I recently had an ex-girlfriend de-friend me on facebook. It's a little odd because the whole deal wrapped itself up like two years ago and I had kind of assumed that I was as inconsequential to this person by now as she is to me. So I can't help but analyze it some. The fact that I have a lot of stuff to do and really don't want to do any is contributing to that... a skosh. After employing hard earned skills that I will never use in the real world, I have two views on it. The first is that it's a a good outcome for me, the second that it's notable. How do I come to this conclusion empirically? Game theory.
A facebook de-friend is a serious social faux pas. Here's the reason why.
- maintaining the facebook friendship takes nothing
- player 1 de-friending player 2 takes effort
- player 2 recognizes that it takes effort
- player 1 recognizes that player 2 recognizes it takes
- this in turn makes it more costly for player 1 than the simple action of clicking a button
But it's even more intense in this case. I really dislike the bitch at this point, and would assume the feeling is mutual. The particular situation was pretty hard on both parties and isn't the sort of thing you forget. So we'll start from the assumption that neither of us really want to see the other person's picture and status updates and what not. But nobody wants to seem as if the other person was getting to them in any way. A facebook de-friend is a costly action and social faux pas. To utilize it here is kind of a big deal.
Onto the fun part. You might be thinking that I'm mis-reading the situation for some reason. But through game theory I can deduce that I'm absolutely not. Here's what this particular game looks like. I've abbreviated it some, but this is essentially it (see below).
A facebook de-friend is a serious social faux pas. Here's the reason why.
- maintaining the facebook friendship takes nothing
- player 1 de-friending player 2 takes effort
- player 2 recognizes that it takes effort
- player 1 recognizes that player 2 recognizes it takes
- this in turn makes it more costly for player 1 than the simple action of clicking a button
But it's even more intense in this case. I really dislike the bitch at this point, and would assume the feeling is mutual. The particular situation was pretty hard on both parties and isn't the sort of thing you forget. So we'll start from the assumption that neither of us really want to see the other person's picture and status updates and what not. But nobody wants to seem as if the other person was getting to them in any way. A facebook de-friend is a costly action and social faux pas. To utilize it here is kind of a big deal.
Onto the fun part. You might be thinking that I'm mis-reading the situation for some reason. But through game theory I can deduce that I'm absolutely not. Here's what this particular game looks like. I've abbreviated it some, but this is essentially it (see below).
I'm player one, and she's player two. Where there's an X shows what her best response is given my action. For instance, if my action is “de-friend”, she's better off choosing “maintain” because to “cost of de-friend” is more than the cost of seeing the other person's shit. Or more importantly, if I maintain she's better off maintaining. This is why I know I'm right. In the first box you can see that for two years (maintain, maintain) was the equilibrium. Assuming she plays rationally, that means the cost of de-friending (C) is higher than the cost of seeing the other person online (S), hence the second X I placed in the top right box (de-friend, maintain).
BUT, that's no longer the outcome. The equilibrium has changed. Now the equilibrium is that she de-friended and I maintained. That's the second box. What can this mean? The cost of de-friend has changed for her. The cost of de-friend is (pleasure from not seeing the other person online) - (cost of losing face). One of these two things has changed on her part.
Now, the thing is that if she truly didn't give a shit either way, pleasure from not seeing the other person online should equal 0. The cost of losing face will always equal at least something which would make (C) negative. Pleasure from not seeing the other person online is essentially (S), though I forgot to write that down. Which would mean that if she truly didn't give a shit, it would never be rational to de-friend.
Dr. Grosser said we would use this stuff in our everyday lives. A dubious assumption for most, but I actually do so all of the time. I have to say though, this has definitely been the most fun application yet.
Down to brass tax. What does this all boil down to? In this game my optimum outcome was achieved. Somehow, I got under her skin more than she did mine. Two years on, the things I said were rough enough to when she my profile online it was difficult for her to some degree, and I cared less. I win.
Too bad game theory was last semester and I couldn't find an analogy pertaining to Emerging Democracy in North East Asia instead.
BUT, that's no longer the outcome. The equilibrium has changed. Now the equilibrium is that she de-friended and I maintained. That's the second box. What can this mean? The cost of de-friend has changed for her. The cost of de-friend is (pleasure from not seeing the other person online) - (cost of losing face). One of these two things has changed on her part.
Now, the thing is that if she truly didn't give a shit either way, pleasure from not seeing the other person online should equal 0. The cost of losing face will always equal at least something which would make (C) negative. Pleasure from not seeing the other person online is essentially (S), though I forgot to write that down. Which would mean that if she truly didn't give a shit, it would never be rational to de-friend.
Dr. Grosser said we would use this stuff in our everyday lives. A dubious assumption for most, but I actually do so all of the time. I have to say though, this has definitely been the most fun application yet.
Down to brass tax. What does this all boil down to? In this game my optimum outcome was achieved. Somehow, I got under her skin more than she did mine. Two years on, the things I said were rough enough to when she my profile online it was difficult for her to some degree, and I cared less. I win.
Too bad game theory was last semester and I couldn't find an analogy pertaining to Emerging Democracy in North East Asia instead.
RSS Feed