Talk:Battle of the sexes (game theory)

Untitled
The article is really hard to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.32.218 (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Kelly/Chris
This may have been an attempt to avoid gender stereotypes, but the article reads funny having Kelly want to go to the football game and Chris to the opera. Not a major problem, but I think it reads better the other way around.


 * I picked the names because they were both gender imprecise, I know at least two of both sexes for each name. Feel free to replace if you wish. Pete.Hurd 23:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I also know people of both sexes with each name, so even if you can't tolerate women who like sports and men who like opera the change fails to resolve this. If you feel strongly that they should be changed, please change them consistently throughout the article.  This edit made the article inconsistent.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, just noticed the article Unisex name. Pete.Hurd 03:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not about toleration. When I first read it, I head to go re-read it several times because I got confused by the names. Just my opinion. Delphi00 04:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I had to re-read and then I checked the history to make sure this was not a case of vandalism. I'm all for political correctness, but not at the expense of clarity. I'm still not sure... Anyway, there are two options:
 * (my preference) make use of the stereotype, as is done in the external links. He/husband wants togo to football, She/wife wants to go to opera. Since it follows the stereotype, people will understand it. This is what the external sources use.
 * Brian wants to go to Bach, Susan to Stravinsky. It's political correct and clear.
 * I'm editing the article according to my preference, for the sake of clarity. 17 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.220.225.128 (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of ways to demonstrate battle of the sexes without succumbing to gender stereotypes. I put my vote in for option two above (Bach vs Stravinsky). 2 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbs (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

BoS = Bach or Stravinsky?
perhaps we should add a line like, "Some authors like to call this game Bach or Stravinsky, and have the players choose between hearing one or the other composer, in order to avoid any stereotypes that arise by using the title battle of the sexes and having the choices be 'male' and 'female' activities." I think that the article should at least mention the other title, although I'm not sure how much it should go into the politically correctness of one name over another. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll take you up on this and do it. There is no need to use gender role stereotypes to describe this game. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of editorial discretion the entire article should be changed to Bach or Stravinsky.'' In addition to the above comments, also consider that the burning money scenario casually depicts one spouse dominating the other with a passive-aggressive threat. This is a classic mode of spousal abuse and an unnecessary image to evoke in this context. 14.201.171.126 (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)''


 * I've changed back to man and woman, prize fight and ballet. These are the originals in Luce and Raiffa, and they are stereotypes that ring true as extreme versions of reality, which is why they have traditionally been used-- it makes it easier to understand the game. It also makes sense of the name of the game, which is mystifying otherwise. An additional advantage is that it permits the natural use of "he" and "she" to avoid ambiguity. "Bach or Stravinsky" is special to Osborne and Rubinstein. I find it strange to think of burning money here as spousal abuse; the idea of burning money is commonly used in game theory without any such connection, simply to mean a gratuitously costly signal. editeur24 (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Editeur24 I just moved "Bach and Stravinsky" to the initial paragraph, and put it in bold per WP:R. "Battle of the Sexes", I imagine, remains the canonical title for this game and should (sadly in my opinion) continue to be the main title per WP:COMMONNAME DougInAMug talk 11:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. editeur24 (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Battle of the Sexes 2 table
Shouldn't (Opera, Football) and (Football, Opera) options have the same (1,1) payoffs for both of them? What's makes (Opera, Football) better for both Kelly and Chris than (Football, Opera)? Delphi00 04:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kelly wants to see the football game, but will enjoy the opera if Chris is there to explain it. Chris wants to see the opera, but will enjoy the football game if Kelly is there to explain it. If Chris goes to the football game and Kelly goes to the opera, they will both miss what they really want to do and they will miss each other. --Scorpion451 02:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

-=-=-=-=-

Nah, one should be a loss for both, with the diagonal of that being a "partial win" for both. However, if the chart is, as described in the article text, supposed to represent the husband wanting to see football and the wife wanting to see opera (rather than the other way around), then either 1) the wife's choice needs to be represented by the row and the husband's by the column, or, 2) each value needs to be moved to the opposite corner (e.g.: clockwise from the top-left: [2,3], [0,0], [3,2], [1,1]).

Also, for the point system to be consistent with itself and the article text, the value opposite the (0,0) should be (2,2), not (1,1), and the (3,2) and (2,3) need to be changed to (3,1) and (1,3). This is because the first paragraph says that "the husband would most of all like to go to the football game", which implies that each person going to the event they want is their primary concern, while having the company of the other is, while still a consideration, a secondary one. If it were the opposite, and being with the other takes priority over where they go, then the value opposite the (0,0) would then indeed be (1,1), with the adjacent values being (3,2) and (2,3) as originally specified.

Actually, I may as well go fix that myself.

(Also, the first table isn't really necessary, or even valid for that matter, since it assigns no value to either of them going where they want unless they are both present, and thus equates the scenario where each of them go separately to the event they want to see with the scenario where each of them go separately to the event they do not want to see, which is of course in direct violation of the original premise).

Alexis Brooke M 23:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Asymetric versions
Are there also asymetric versions of this game? --Hutschi 06:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Payoffs
These are not adequately introduced. What does the numbers 2,3 and 3,2 mean, and where do they come from? CapnZapp (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Burning?
What is the point of burning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.184.209 (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the sexes (game theory). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001133721/http://www.gametheory.net/Dictionary/BattleoftheSexes.html to http://www.gametheory.net/dictionary/BattleoftheSexes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing "Burning money" section
This section is controversial, and the only ref cited in the section is one that openly disagrees with its claims. The whole point of the "burning money" example is to show that one can't always remove weakly dominated strategies, and/or assume the other party is rational. By mentioning burning money here, it gives off the impression that doing both of these things is reasonable, while the whole point of the example is that it's unreasonable. 2601:602:8A00:539:D0:5A6:6823:DA82 (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree, section should be removed or at least a line added summarizing the point of the whole thing from the citation: "Of course, this result is not plausible. The fact that Alfredo has the capacity to do something bizarre, like burning money, should not lead rational players inexorably to choose an asymmetric equilibrium favoring Alfredo. The culprit here is the assumption of common knowledge of rationality, or the assumption that rational agents eliminate weakly dominated strategies, or both." Macoroni (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)