Political Science Assignment: Game Theory, Rationality, and Society

This political science assignment explores various concepts through the lens of game theory. The student analyzes the rationality of yawning, applying empathy as a social trait. The assignment examines price-setting behavior, questioning its adherence to rational choice models and exploring the influence of emotional connections. It then applies the individual choice model to the context of graduate school enrollment for Black Americans. The core of the assignment involves strategic form game analysis, including scenarios such as lunch meetings, DVD release competition, raffle tickets, spy missions, restaurant choices, stealing, and decisions to stay or quit. Each scenario is modeled using game theory matrices to illustrate strategic interactions and potential outcomes. References to relevant articles are also provided.

UNIVERSITY NAME
Student’s name
Student’s ID
Political science

Q1. Yes, the explanation of why a person yawns according to the research is rational. The reason
behind this view point or verdict is that human beings are social beings in nature. Empathy is a
common trait human possess. This character trait is likely to make one person feel the other to
extend of mimicking him or her and since yawning is part of what a human being can do then
this trait can be mimicked just like any other human trait a person may posses. From the research
carried out by where a group of students watched a movie containing images of people who were
laughing, yawning or lacked expression it was found that 40% of the students who watched the
move yawned in response to yawning in the movie and 60% of them did so more than once. The
research on schizophrenia traits that is known to lack empathy traits reveals that people who
score highly on schizophrenia traits do not posses empathy traits just like people with
schizophrenia itself. Therefore with all the above overwhelming evidence it is safe to conclude
that attaching yawning to empathy is a rational and well weighted explanation.
Q2. Price setting, from the article it is evident that pricing of commodities seems to defy logic
and rational choice model which opines that any decision taken by individuals is based on
evaluative process that takes into account various activities surrounding the commodity.
Managers or business may be in need of raising the prices of their commodities but they do not
raise it. If this issues is looked at rationally and in a clear-headed manner then the most logical
thing to do is to raise prices in respect to all factors that influence the cost of production of the
commodity or the service being offered. But according to the article this factors do not inform
the pricing as it should rather a different set of factors such as who are you? How much are you
buying? How long have you been a customer? Do you have your frequent-shopper card?
Looking at these factors critically, it becomes apparent that it doesn’t matter who the customer
is, whoever he/she is should simply pay a price which will sustain the company in business and

also make some returns to the investors. Again it doesn’t matter on the quantity a customer is
purchasing because each one of them has the same cost of production so price shouldn’t be
affected by the quantity being purchased. Therefore the question of price setting or pricing defy
rational choice model in its simplest definition of being evaluative and reasonable in determining
the cause of action. In my opinion I think what explains this behavior is the emotional
attachments between the managers or owners of business and their customers. Emotional
connections are irrational in nature. It does not follow logic to the latter therefore it is easy for
pricing to be based on who the customer is and how long he/she been a customer among other
forms of emotional relationships. (Mayhew, 2011)
Q2. McMilan’s line of argument can be put in terms of individual choice model. The model
postulates that any decision that is made should be rational and evaluative such that the decision
made should be the most cost-effective way of attaining the goal. Has claimed by McMillan,
many of the advice gurus will advice against enrolling for graduate school. The reason many of
the give is that it is not worth it. The emotional investment, economic implications and time
among other reasons, but in the case of black people in America they face unique problems in the
process of employment. The hiring process especially in America private sector is skewed
towards the white fraternity. It is more likely for a hiring manager who is presumably white to
hire a white candidate color being the most important determinant of the end results. Therefore
according to the article it is more rational for black people in America to enroll for graduate
school so that they can get that overwhelming edge against white candidates eying the same job.
If this is not the case, then chance are black people will struggle to get jobs in private sector
which is the main source of employment in American. The public sector which according to the
article have affirmative actions see blacks get more chances that see them a times get over-

represented in a certain field or sector in government. So, yes, it is rational for black people to
enroll for graduate school to be competitive and thus this argument can be modeled around the
theory of individual choice. (Roy, 2008)
Q4. This game when modeled as a strategic form game has a matrix formation shown below.
Your friend is late for lunch Your friend is on
time/prompt for lunch
You are late for lunch 0, 0 4, 1
You are on time/Prompt
for lunch
1, 4 3, 3
Q5. (a) The matrix for this game when modeled into strategic form game is shown below.
Choices Friend choose
no 0
Friend
choose no 1
Friend
choose no 2
Friend
choose no 3
Friend
choose no 4
Friend
choose no 5
I choose no
0 0,0 200,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
I choose no
1 0, 200 100, 100 300, 0 0, 0 0, 0 0, 0
I choose no
2 0, 0 0, 300 200, 200 400, 0 0, 0 0, 0
I choose no
3 0, 0 0, 0 0, 400 300, 300 500, 0 0, 0
I choose no
4 0, 0 0, 0 0, 0 0, 500 400, 400 600, 0
I choose no
5 0, 0 0, 0 0, 0 0, 0 0, 600 500, 500
Q5 (b) Yes, this game can be used to think about what the article describes. Looking at it more
critically it is evident that the competition between the two studios. In view of the fact that both
studios want to release their DVD’s earlier than the other both of them together with the DVD
industry as a whole stands to gain or lose from their choices. If one studio manages to release its
DVD sooner than the other then it will stand to gain because they are the first in the market but

again the audiences for theater performance will reduce since it will be clear to them that one of
the studios will likely release the DVD’s sooner. Therefore there is no need of watching the play
itself. It is however imperative to note that not all the audiences will miss the theatrical release
because of an impending DVD release.
Q6. (a) For free raffle tickets the matrix looks like this.
Names Bob; 0 ticket Bob; 1 ticket Bob; 2 tickets Bob; 3 tickets
Ann; 0 ticket 0, 0 0, 60 0, 60 0, 60
Ann; 1 ticket 60, 0 30, 30 20, 40 15, 45
Ann; 2 tickets 60, 0 40, 20 30, 30 24, 36
Ann; 3 tickets 60, 0 45, 15 36, 24 30, 30
(b) Assuming the tickets go at $ 6 each. The Matrix is as shown below.
Names Bob; 0 ticket Bob; 1 ticket Bob; 2 tickets Bob; 3 tickets
Ann; 0 ticket 0,0 0, 54 0, 48 0, 42
Ann; 1 ticket 54, 0 24, 24 14, 28 9, 27
Ann; 2 tickets 48, 0 28, 14 18, 18 12, 18
Ann; 3 tickets 42, 0 27, 9 18, 12 12, 12
(c) Assuming the tickets go at $ 10 each. The Matrix is as shown below.
Names Bob; 0 ticket Bob; 1 ticket Bob; 2 tickets Bob; 3 tickets
Ann; 0 ticket 0, 0 0, 50 0, 40 0, 30
Ann; 1 ticket 50, 0 20, 20 10, 20 5, 15
Ann; 2 tickets 40, 0 20, 10 10, 10 4, 6
Ann; 3 tickets 30, 0 15, 15 6, 4 0, 0

Q7. The matrix for this question’s strategic form game looks like this.
Spy name Spy 2 in room A Spy 2 in room B Spy 2 in room C
Spy 1 in room A -10, -10 5, -5 0, 0
Spy 1 in room B 5, -5 -10, -10 5, -5
Spy 1 in room C 0, 0 5, -5 -10, -10
Q8. The matrix for this question’s strategic form game is shown below;
(a) The three individuals can each go to restaurant A or B.
If person 2 goes to restaurant
A
If person 2 goes to restaurant B
If person 1 goes to
restaurant A
10, 0, 10 5, 10, 10
If person 1 goes to
restaurant
0, 5, 0 5, 5, 0
Then person 3 goes to restaurant A
If person 2 goes to restaurant
A
If person 2 goes to restaurant B
If person 1 goes to
restaurant A
5, 5, 10 0, 5, 5
If person 1 goes to
restaurant
5, 10, 5 10, 0, 0
Then person 3 goes to restaurant B
(b) Assuming person number 3 is no longer interested in person number 1 and becomes more
like person number 2. The matrix will look as follows;
If person 2 goes to restaurant
A
If person 2 goes to restaurant B
If person 1 goes to
restaurant A
10, 0, 0 5, 10, 5
If person 1 goes to
restaurant
0, 5, 5 5, 5, 10
Then person 3 goes to restaurant A
If person 2 goes to restaurant If person 2 goes to restaurant B

A
If person 1 goes to
restaurant A
10, 0, 10 5, 10, 10
If person 1 goes to
restaurant
0, 5, 0 5, 5, 0
Then person 3 goes to restaurant A
Q9 For this question the form game matrix looks as follows
Stealing happens Stealing does not happen
Vigilante guard 5, -10 -2, 0
Guard not vigilant -10, 10 0,0
Q10. Modeling the situation in form of strategic form game the matrix is as shown below.
Clark stays Clark quits
Lieberman stays 0, 0 -10, 1
Lieberman quits 1, -10 5, 5
Q11. First scenario
Tony decides to stay in New
York City
Tony decides to go back to
Malaysia
Sheriff decides to stay in New
York City
-1, -1 -0, -6
Sherriff decide to go back to
Malaysia
-6 , 0 -3 , -3
Second scenario
Assuming that one of the people knows the other one is going back to Malaysia, and then the
best thing for the guy with information is to stay in New York City. But again if both of you stay
in New York City that means Lewis will die yet his life time is worth 10 years yet you were
avoiding a little jail term, a situation which when critically looked at show that it is not better
than if both of you had gone back to Malaysia and serve the sentence. Representing this scenario
in the matrix looks like this;
Tony decides to stay in New
York City
Tony decides to go back to
Malaysia
Sheriff decides to stay in New
York City
-10, -10 -0, -6
Sherriff decide to go back to
Malaysia
-6 , 0 -3 , -3
References

Mayhew, D. (2011). Political Science and Political Philosophy: Ontological Not
Normative. PS: Political Science And Politics, 33(2), 10-174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/420890
Roy, M. (2008). I Political Science : Method and Theory/ Science Politique :
Methodes et Theories. International Political Science Abstracts, 58(6), 729-746.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00208345080580060101