Game Theory Observed in Evolution of Biology
In the article “Game Theory, Evolutionary Stable Strategies and the Evolution of Biological Interactions,” Charles Cowden discusses the behavioral relationships between organisms as they interact to obtain resources. According to the Darwinian theory of “fitness,” the more likely that an individual is able to survive and live longer to reproduce, the higher the fitness of that individual. Depending on the type of interaction, it can be costly to the organism – the organism may just use up their energy, not gain any resources (food), and die without being able to reproduce. Therefore, animals should forage such that they gain the most calories per unit time to maximize their fitness. By leveraging the predicted fitness of the organism, the strategies and payoff of two organisms can be organized into a matrix (as shown in the figure below).
This article connects to the concept of game theory that we learned in class. Game theory is the study of network behavior which provides models of individual behavior in settings where outcomes depend on the behavior of others. Individuals must commit a strategy and receive a payoff that depends on everyone’s decision. The infamous example of the Prisoner’s dilemma demonstrates how each player’s decision/strategy to confess or not confess can affect their payoff (prison sentencing). The Prisoner’s dilemma is analogous of the evolutionary matrix; both of them show how each strategy is affected by another player’s strategy through their payoffs. Through this matrix, we can also learn the mutually beneficial strategy – the Nash equilibrium.
From this article, I was able to understand the significance of game theory – how it can be applied and observed in various fields, even in the perspective of the evolution of biological interactions. The article also sparked curiosity as well as posed several questions for me. One interesting point is that humans don’t always choose the option that is most advantageous to them (best strategy). They even have a spite relationship which doesn’t benefit either side. Similarly, animals also exhibit altruism, or when one organism reduces its own fitness to benefit the fitness of another organism. However, in another point of view, displaying altruistic behavior may be of selfish interest – for example, in the prisoner’s dilemma, an individual may choose to forgo the highest payoff (to confess) so that they can maintain their friendship, which may be of higher priority. This perspective raises the question, is there such thing as true altruism? A follow up to the previous question that can be investigated is: if there is such thing as true altruism, in what context is it displayed and should the implicit payoff (non-observable effects such as the strength of a relationship) be considered?