When you're making a deal, what's going on in your brain? | Colin Camerer

Transcriber: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Thu-Huong Ha

Translator: Maja Budišin Lukin Reviewer: Nika Kotnik

I'm going to talk about the strategizing brain.

Govoril bom o strategijah možganov.

Uporabili bomo nenavadno kombinacijo orodij

We're going to use an unusual combination of tools

from game theory and neuroscience

iz teorije iger in nevroznanosti,

to understand how people interact socially when value is on the line.

da bi razumeli komunikacijo v družbi, ko gre za neko vrednost.

So game theory is a branch of, originally, applied mathematics,

Teorija iger je izvirno veja uporabne matematike,

used mostly in economics and political science, a little bit in biology,

ki se uporablja v ekonomiji, političnih vedah in v biologiji,

daje nam matematično taksonomijo družbenega življenja

that gives us a mathematical taxonomy of social life,

and it predicts what people are likely to do

in predvideva, kaj ljudje ponavadi počnejo

and believe others will do

in verjamejo, da bodo drugi storili

in cases where everyone's actions affect everyone else.

v primerih, ko dejanja vsakogar vplivajo na vse druge.

To je veliko stvari: konkurenca, sodelovanje, pogajanje,

That's a lot of things: competition, cooperation, bargaining,

games like hide-and-seek and poker.

igre, kot so skrivalnice in poker.

Here's a simple game to get us started.

Začnimo z eno preprosto igro.

Everyone chooses a number from zero to 100.

Vsakdo izbere številko od 0 do 100,

We're going to compute the average of those numbers,

izračunali bomo povprečje teh števil

and whoever's closest to two-thirds of the average wins a fixed prize.

in, kdor bo najbližji dvem tretjinam povprečja dobi fiksno nagrado.

So you want to be a little bit below the average number

Torej hočemo biti malo pod povprečnim številom,

but not too far below,

vendar ne preveč spodaj, enako, kot vsi drugi,

and everyone else wants to be a little bit below the average number as well.

ki bi radi bili rahlo pod povprečjem.

Razmislite, kaj bi lahko izbrali.

Think about what you might pick.

In kot si mislite, to je poskusni model za nekaj podobnega

As you're thinking,

this is a toy model of something like selling in the stock market

borzni prodaji v času naraščajočega trga. Kajne?

during a rising market:

Nočete prodati prezgodaj, saj ne bo dobička,

You don't want to sell too early, because you miss out on profits,

vendar ni dobro preveč čakati,

but you don't want to wait too late, to when everyone else sells,

da vsi drugi prodajo, kar bi povzročilo propad.

triggering a crash.

Želite biti malo pred konkurenco, vendar ne preveč.

You want to be a little bit ahead of the competition, but not too far ahead.

Ok, tukaj sta dve teoriji, kako lahko ljudje razmišljajo o tem,

OK, here's two theories about how people might think about this,

potem bomo videli podatke.

then we'll see some data.

Nekaj od tega bo zvenelo znano, saj ste verjetno

Some of these will sound familiar

razmišljali na takšen način. Jaz uporabljam svojo teorijo možganov, da razumem.

because you probably are thinking that way.

I'm using my brain theory to see.

A lot of people say, "I really don't know what people are going to pick,

Veliko ljudi pravi: "Res ne vem, kaj bodo ljudje izbrali,

mislim pa, da bo povprečje 50".

so I think the average will be 50" -- they're not being strategic at all --

Oni se sploh ne vedejo strateško.

and "I'll pick two-thirds of 50, that's 33."

"In jaz bom izbral dve tretjini od 50. To je 33.«. To je začetek.

That's a start.

Drugi, ki so malo bolj sofisticirani,

Other people, who are a little more sophisticated,

uporabljajo več delovnega spomina,

using more working memory,

say, "I think people will pick 33,

povejo:"Mislim, da bodo ljudje izbrali 33, ker bodo izbrali odgovor na 50,

because they're going to pick a response to 50,

zato bom izbral 22, kar je dve tretjini od 33. "

and so I'll pick 22, which is two-thirds of 33."

They're doing one extra step of thinking, two steps.

Oni naredijo še en korak razmišljanja, dva koraka.

That's better.

To je boljše. In seveda, načeloma

Of course, in principle, you could do three, four or more,

jih lahko naredite tri, štiri ali več,

but it starts to get very difficult.

ampak postane zelo težko.

Just like in language and other domains,

Tako kot pri jezikih in drugje, je težko razčleniti

we know that it's hard for people to parse very complex sentences

zelo zapletene stavke z neke vrste rekurzivno strukturo.

with a recursive structure.

To je kognitivna teorija hierarhije.

This is called the cognitive hierarchy theory,

To je nekaj, kar sem delal s še nekaj drugimi ljudmi

something I've worked on and a few other people,

and it indicates a kind of hierarchy,

in to pomeni neke vrste hierarhijo skupaj

along with some assumptions about how many people stop at different steps

s predpostavkami koliko ljudi se ustavi kje

in kako na korake razmišljanja vplivajo

and how the steps of thinking are affected

mnoge zanimive spremenljivke in različni ljudje, kot bomo videli v minuti.

by lots of interesting variables and variant people,

as we'll see in a minute.

Zelo drugačna teorija, veliko bolj priljubljena in starejša,

A very different theory, a much more popular one and an older one,

predvsem zaradi John-a Nash-a iz znamenitega "Čudovitega uma",

due largely to John Nash of "A Beautiful Mind" fame,

is what's called "equilibrium analysis."

je tista, ki se imenuje analiza ravnovesja.

So if you've ever taken a game theory course at any level,

Torej, če ste kdaj bili na tečaju teorije iger,

ste se naučili nekaj o tem.

you'll have learned a bit about this.

Ravnovesje je matematično stanje, v katerem so vsi

An equilibrium is a mathematical state

in which everybody has figured out exactly what everyone else will do.

natančno ugotovili, kaj bo vsakdo počel.

To je zelo uporaben koncept, ampak vedenjsko

It is a very useful concept,

but behaviorally, it may not exactly explain

ne more razložiti, kaj ljudje počnejo,

what people do the first time they play these types of economic games

ko prvič igrajo ekonomske igre teh vrst,

or in situations in the outside world.

ali v situacijah v zunanjem svetu.

In this case, the equilibrium makes a very bold prediction,

Tukaj teorija ravnovesja zelo drzno predvideva,

which is: everyone wants to be below everyone else,

da bodo vsi zato, ker želijo biti pod drugimi,

therefore, they'll play zero.

odigrali igro z ničelno vsoto.

Let's see what happens.

Poglejmo, kaj se zgodi. Ta poskus je bil narejen velikokrat.

This experiment's been done many, many times.

Prve smo naredili v devetdesetih

Some of the earliest ones were done in the '90s

z Rosemarie Nagel in drugimi.

by me and Rosemarie Nagel and others.

To je lep niz podatkov 9000 ljudi, ki so se prijavili

This is a beautiful data set of 9,000 people

who wrote in to three newspapers and magazines that had a contest.

na natečaj v treh časopisih in revijah.

The contest said, send in your numbers,

Pisalo je: " Pošljite vaše številke

and whoever is close to two-thirds of the average will win a big prize.

in kdor bo blizu dvem tretjinam povprečja, bo dobil veliko nagrado".

Kot vidite, tukaj je veliko podatkov, dobro lahko vidite vrhove.

As you can see, there's so much data here, you can see the spikes very visibly.

Vrh je na 33. To so ljudje, ki naredijo en korak.

There's a spike at 33 -- those are people doing one step.

There is another spike visible at 22.

Še en stolpec je viden na 22.

Opazite, da večina izbira številke tam nekje.

Notice, by the way, most people pick numbers right around there;

Ne izbirajo nujno točno 33 in 22.

they don't necessarily pick exactly 33 and 22.

Precej ​​je živahno tu okoli.

There's something a bit noisy around it.

A vidite tudi tiste vrhove tam.

But you can see those spikes on that end.

Tu je še ena skupina ljudi in zdi se,

There's another group of people

da se čvrsto držijo analize ravnovesja,

who seem to have a firm grip on equilibrium analysis,

ker so izbrali 0 ali 1.

because they're picking zero or one.

But they lose, right?

Ampak oni izgubijo, kajne?

Because picking a number that low is actually a bad choice

Zato, ker je izbira tako nizke številke dejansko slaba izbira,

razen, če se tudi drugi ne ukvarjajo z analizami ravnovesja.

if other people aren't doing equilibrium analysis as well.

So they're smart, but poor.

Oni so pametni, vendar revni.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

Where are these things happening in the brain?

Kje do tega prihaja v možganih?

Ena od študij Coricelli-ja in Nagel-ove daje zelo jasen, zanimiv odgovor.

One study by Coricelli and Nagel gives a really sharp, interesting answer.

They had people play this game while they were being scanned in an fMRI,

Pri njih so ljudje igrali to igro

medtem, ko so jih skenirali v fMRi,

and two conditions:

pod dvema pogojema: v nekaterih preizkusih

in some trials, they're told,

so rekli: " Igrate z drugo osebo,

"You're playing another person who's playing right now.

ki igra zdaj in pomerili bomo

We'll match up your behavior at the end and pay you if you win."

vajino vedenje na koncu in vam ob zmagi plačali".

Drugim so rekli, da igrajo z računalnikom.

In other trials, they're told, "You're playing a computer,

Izbirali so naključno.

they're just choosing randomly."

Torej kar vidite tukaj, je odštevanje

So what you see here is a subtraction of areas

področij v katerih je več možganskih dejavnosti,

in which there's more brain activity when you're playing people

ko vaš je soigralec v igri človek v primerjavi z računalnikom.

compared to playing the computer.

And you see activity in some regions we've seen today,

Vidite dejavnost v nekaterih področjih,

v medialni prefrontalni skorji, dorzomedialni, pa tu gor,

medial prefrontal cortex, dorsomedial, up here,

ventromedial prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate,

v ventromedialni prefrontalni skorji,

v anteriorni cingulatni skorji, področju, ki se ukvarja

an area that's involved in lots of types of conflict resolution,

z veliko vrst reševanja sporov, kot če se igrate "Simon reče"

like if you're playing "Simon Says,"

in tudi desno in levo temporoparietalno stičišče.

and also the right and left temporoparietal junction.

And these are all areas which are fairly reliably known to be

Vse to so področja, za katere se dokaj zanesljivo ve,

da so del krogotoka "teorije uma",

part of what's called a "theory of mind" circuit

ali " mentalni krogotok."

or "mentalizing circuit."

That is, it's a circuit that's used to imagine what other people might do.

Ta krogotok se uporablja, ko razmišljmo kaj bi lahko drugi naredili.

These were some of the first studies to see this tied in to game theory.

To so nekatere prvih študij, kjer so opazili

povezanost s teorijo iger.

What happens with these one- and two-step types?

Kaj se zgodi s temi en-korak in dva-koraka tipi?

Ljudi smo razvrstili glede na njihovo izbiro

So, we classify people by what they picked,

in potem iskali razliko v

and then we look at the difference between playing humans versus computers,

igranju proti ljudem in proti računalniku,

which brain areas are differentially active.

katera možganska področja so aktivna.

On the top, you see the one-step players.

Na vrhu boste videli en-korak igralce.

Tam skoraj ni razlike.

There's almost no difference.

Zato ker obravnavajo druge kot računalnike in tako tudi možgani.

The reason is, they're treating other people like a computer,

Spodnji igralci, vidite vse dejavnosti v dorsomedialni prefrontalni skorji.

and the brain is too.

The bottom players, you see all the activity in dorsomedial PFC.

Vidimo, da dva-koraka igralci delajo drugače.

So we know the two-step players are doing something differently.

Če bi se ustavili in vprašali: "Kaj naj storimo s to informacijo?"

Now, what can we do with this information?

Lahko pogledamo delovanje možganov:

You might be able to look at brain activity and say,

"Ta oseba bo dober igralec pokra,"

"This person will be a good poker player," or "This person's socially naive."

ali "Ta oseba je družbeno naivna"

Morda bi lahko proučevali

We might also be able to study things like development of adolescent brains

razvoj adolescentnih možganov

ko spoznamo, kje ta krogotok obstaja.

once we have an idea of where this circuitry exists.

Ok. Pripravite se.

OK. Get ready.

I'm saving you some brain activity,

Prihranil sem vam nekaj možganskih dejavnosti,

because you don't need to use your hair detector cells.

zato, ker vam ni treba uporabljati detektorskih celic las.

You should use those cells to think carefully about this game.

Morali bi uporabiti te celice, za premislek o tej igri.

To je pogajalska igra.

This is a bargaining game.

Two players who are being scanned using EEG electrodes

Dva igralca, ki jih skenirajo s pomočjo EEG elektrod,

are going to bargain over one to six dollars.

bosta barantala za vsoto od 1 do 6 dolarjev.

If they can do it in 10 seconds, they'll earn that money.

Dogovorita se v 10 sekundah in dobita ta denar.

Če se v 10 sekundah ne dogovorita, ne dobita ničesar.

If 10 seconds go by and they haven't made a deal, they get nothing.

To je neke vrste skupna napaka.

That's kind of a mistake together.

The twist is that one player, on the left,

Trik je, da je igralec na levi strani

is informed about how much on each trial there is.

obveščen o višini zneska v vsakem preizkusu.

They play lots of trials with different amounts each time.

Igrata velikokrat, vsakič z različnimi zneski.

In this case, they know there's four dollars.

Tu sta vedela, da je znesek štiri dolarje.

The uninformed player doesn't know, but they know the informed player knows.

Neobveščeni igralec ne ve,

vendar vesta, da obveščen igralec ve.

So the uninformed player's challenge is to say,

Torej, se neobveščeni igralec lahko vpraša:

"Is this guy being fair,

"Ali je ta fant res pošten,

or are they giving me a very low offer

ali so mi dali zelo nizko ponudbo

in order to get me to think there's only one or two dollars available to split?"

da bi mislil, da sta v igri le en ali dva dolarja ?"

V tem primeru bi lahko zavrnila dogovor in do soglasja ne bi prišla.

in which case they might reject it and not come to a deal.

Tukaj je nekaj napetosti med poskusom, da bi dobili največ denarja

So there's some tension here between trying to get the most money

prepričevanjem drugega igralca, da vam da več.

but trying to goad the other player into giving you more.

Način barantanja je kazanje na številko vrstice,

And the way they bargain is to point on a number line

ki gre od 0 do 6 dolarjev,

that goes from zero to six dollars.

pogajata, pa se o tem, koliko bo neobveščeni igralec dobil,

They're bargaining over how much the uninformed player gets,

ostanek dobi obveščeni igralec.

and the informed player will get the rest.

Torej, to je podobno pogajanjem med vodstvom podjetja in delavci

So this is like a management-labor negotiation

v katerem delavci ne vedo koliko dobička

in which the workers don't know

how much profits the privately held company has,

privatno podjetje ima,

and they want to maybe hold out for more money,

bi pa radi vztrajali pri čim več denarja,

but the company might want to create the impression

vendar bi podjetje lahko dalo vtis,

da obstaja zelo malo za razdelitev: " Dajem največ, kar lahko."

that there's very little to split: "I'm giving the most I can."

Najprej nekaj o obnašanju. Množica parov, igrata iz oči v oči.

First, some behavior: a bunch of the subject pairs play face-to-face.

We have other data where they play across computers.

So tudi podatki o igri preko računalnika.

To je zanimiva razlika.

That's an interesting difference, as you might imagine.

Ampa v množici parov, ki igrajo iz oči v oči

But a bunch of the face-to-face pairs

se prav vsakič dogovorita o enakomerni porazdelitvi denarja

agree to divide the money evenly every single time.

Dolgočasno. To enostavno ni nevronsko zanimivo.

Boring. It's just not interesting neurally.

Dobro je zanje, ker zaslužijo veliko denarja.

It's good for them -- they make a lot of money.

But we're interested in:

Ampak nas zanima, ali lahko kaj povemo

Can we say something about when disagreements occur versus don't occur?

o tem kdaj pride do nesoglasja in kdaj ne?

So this is the other group of subjects, who often disagree.

To je druga skupina, kjer se pogosto ne strinjata.

Ker se prerekata in se ne strinjata, imata možnost,

They bicker and disagree and end up with less money.

da končata z manj denarja.

They might be eligible to be on "Real Housewives," the TV show.

Lahko bi bili primerni za nastop v TV šovu "Prave gospodinje."

(Laughter)

Na levi strani vidite,

You see on the left,

when the amount to divide is one, two or three dollars,

ko je znesek za razdelitev 1, 2 ali 3 dolarjev,

they disagree about half the time;

se polovico časa ne strinjata ,

when it's four, five, six, they agree quite often.

ko pa je znesek 4, 5, 6, se pogosto strinjata .

This turns out to be something that's predicted

Izkaže se, da je to nekaj, kar je predvidljivo

by a very complicated type of game theory

z zelo zapleteno vrsto teorije iger

you should come to graduate school at CalTech and learn about.

in bi morali študirati na Caltech-u, da bi to spoznali.

To je prezapleteno, da bi zdaj pojasnjeval ,

It's a little too complicated to explain right now,

ampak teorija vam pove, da bi se ta oblika nekako morala zgoditi.

but the theory tells you that this shape should occur.

Vaša intuicija vam lahko pove enako.

Your intuition might tell you that, too.

Now I'm going to show you the results from the EEG recording.

Zdaj vam bom pokazal rezultate EEG snemanja.

Zelo zapleteno. Na shemi so desni možgani

Very complicated.

The right brain schematic is the uninformed person,

od neobveščene, na levi od obveščene osebe.

and the left is the informed.

Ne pozabite, da smo skenirali možgane obeh hkrati,

Remember that we scanned both brains at the same time,

so we can ask about time-synced activity

zato lahko iščemo časovno sinhronizirane dejavnosti

v podobnih ali različnih področjih hkrati,

in similar or different areas simultaneously,

tako kot, če bi radi preučevali pogovor

just like if you wanted to study a conversation,

and you were scanning two people talking to each other.

in bi skenirali dva, ki se pogovarjata

bi pričakovali skupno dejavnost v področju jezika,

You'd expect common activity in language regions

ko onadva dejansko poslušata in komunicirata.

when they're listening and communicating.

Torej puščice povezujejo področja, ki so aktivna istočasno,

So the arrows connect regions that are active at the same time.

začetek puščice je

The direction of the arrows

flows from the region that's active first in time,

v območju, ki je časovno najprej aktivno,

and the arrowhead goes to the region that's active later.

vrh puščice pa v območju, ki se aktivira pozneje.

Torej, v tem primeru, če ste skrbno opazovali,

So in this case, if you look carefully,

most of the arrows flow from right to left.

gra večina puščic od desne proti levi.

To pomeni, da je videti, kot da se dejavnost v neobveščenih možganih

That is, it looks as if the uninformed brain activity

is happening first,

zgodi prva,

and then it's followed by activity in the informed brain.

nato pa ji sledi dejavnost v obveščenih možganih.

In mimogrede, to so bili preizkusi, v katerih sta do pogodbe prišla.

And by the way, these are trials where their deals were made.

This is from the first two seconds.

To je v prvih dveh sekundah.

We haven't finished analyzing this data, so we're still peeking in,

Nismo končali analize teh podatkov,

tako da še vedno kukamo, v upanju,

but the hope is that we can say something in the first couple of seconds

da bomo lahko rekli nekaj v prvih nekaj sekundah

about whether they'll make a deal or not,

o tem, ali bo do dogovora prišlo,

which could be very useful in thinking about avoiding litigation

kar bi bilo koristno pri izogibanju sporom,

grdim razvezam in podobnemu.

and ugly divorces and things like that.

To so vse primeri, v katerih je veliko vrednosti izgubljeno

Those are all cases in which a lot of value is lost by delay and strikes.

zaradi zavlačevanja in zgrešenih poskusov.

Here's the case where the disagreements occur.

Tukaj je primer, ko pride do nesoglasja.

You can see it looks different than the one before.

Lahko opazite, da izgleda drugače kot prejšnji.

Tukaj je veliko več puščic.

There's a lot more arrows.

That means that the brains are synced up more closely

Možgani so bolj sinhronizirani

v smislu hkratnih dejavnosti

in terms of simultaneous activity,

and the arrows flow clearly from left to right.

in puščice se gibljejo z leve na desno.

To je, da se obveščeni možgani odločajo:

That is, the informed brain seems to be deciding,

"Tukaj se verjetno ne bova pogodila."

"We're probably not going to make a deal here."

And then later, there's activity in the uninformed brain.

In šele pozneje je dejavnost v neobveščenih možganih.

Next, I'm going to introduce you to some relatives.

V nadaljevanju vam bom predstavil nekaj sorodnikov.

Oni so kosmati, smrdeči, hitri in močni.

They're hairy, smelly, fast and strong.

You might be thinking back to your last Thanksgiving.

Mogoče vas to spomni na vaš Zahvalni dan.

(Laughter)

Maybe, if you had a chimpanzee with you.

Morda, če so bili šimpanzi z vami.

Charles Darwin and I and you broke off from the family tree from chimpanzees

Charles Darwin, jaz in vi smo se odlomili od družinskega drevesa

s šimpanzi pred približno pet milijonov let.

about five million years ago.

They're still our closest genetic kin.

Oni so genetsko naši najbližji sorodniki.

We share 98.8 percent of the genes.

Skupno nam je 98,8 odstotkov genov.

We share more genes with them than zebras do with horses.

Imamo več skupnih genov z njimi kot zebre s konji.

And we're also their closest cousin.

Mi smo njihovi najbližji sorodniki.

They have more genetic relation to us than to gorillas.

Z nami so so si genetsko bližje kot z gorilami.

So, how humans and chimpanzees behave differently

Tako nam razlike v vedenju ljudi in šimpanzov

might tell us a lot about brain evolution.

lahko povedo veliko o razvoju možganov.

This is an amazing memory test

Torej, to je neverjeten test spomina

from [Kyoto], Japan, the Primate Research Institute,

iz Inštituta za proučevanje primatov iz Nagoje na Japonskem,

where they've done a lot of this research.

kjer so naredili veliko teh raziskav.

This goes back a ways. They're interested in working memory.

To sega daleč nazaj. Zanima jih delovni spomin.

Šimpanz bo videl, glejte pozorno,

The chimp will see, watch carefully,

videli bodo posnetek v 200 milisekundah

they'll see 200 milliseconds' exposure -- that's fast, eight movie frames --

- kar je hitro, osem filmskih sličic -

of numbers one, two, three, four, five.

številke ena, dva, tri, štiri, pet.

Then they disappear and are replaced by squares,

Številke izginejo, nadomestijo jih kvadrati.

and they have to press the squares

Oni pa morajo pritisniti kvadrate,

that correspond to the numbers from low to high

ki ustrezajo številkam od nizkih do visokih,

to get an apple reward.

da bi dobili jabolko.

Poglejmo, kako to oni lahko počnejo.

Let's see how they can do it.

This is a young chimp.

To je mlad šimpanz. Mladi

The young ones are better than the old ones, just like humans.

so boljši od starih, tako kot ljudje.

(Laughter)

Zelo so izkušeni, ker so to počeli

And they're highly experienced,

več tisočkrat.

they've done this thousands of times.

Očitno je učinek treninga velik , kot si lahko predstavljate.

Obviously there's a big training effect, as you can imagine.

(Smeh)

(Laughter)

You can see they're very blasé and effortless.

Vidite, da jim ni mar in se ne naprezajo.

Not only can they do it very well, they do it in a sort of lazy way.

Ne le, da to lahko delajo zelo dobro, pač pa to počnejo na nekakšen len način.

(Laughter)

Who thinks you could beat the chimps?

Kajne? Kdo si misli, da bi lahko premagal šimpanza?

(Laughter)

Wrong. (Laughter)

Narobe. (Smeh)

We can try. We'll try. Maybe we'll try.

Lahko poskusimo, morda bomo poskusili.

OK, so the next part of the study I'm going to go quickly through

Ok, naslednji del te študije,

bom preletel,

is based on an idea of Tetsuro Matsuzawa.

temelji na ideji Tetsura Matsuzawa.

He had a bold idea he called the "cognitive trade-off hypothesis."

Svojo drzno idejo je poimenoval kognitivno kompromisna hipoteza.

Vemo, da so šimpanzi hitrejši in močnejši.

We know chimps are faster and stronger; they're also obsessed with status.

Prav tako so obsedeni s statusom.

Njegova misel je bila, da morda ohranjajo možganske dejavnosti

His thought was, maybe they've preserved brain activities

in jih vadijo v razvoju,

and practice them in development

that are really, really important to them to negotiate status and to win,

ker jim je zelo, zelo pomembno,

da se pogajajo o statusu in da zmagajo,

which is something like strategic thinking during competition.

kar je nekaj podobnega strateškemu razmišljanju med tekmovanjem.

So we're going to check that out

Torej, to bomo preverili,

by having the chimps actually play a game

ko bodo šimpanzi dejansko igrali igro

by touching two touch screens.

z dotikanjem dveh zaslonov na dotik.

The chimps are interacting with each other through the computers.

Šimpanza sta dejansko v stiku prek računalnika.

Pritiskala bosta levo ali desno.

They'll press left or right.

One chimp is called a matcher; they win if they press left-left,

En šimpanz se imenuje ujemalni.

Oni zmagajo, če pritisnejo levo, levo,

like a seeker finding someone in hide-and-seek, or right-right.

ali desno, desno, podobno iskanju v igri skrivalnice.

The mismatcher wants to mismatch;

Neujemalni se ne bi rad ujemal.

Oni bi radi pritisnili na nasprotni zaslon.

they want to press the opposite screen of the chimp.

And the rewards are apple cube rewards.

Nagrada je jabolčna kocka.

So here's how game theorists look at these data.

Tukaj vidite, kako teoretiki igre gledajo te podatke.

This is a graph of the percentage of times

To je graf kolikokrat

the matcher picked right on the x-axis

je ujemalni izbral desno na x- osi

and the percentage of times they picked right

in odstotek kolikokrat je dobro predvidel

neujemalni na y- osi.

by the mismatcher on the y-axis.

So a point here is the behavior by a pair of players,

Torej tu gre za ravnanje para igralcev

one trying to match, one trying to mismatch.

en poskuša uskladiti, drugi poskuša nasprotno.

The NE square in the middle -- actually, NE, CH and QRE --

NE kvadrat v sredini - dejansko NE, CH in QRE -

those are three different theories of Nash equilibrium and others,

so tri različne teorije Nash-evega ravnovesja in drugih,

ki vam povejo, kaj teorija predvideva,

tells you what the theory predicts,

which is that they should match 50-50,

torej da bi oni morali odigrati 50-50,

because if you play left too much, for example,

ker, če levo igrate prevečkrat, na primer,

I can exploit that if I'm the mismatcher by then playing right.

jaz to izkoristim, če sem neujemalni in odigram desno.

And as you can see, the chimps -- each chimp is one triangle --

In kot vidite, šimpanzi, vsak šimpanz je en trikotnik,

are circled around, hovering around that prediction.

krožijo in se gibljejo okrog te napovedi.

Zdaj gremo na izplačila.

Now we move the payoffs.

We're going to make the left-left payoff for the matcher a little higher.

Dejansko bomo za levo, levo malce povišali izplačilo ujemalnemu.

Now they get three apple cubes.

Zdaj dobijo tri jabolčne kocke.

Game theoretically, that should make the mismatcher's behavior shift:

Po teoriji igre bi to moralo obrniti vedenje neujemalnega

ker bo neujemalni pomislil:

the mismatcher will think, "Oh, this guy's going to go for the big reward,

"Oh, tale cilja na veliko nagrado,

in zato bom šel na desno, da zagotovim, da je ne dobi".

so I'll go to the right, make sure he doesn't get it."

Njihovo vedenje se premika gor

And as you can see, their behavior moves up

v smeri te spremembe v Nash-ovem ravnovesju.

in the direction of this change in the Nash equilibrium.

Finally, we changed the payoffs one more time.

Na koncu smo spremenili izplačila še enkrat.

Now it's four apple cubes,

Štiri jabolčne kocke,

and their behavior again moves towards the Nash equilibrium.

vedenje se premika proti Nash-ovem ravnovesju.

razmetano je okoli, ampak, če izračunate povprečje,

It's sprinkled around, but if you average the chimps out,

dejansko so zelo blizu, znotraj 0,01.

they're really close, within .01.

Dejansko so bližje kot katerakoli vrsta, ki smo jo opazovali.

They're actually closer than any species we've observed.

What about humans? You think you're smarter than a chimpanzee?

Kaj pa ljudje? Mislite, da ste pametnejši od šimpanza?

Tu sta dve skupini ljudi, v zeleni in modri barvi.

Here's two human groups in green and blue.

Bližje so 50-50. Ne odzivajo se toliko na izplačila,

They're closer to 50-50; they're not responding to payoffs as closely.

And also if you study their learning in the game,

in če pogledate njihovo učenje v igri,

niso tako občutljivi na prejšnje nagrade.

they aren't as sensitive to previous rewards.

Šimpanzi igrajo bolje kot ljudje,

The chimps play better than the humans, in terms of adhering to game theory.

v smislu, da se bolj držijo teorije iger.

To sta dve različni skupini ljudi

And these are two different groups of humans, from Japan and Africa;

iz Japonske in Afrike. Oni to lepo ponovijo.

they replicate quite nicely.

Nihče od njih ni niti blizu šimpanzom.

None of them are close to where the chimps are.

Nekaj stvari, ki smo se jih naučili.

So, some things we learned:

people seem to do a limited amount of strategic thinking using theory of mind.

Zdi se, da ljudje z uporabo teorije uma

lahko omejeno strateško razmišljajo.

We have preliminary evidence from bargaining

Imamo nekaj začetnih dokazov iz pogajanj,

that early warning signs in the brain might be used to predict

da bi zgodnja pozorila v možganih lahko uporabljali

za napoved slabega nesoglasja, ki bi nas stalo,

whether there'll be a bad disagreement that costs money,

in da šimpanzi boljši tekmovalci od nas,

and chimps are "better" competitors than humans,

po oceni teorije iger.

as judged by game theory.

Thank you.

Hvala.

(Applause)

(Aplavz)