The Game of Love
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzannah-galland/is-your-partner-selfish-i_b_11404690.html
In “Is Your Partner Selfish in the Game of Love?”, Suzannah Galland discusses how romantic relationships are not all that different from games. While in a relationship, we make decisions that affect the state of the relationship. However, our own decisions are not the only thing steering the course of the relationship; the decisions of our partners play a major part, as well. The fact that we do not know exactly what our partner is doing or will do makes our own decision-making a game in the relationship. Galland discusses how there are four main choices in love: to play love, to cheat love, to deceive love, or to quit love. She comes to the conclusion that the optimal solution for both parties is for both people in the relationship to play love. This way, both parties are happy, which is a positive thing for both people.
Galland’s analysis of the situation can be applied to game theory, albeit in simpler terms. The main decision that each party of the relationship will constantly make is either to cooperate or to defect. This is very similar to the Prisoner’s Dilemma, in which each prisoners can choose to either confess or stay silent. If both Prisoner A and Prisoner B confess, then both will have to go to jail. If one prisoner confesses while the other doesn’t, the one who confessed will not have to go to jail, while the one who stayed silent will receive a longer prison sentence than he/she would have had if both prisoners confessed. If both prisoners stay silent, then both will have to go to jail, but for less time than they would have had to if both confessed. However, due to the conditions of the sentencing (which is why this situation is called the “Prisoner’s Dilemma”), at least one prisoner will end up confessing to the crime. This is because each prisoner will analyze the possible strategies of the other prisoner, and will choose the strategy that best complements either strategy of the other prisoner. This strategy will be to confess, which is why confessing is the dominant strategy in this situation.
In relationships, the two basic strategies are to cooperate or to defect, while the two basic outcomes are to be happy or to be heartbroken. If both parties cooperate, both will be happy and live in romantic bliss. However, if one cooperates while the other defects, the one who cooperated will be heartbroken, while the other will be happy (but less happy than he/she would have been if both had cooperated). If both defect, then both will be unhappy but not devastated. So is there a dominant strategy in this situation? Let’s analyze Person A’s choices. If Person B chooses to cooperate, the best response for Person A is to cooperate, as well. If Person B chooses to defect, however, the best response for Person A is to defect. The same would apply for Person B’s choices in response to what Person A might choose. Therefore, neither person has a strictly dominant strategy in this situation. Here, we have two Nash equilibria, in which both players can choose to either cooperate together or to defect together. A Nash equilibrium is a pair of strategies that are best responses to each other. When there are multiple Nash equilibria in any situation, we can usually predict that the players will choose the strategy that will give them the higher payoff. Therefore, as Galland had concluded, the optimal solution is for both parties to cooperate in the relationship.