The Simplicity of the Hawk and Dove Game
The Hawk and Dove Game is a classic game in the study of Game Theory. Essentially, there are two players and each can choose the Hawk Option (some sort of aggression) or the Dove (some sort of non-aggression). Usually the way that this game works is that if one side chooses Hawk, while the other chooses Dove, then the aggressor will benefit while the pacifist will be the loser. Meanwhile, both are losers if they both choose Hawk, and both neither gain or lose anything if they choose Dove. This game tends to cover extreme situations where there are winners and losers based on one simple decision made by each player (such as the Cuban Missile Crisis where the risk of mutually-assured destruction was looming) as shown below.
Hawk Dove
Hawk (-1,-1) (1,-1)
Dove (-1,1) (0,0)
In many real-life scenarios, I believe that absolute losses, wins, or draws don’t tend to exist. Many assumptions have to be made in order to make the Hawk and Dove game the way it is. Realistically, there are costs for any decision that one makes. Both sides fighting does not necessarily result in an absolute loss for both players. Similarly, both sides choosing Dove does not take into account the opportunity costs of either side from not partaking in violence. Finally, the scenarios in which one participant fights, while the other doesn’t, does not take into account the losses that the aggressor accrues from their acts of violence. What I’m essentially trying to point out is that quantifying the true costs of every pair of decisions made is nearly impossible to do in real-world scenarios. Understanding his truth makes me realize how much of a vacuum many of the games, in Game Theory, reside in.