Game Theory in Dating, more towards understanding Nash’s Equilibrium

Game Theory is a fascinating subject. Especially when you take it out of theoretical economics and start applying it to human collectives.

I had written about applying Game Theory to SEO, a competitive field, where the more important point was to have a strategy and keep evolving instead of having a static winning strategy.

Game Theory in Dating

Do we really need to do this?

Yes, because applying the concepts helps us to understand some of the product features (Superlike for instance).

More importantly, in a space where the one currency both the members of the dating app has, is attention. That’s the time spent with your significant other. In an ideal scenario this would be equal. This is the Nash Equilibrium state.

Nash Equilibrium in Dating

However, the more men you have in a dating app (Tinder has 60% men global, in India this is all the more skewed), the more dynamic would be the state of the Nash equilibrium. Data from Tinder has shown that men are twice as more active on such apps.

The reason behind this is simple, men are spending more currency (attention and time) to find that ideal person on Tinder. Unfortunately, because the number of men is more on the app, the amount of attention an average man would have to spend will keep going up (since the Equilibrium is unbalanced).

Nash’s equilibrium is a simple concept that helps economists predict how competing companies will set prices, how much to pay a much-in-demand employee and even how to design auctions so as to squeeze the most out of bidders. It was developed by John Nash, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and mathematician, whose life story was told…

via Why we need a dating app that understands Nash’s equilibrium — Quartz

So what?

The next time you are on such an app and if you are a woman, don’t be surprised if you are hounded by men. The equilibrium will never be reached unless you have the same amount of men and women on the app.

Take this concept and apply in real life.

In a country such as India, where sons are preferred (there I said it, and it’s not politically correct), the gender ratio in population is skewed. The Nash Equilibrium is also getting badly skewed.

You have to woo and court your significant other, not just because it’s romantic, but because it is required!

Game Theory and SEO

This blog has been my place to articulate my thoughts, to propose experiments and my views on multiple topics. Having said that, this is one such piece.

I would love to hear your views about this and feel free to scroll down to that comment box and leave a line (or two).

What is Game Theory?

Taking the excerpt from Wikipedia –

Game theory is “the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers.” Game theory is mainly used in economics, political science, and psychology, as well as logic, computer science and biology.

In this piece, I am proposing that we can use the basic precepts of Game Theory and apply them to SEO strategies as well.

Originally, it addressed zero-sum games, in which one person’s gains result in losses for the other participants. Today, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations, and is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, and computers.

In Search Engine Optimization, for a particular query search, only one site can be at the top. At the cost of the search visibility of other sites.

Ergo, SEO is clearly a zero-sum scenario.

Wait, isn’t this between two players?

That’s what we construe of Game Theory … and more importantly with Prisoner’s Dilemma. However, in the real world, and in almost any market driven environment, there are always multiple players.

Such scenarios are referred to as n-person games, or in Gaming parlance – multi-player games. This gives way to something we define as Evolutionary game theory.

What is Evolutionary Game Theory?

Evolutionary game theory considers games involving a population of decision makers, where the frequency with which a particular decision is made can change over time in response to the decisions made by all individuals in the population.

So, in SEO the strategy that I can adopt at any point of time is suspect to change, and over a period of time, most players who are working on their SEO would tend to change their strategy and evolve their approach.

In economics, the same theory is intended to capture population changes because people play the game many times within their lifetime, and consciously (and perhaps rationally) switch strategies.

Ditto about SEO again. In textbook style, I could say don’t do Black Hat. However, you know it and I know it … that at some point of time in our lives we have done Black Hat. Yes yes yes, it doesn’t work and you have to pay the price, but we still have gone ahead, haven’t we?

This change in tactics, resulting in evolution of market dynamics effectively ends up changing the winning strategies of the game. A research article that talks about how the competing strategies change within a network of decision makers is available here.

To read more on Evolutionary Game Theory, here is the wiki link.

Rituals and Evolutionary Game Theory

One more interesting characteristic that mathematical biologist John Maynard Smith realized when studying the behavior of game theory in communities was that in biological communities (his research was based on Darwinian concepts and survival of the fittest) most of the players did not focus on their strategy as a winning one, but treated their strategies as at a ritualistic level.

Ergo, for most members of the population it was not important whether they were engaged in a competitive and winning strategy, but rather that they were engaged in a strategy in the first place.

Wait, what?

Let me rephrase that statement.

Players involved in playing a multi-player game, where the game itself was changing constantly, the winning strategy was not important for players.

So much, as having a strategy in the first place.

Uh, I thought this was going to be on SEO

It is.

In a game of lets-get-on-top (on Google), all of us marketers are running circles trying to figure out the best SEO strategy.

We have seen many of the oft-quoted paradigms here –

  1. Content is king
  2. Great Link profiling
  3. Black Hat

What I am proposing is that it really does not matter which step you take … as long as you decide to take a step as per a strategy and then choosing to evolve your stance after you find out the result.