How does the brain decide future brain or future profit? (Life is a game)

We can find the answer to that thing from the game theory. If a person sacrifices something. That sacrifice can bring lots of glory to that person. 

The question in the heading is simple. Why some people will climb Mount Everest? And another person sits in an armchair and watches TV at home? Or why some people will go to schools that cause personal financial losses while somebody goes to the pub and works as a cleaner? Why somebody chooses things that are causing pain?

Why do some people turn to war heroes serving in voluntary commando teams where training is extremely hard? And another will make only, what superior officers are saying. And why some people are going to evening school? Even if they would have a chance to sit in the pub and talk with their mates? 

Those solutions seem very different. But they are involving the same thing. The person makes sacrifices to earn something which seems meaningless. That means the person goes to make voluntarily the solution that seems wrong. But later that solution can bring lots of gold and glory. 

Even if they had a chance to choose another way and take a profit. The answer to the painful solution is simple. People who choose, pain can think about the thing after the next solution. Their way to think is if they feel pain, they will get more benefits and respect after that painful solution. 

This thing is the key element in so-called game theory. The nucleus of game theory is that the individual maximizes their benefit in their group. So the thing that makes the brain decide between future pain or future profit is determinating in game theory. Future pain can also mean future benefits. 

Things like extreme adventures, sports, and other kinds of stuff require lots of work. And they are sometimes very painful experiences. But then after that experience, the individual will get respect and glory. And that is the thing that makes those people very farsighted. They can think over the thing that seems painful. 

https://scitechdaily.com/how-does-your-brain-decide-between-future-pain-and-future-profit/

https://gamesandtehories.blogspot.com/

Sociology and game theory.

The use of game theory is expanding from nuclear strategies to the social sciences. And one of the users of this interesting theory is are companies. The company owners want to know. What is the point when personal benefit overruns the collective benefit? There is the possibility that some person gets a job from another company. But that thing causes the fall of the present workplace. 

The collective benefit must go ahead. The benefit of the company is the benefit of its workers. Or that is the normal way to think. But the company owners are people whose benefit is that the workgroup is optimal. When we think. About the number of workers. There are always people who are not "doing anything". The reason for that is that if the worker will not make things right. That person can kick off the company. If the workforce is minimal. There is no way to divorce workers. But if there is some kind reserve of workers. That means the divorcing worker is easier. 

But then we must realize that the worker would not have the same benefit as the company owner. The owner might want to make money. And the only reason why the employee is at the company is the product. The production requires workers. And that is the reason, why the workers are only the loss of money in the company. 

So why do we have unemployment? The companies benefit is always that there are lots of unemployed workers. That makes their ability to select workers from a large number of applicants. That large number of unemployed people makes it possible to put salaries down and the companies can say that there are thousands of applicants. 

A large number of unemployed people are not the benefit of society or the state. The state must pay the minimum payment for unemployed people that they can pay for their food and clothes. If that payment is too low. That causes increasing criminal behavior. 

The prisoner would cause other kinds of costs to society. That person requires surveillance officials. And prison guards. Those people require their payments. And that thing costs money. When we are saving money from someplace. That raises the costs of some other place. Nothing is free. 

All people want money. And there are multiple points for the money of the state. And even the largest and richest countries have limited resources. The resources that are given to someplace are away from some other place. The problem with modern politics is that people who are operating in the political field are members of some party. 

That means they are listening first to their people. And after that, they listen to others. The fact is that the benefit of the person and that person's support group can sometimes be different. This is one thing that we must realize. When we are thinking about illegal refugees from Mexico. 

Those people come to the USA swimming over the Rio Grande. We know how poor those people are. We might ask why some people want to kick them off. If we are looking at the maps where is shown the people who are against those refugees we can notice that those people are living near the border. When people who live near borders say. They are afraid, because of those refugees. 

They have the right to do that. There are always some people who are carrying drugs. And some of those people are dangerous. We are not living at the border of Mexico. And for us, that might seem ridiculous. But for people who are facing those cases that is not the same. The thing is that people who are living thousands of kilometers away from some area might have a different way to see things. 

People are reading news differently. The people who are close to the cases are seeing only negative things. The risk and the fear are the dominating effects in the news that they read. And of course, there are always people who forget to ask. "Why does somebody want to swim across the Rio Grande"? 

Why didn't those people use legal ways to cross the border? The name of the game is that every people have a different way to highlight the parts of those stories. The people who resist firearms might say. That there is only a couple of people who are carrying drugs. But the free firearms supporter might say that "those couple of guys might come to visit you". 

So who is right. Which of those people has better arguments? The answer that we will give might depend on things like do we own guns? That thing is quite expensive. And of course, we must remember that we must justify that thing to ourselves. 

When the audience is asked for callup surveys. There is always some category of how those people are selected. The game theory is the thing that determines the people who are giving answers that benefit the maker of the survey. 

If the maker of the research is the NRA (National Rifle Association) the reason for selecting people for the survey might be people who just bought firearms. Those people might want to justify buying for themselves and their friends. So those people would probably answer that they are made the right choice. The argument for buying a handgun is the will to look for protection from firearms. 

Wolves and men.

Game theory and everyday life

Pixelation in game theory means that. When the entirety tuns unnecessary the individuals are starting to rise. There is a point where the individual benefit will face the benefit of the entire group. The benefit of the entire group is not always the benefit of its single members. 

And at that point, there is the possibility. That benefit of the individual will win the benefit of the group. The pixelation means that the entirety is forming of the smaller and smaller subgroups. And the smallest possible sub-group is a single person or member of the group. 

When wolves are sharing their meal. They start to fight with each other That thing can use as an example where remove outcoming threats causing the entirety to turn chaotic. 

The benefit of an individual member of the group wins the benefit of the group. And that causes problems with safety when wolves start to fight with each other. 

When we think that the species want to maximize their benefit that thing will also continue in the level of individual organisms. The species is forming the main group. And then there will be the sub- or internal groups of species. That means there is always the situation where the benefit of the individual organism. Would cross benefit of the group. That thing is visible in things like wolfpacks. 

When wolves are hunting their prey they are cooperating. But when the prey is killed it's time to eat. At that moment the wolfpack would not make anything controlled. Those predators start to fight about the food. At that moment the benefit of the individual crosses the benefit of the group. When wolves are fighting about their food there is the risk. Other predators like eagles or foxes are attacking wolfpacks' small members. 

And because the hierarchy in wolfpack is extreme. There is the possibility that some pack members will not get food. Or in the most shocking cases, nobody will get food because their time will spend to fight. And the meat is frozen or some other animals steal the prey. In that case, the personal benefit that is the position in the hierarchy risks the entire group. 

The outside threat or opportunity is making the group work together. But when the goal like caribou is dead and food is ready. The internal order is gone. This is the thing that we should think about when we are making contracts. If somebody offers something cheap. We should as why that actor is making those things? Nobody offers anything for free. There is always some kind of reason for cheap offers. 

When the outside actor wants to break the alliance against itself it can offer something that it has. That offer would consist of the energy supply or some high-tech shipments. The purpose of this strategy where the other actors get cheaper offers than others is unequal to the alliance. That means some nations feel that cheap energy is the thing, that may make them leave the line. And the stick is the nuclear weapons. 

Cheap energy and natural resources are carrots. Nukes are the stick.

But they have other roles. The purpose of nukes is to increase the power of the nation. In the international arena. Nuclear weapons are meant to give extra value to the military forces. Political leaders of the country are highlighted as the persons who decide the use of nuclear weapons. Military forces are not independent. They are part of the state. They exist in all areas and sectors where that nation and state are acting. 

Those very destructing weapons make shields against outcoming attacks. But they can also use to offer an honorable way to withdraw the situation. If a country owns nuclear weapons. That guarantees that the patience against it is endless. 

People in the states are acting a little bit like wolfpacks and wolves. They are acting as a team as long that is a common benefit. The common benefit is to act for some goal like eliminating the outside threat. But when the outside threat would not exist anymore that will break the internal homogeneity of the state. The consensus will break. And the benefit of the individual members of the groups will rise above the benefit of other individuals. 

Nuclear weapons and game theory: calculating the force.

The nuclear force must be powerful. But not too powerful. 

The idea of the game theory is that every species in the world are trying to maximize their benefit. The origin of that theory is in the nuclear weapon strategies. Nuclear weapons are the most powerful weapons in the world. They are offering extreme benefits for the states that own those weapons. But the problem is that if the strike capacity of the state is too high. That causes the problem with own military. 

The problem with its military is if the state has no outside enemies. Own military can turn rebellious. In that case, the own military can attack other states without permission. And without outside enemies, the military can turn against the state leaders. Nuclear weapons are extremely powerful. And only one nuclear warhead that comes through defense can terminate the state leaders. So that is the thing that makes nuclear weapons so good. 

In nuclear strategies, the key element is the strike capacity. When weapons are launched there is no return. Of course, technical advances like warheads that can return from the orbiter if they would not detonate are things that are limiting that model. But there is always the possibility that the attacker will send its warheads to the swarm of orbiting weapons.   And that thing shakes the trust for the nuclear armament. 

There are many scenarios where another nation will make the first strike. One of them is connected with conventional warfare. There is the possibility that the other side of war will destroy the launching platforms of nuclear weapons like submarines. And if the strike capacity of the nuclear weapons decreases too low. That forces the country to use nuclear armament against its opponent.

Do you know why "space bomber" satellites are prohibited?

Do you know why the FOBS (Fractional Orbital Bombing System)-weapons are prohibited? The orbital nuclear weapons are not sure actors. There is the possibility that those weapons are not working as they should. The sleeping nuclear bomber satellite can drop from the orbiter. Or the EMP weapon can destroy its electronics. 

Or it can be targeted by killer satellites that are meant to destroy other satellites. In most visions, the killer- or "cannibal" satellites are satellites that are destroying other satellites. So those weapons are not meant to destroy cities. Their purpose is to destroy communication and GPS satellites. And one purpose of those satellite weapons would be to destroy the nuclear weapons parked on the orbiter. 

Nuclear weapons are a very convincing thing. 

The key element in nuclear strategies is the trust in those weapons. And if the trust is gone. Those weapons are not offering shields for the country anymore. Nuclear weapons are a very convincing element in a strategic arsenal. 

And that thing makes them good weapons for treating the other nations. Even ordinary people would see how powerful those weapons are. And the purpose of those things is to give pressure on the opponent state or its leader. 

The message is clear. If you get nuclear weapons or treat us. That thing causes large-size destruction. In the cases of other weapons of mass destruction. There is needed some expert to explain to people what is the virus is or what is the nerve agent? 

If some nation uses nuclear weapons that means. Those weapons are gone. And the third party can attack that country. 

Game theory is the theory where nations are acting like giant macro-organisms. That means the benefit of the group will dominate only when there is an outside enemy. That outcoming threat causes the entirety must combine its force against outsiders. But when the outside threat is gone. That causes the benefit of the certain group of the internal actor to start to highlight. 

And sooner or later the personal benefit of individuals is crossing the benefit of the large entirety. That way of thinking is very well visible in the economical areas. When countries are in an economic depression. Their leaders want to make economical alliances. When some nation has a stronger economy. That causes the "national interest" to cross the benefit of the union.  

What is the state? The fact is that the King of France Louis XIV crystallized that thing by saying "I am the state". So the state is the same thing as its leaders. That is the official policy in many countries. 

So when the national interest requires alliances that will be very popular. That means when the nation gets the money that makes alliances accepted. And when the nation is giving money. That highlights the negative things in the alliance. 

What makes money so important. The incoming and outgoing money is offering clear and simple examples about the things for and against the alliances. But then somebody asked me "where do we need game theory"? The benefits and counter benefits of alliances between nations are more complicated than just economical benefits. 

Things like strategic political and military benefits and other things are also meaningful things. The union of lands might protect the country against the attack. But it can also tie the hands of the political leaders. And nuclear weapons can also offer other nations leave from the line. One purpose of nuclear weapons is to offer other nations an honorable way to make nothing.