteristics don't come out until during the episode and that the criticism is valid. However this week we will definitely see either Deena, Alex, or Rob go. And with Rob willing to defer to either one, the three can probably be made two. So who will Rob vote with? Rob's characteristics (insecurity) will probably make him vote with Deena and the girl alliance so that he can be the main focus of the women. My early vote for elimination is Alex. Then the alliance of 5 (D/H/J/R/A) becomes one of 4. Matthew (finally) notices how much of a backstabber Rob is and prepares to form a new alliance with B/C who notice that they are out of the long term picture as well. And the End Game materializes...   Top

DRONES 615 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator" 04-08-03, 08:20 AM (EST) 31. "RE: Nash" Matt does what Rob tells him to do. So long as Matt feels/or is lead to believe that he is in the group he will go along to get along. Matt would only notice backstabbing after it has happened to him and he is betrayed by someone. He isn't sharp enough, as far as this game goes, to realize what is going on around him IMO.   Top

VerucaSalt 1580 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Peanut Festival Grand Marshall" 04-08-03, 09:09 AM (EST) 32. "RE: Nash" 3 "leaders" will reach a head, the majority of the time in any situation it does. Although I do not believe Alex's "leader" deal is being projected by anyone else than Rob. The original target by Leader Deena will no doubt be Matt (Deena and her remove strength) Alex has been too low key although he has been observed by the girls but the whole Matt scenario seems to set him up as the target. Matt winning immunity may screw this up. More power struggle because the boot list has to change perhaps. Personally Rob's rant may not even be shown to Deena or Alex but purely to us but Rob's attitude is coming to a head. Will that happen this episode between them (Deena/Rob) not sure. Alex may end up being the casualty here becuase of it.   Top

jsanb 178 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson" 04-08-03, 12:16 PM (EST) 33. "RE: Nash" I like the idea that Deena wants to target Matt(big strong physical threat and creepy too), and Rob knows that would be fatal for his own cause and turns on Deena- not Alex. This either creates a 4- 4 split with the return of the evil purple rock, or Jenna(and gets Heidi to join the vote) has had enough of Deena, who she called "the pig" and joins in voting Deena out. The other possibility is that Rob and Deena agree to target Alex and he is voted out. As far as editing it does not seem that it is time for Alex to go- I think Deena's story has reached its conclusion and she will go in the next two episodes. Peanut Butter Jeff A disciple of Nash   Top

Loree 8616 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 04-08-03, 01:56 PM (EST) 34. "RE: Nash" I like that idea jsanb. If Deena goes this week something has to happen to have Rob turn on her. So far he has felt like he needs his alliance with her. But he is starting to get upset that she thinks she is in charge. Deena must make some leadership decision that Rob doesn't agree with. And I think booting Matt this soon would hurt Rob. Rob is sure he controls Matt. He may even have a plan to take Matt to the final knowing that Matt creeps everyone out. Remember how Brian fought to keep Clay in the game because he was his choice for final 2 partner? Rob probably thinks Matt is a great final 2 partner. And with Matt's strength he could win the final IC and he would take his good buddy Rob with him to the final because they have a deal. Rob would not want Deanna organizing a boot of Matt. She would have to be stopped.   Top

Brownroach 15341 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 04-08-03, 03:58 PM (EST) 35. "RE: Nash" Rob is sure he controls Matt. He may even have a plan to take Matt to the final knowing that Matt creeps everyone out. Remember how Brian fought to keep Clay in the game because he was his choice for final 2 partner? Rob probably thinks Matt is a great final 2 partner. And with Matt's strength he could win the final IC and he would take his good buddy Rob with him to the final because they have a deal. I don't think this was the case as of last week's episode, Rob can't stand having to talk to Matt and is just biding his time to boot him. But I don't think Rob has anyone definite in mind to be in the Final 2 with at this point -- so he might start thinking about Matt as a prospect this week, or next. Deena or Matt would be his best candidates to go against, imo.   Top

Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Select another forum Lobby The Amazing Race Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--The Amazing Race Fanatics Forum (Protected)   |--The Amazing Race Basher Forum (Protected)   |--The Amazing Race Spoiler/Speculation Forum (Protected) American Idol Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--American Idol General Discussion Forum (Protected)   |--American Idol Individual Contestant and Judge Discussion Forum (Protected) Big Brother Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--Big Brother Fanatic Forum (Protected)   |--Big Brother Bashers Forum (Protected)   |--Big Brother Live Feed Updates And Spoilers (Protected) Survivor Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--Survivor Fanatic Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor Basher Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor Spoilers Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor Games Forum (Protected) Other Reality TV Shows (Conference)   |--The Bachelor / The Bachelorette Forum (Protected)   |--Dancing with the Stars Forum (Protected)   |--Other Reality TV Shows Forum (Protected) Off Topic (Conference)   |--The Help Forum (Protected)   |--Off-Topic Forum (Protected)