In economics, "pig's income" is a famous game theory example. This example is about: there are two pigs, a big pig and a little pig in the pigsty. There is a pedal on one side of the pigsty. Every time you step on the pedal, a small amount of food will fall on the feeding port on the other side of the pigsty far from the pedal. If one pig steps on the pedal, the other pig has a chance to eat the food that has fallen on the other side first. As soon as the pig steps on the pedal, the big pig will eat all the food just before the pig runs to the trough; If the big pig steps on the pedal, there is still a chance for the little pig to run to the trough and compete for the other half before eating the fallen food. So, what strategy will the two pigs adopt? The answer is: Piglets will choose the "hitchhiking" strategy, that is, they will wait comfortably in the trough; The big pig ran tirelessly between the pedal and the trough, just for a little leftovers. What is the reason? Because, little pigs can get nothing by pedaling, but they can eat food without pedaling. For piglets, it is always a good choice not to step on the pedal whether the big pig does or not. On the other hand, the big pig knows that the little pig can't step on the gas pedal. It's better to step on the accelerator by himself than not to step at all, so he has to do it himself. The phenomenon of "the little pig is lying down and the big pig is running" is caused by the rules of the game in the story. The core indicators of the rules are: the number of things falling each time and the distance from the pedal to the feeding port. If we change the core indicators, will there be the same scene of "pigs lying down and big pigs running" in the pigsty? Give it a try. Change scheme 1: reduction scheme. Feeding is only half of the original weight. As a result, neither the little pig nor the big pig kicked. The little pig will step on it and the big pig will finish the food; If the big pig steps on it, the little pig will finish the food, too. Whoever pushes means contributing food to each other, so no one will have the motivation to push. If the goal is to make pigs pedal more, the design of this game rule is obviously a failure. Variation scheme 2: Incremental scheme. Feed twice as much as before. As a result, both the little pig and the big pig can pedal. Anyone who wants to eat will kick. Anyway, the other party won't eat all the food at once. Little pigs and big pigs are equivalent to living in a "communist" society with relatively rich materials, and their sense of competition is not very strong. For the designer of the rules of the game, the cost of this rule is quite high (providing two meals at a time); Moreover, because the competition is not strong, it has no effect to let the pigs push more. Variant 3: Decreasing plus shifting scheme. Feed only half the original weight, but at the same time move the feeding port near the pedal. As a result, both the little pig and the big pig pushed hard. Those who wait will not eat, and those who work hard will get more. Every harvest is just a flower. This is the best solution for game designers. The cost is not high, but the harvest is the biggest. The original story of "Smart Pig Game" inspired the weak (pigs) in the competition to wait for the best strategy. But for the society, the allocation of social resources when piggy hitchhiked is not optimal, because piggy failed to participate in the competition. In order to make the most efficient allocation of resources, the designers of rules don't want to see anyone hitchhiking, so does the government, and so does the boss of the company. Whether the phenomenon of "hitchhiking" can be completely eliminated depends on whether the core indicators of the rules of the game are set properly. For example, the company's incentive system design is too strong, and it is still holding shares and options. All the employees in the company have become millionaires. Not to mention the high cost, the enthusiasm of employees is not necessarily high. This is equivalent to the situation described in the incremental scheme of Smart Pig Game. However, if the reward is not strong and the audience is divided (even the "little pigs" who don't work), the big pigs who have worked hard will have no motivation-just like the situation described in the first phase of the "Smart Pig Game". The best incentive mechanism design is like changing the third scheme-reducing staff and changing shifts. Rewards are not shared by everyone, but for individuals (such as business proportion commission), which not only saves costs (for the company), but also eliminates the phenomenon of "hitchhiking" and can achieve effective incentives. Many people haven't seen the story of "smart pig game", but they are consciously using pig strategy. Retail investors are waiting for the dealer to get on the sedan chair in the stock market; Waiting for profitable new products to appear in the industrial market, and then copying hot money on a large scale to make huge profits; People in the company who do not create benefits but share the results, and so on. Therefore, for those who make various rules of economic management, they must understand the reasons for the index change of "smart pig game". "(Pig's income) is a famous example of game theory. This example is about: there are two pigs, a big pig and a little pig in the pigsty. There is a pedal on one side of the pigsty. Every time you step on the pedal, a small amount of food will fall on the feeding port on the other side of the pigsty far from the pedal. If one pig steps on the pedal, the other pig has a chance to eat the food that has fallen on the other side first. As soon as the pig steps on the pedal, the big pig will eat all the food just before the pig runs to the trough; If the big pig steps on the pedal, there is still a chance for the little pig to run to the trough and compete for the other half before eating the fallen food. So, what strategy will the two pigs adopt? The answer is: Piglets will choose the "hitchhiking" strategy, that is, they will wait comfortably in the trough; The big pig ran tirelessly between the pedal and the trough, just for a little leftovers. What is the reason? Because, little pigs can get nothing by pedaling, but they can eat food without pedaling. For piglets, it is always a good choice not to step on the pedal whether the big pig does or not. On the other hand, the big pig knows that the little pig can't step on the gas pedal. It's better to step on the accelerator by himself than not to step at all, so he has to do it himself. The phenomenon of "the little pig is lying down and the big pig is running" is caused by the rules of the game in the story. The core indicators of the rules are: the number of things falling each time and the distance from the pedal to the feeding port. If we change the core indicators, will there be the same scene of "pigs lying down and big pigs running" in the pigsty? Give it a try. Change scheme 1: reduction scheme. Feeding is only half of the original weight. As a result, neither the little pig nor the big pig kicked. The little pig will step on it, and the big pig will finish the food; If the big pig steps on it, the little pig will finish the food, too. Whoever pushes means contributing food to each other, so no one will have the motivation to push. If the goal is to make pigs pedal more, the design of this game rule is obviously a failure. Variation scheme 2: incremental scheme. Feed twice as much as before. As a result, both the little pig and the big pig can pedal. Anyone who wants to eat will kick. Anyway, the other party won't eat all the food at once. Little pigs and big pigs are equivalent to living in a "communist" society with relatively rich materials, and their sense of competition is not very strong. For the designer of the rules of the game, the cost of this rule is quite high (providing two meals at a time); Moreover, because the competition is not strong, it has no effect to let the pigs push more. Variant 3: Decreasing plus shifting scheme. Feed only half the original weight, but at the same time move the feeding port near the pedal. As a result, both the little pig and the big pig pushed hard. Those who wait will not eat, and those who work hard will get more. Every harvest is just a flower. This is the best solution for game designers. The cost is not high, but the harvest is the biggest. The original story of "Smart Pig Game" inspired the weak (pigs) in the competition to wait for the best strategy. But for the society, the allocation of social resources when piggy hitchhiked is not optimal, because piggy failed to participate in the competition. In order to make the most efficient allocation of resources, the designers of rules don't want to see anyone hitchhiking, so does the government, and so does the boss of the company. Whether the phenomenon of "hitchhiking" can be completely eliminated depends on whether the core indicators of the rules of the game are set properly. For example, the company's incentive system design is too strong, and it is still holding shares and options. All the employees in the company have become millionaires. Not to mention the high cost, the enthusiasm of employees is not necessarily high. This is equivalent to the situation described in the incremental scheme of Smart Pig Game. However, if the reward is not strong and the audience is divided (even the "little pigs" who don't work), the big pigs who have worked hard will have no motivation-just like the situation described in the first phase of the "Smart Pig Game". The best incentive mechanism design is like changing the third scheme-reducing staff and changing shifts. Rewards are not shared by everyone, but for individuals (such as business proportion commission), which not only saves costs (for the company), but also eliminates the phenomenon of "hitchhiking" and can achieve effective incentives. Many people haven't seen the story of "smart pig game", but they are consciously using pig strategy. Retail investors are waiting for the dealer to get on the sedan chair in the stock market; Waiting for profitable new products to appear in the industrial market, and then copying hot money on a large scale to make huge profits; People in the company who do not create benefits but share the results, and so on. Therefore, for those who make various rules of economic management, they must understand the reasons for the index change of "smart pig game".

Game theory is one of the basic theories of modern economics, which studies people's decision-making choices and the corresponding equilibrium problems. A classic game case helps us understand what a game is, which is the famous "smart pig game". This example is about: there are two pigs, a big pig and a little pig in the pigsty. There is a pedal on one side of the pigsty. Every time you step on the pedal, a small amount of food will fall on the feeding port on the other side of the pigsty far from the pedal. If one pig steps on the pedal, another pig has a chance to eat the food that has fallen on the other side first. As soon as the pig steps on the pedal, the big pig will eat all the food before the pig runs to the trough; If the big pig steps on the pedal, there is still a chance to run to the trough and compete for some leftovers before the little pig finishes eating the fallen food. Now ask: "What strategy will the two pigs adopt?" The answer is: the pig will wait comfortably by the trough, while the big pig will tirelessly run between the pedal and the trough for a little leftovers. The result of this game is used by economists to explain a series of social and economic phenomena, including my experience in Beihang bathhouse. I was a big pig in the bathhouse last Sunday. At that time, we were the first to rush into the bathhouse, only to find that the water in the pipe had not been drained. Whoever steps on the pedal first will splash cold water; If everyone doesn't pedal first, obviously you can't take a shower. But if someone steps on the accelerator first, so can others ... So everyone in the bathroom is playing like a "smart pig". As a result of the game, everyone did not step on the accelerator, but looked at a "big pig"-the author himself, who was stupidly thrown a pot of cold water. The drainage speed of a shower is too slow, and cold water splashes on me endlessly. I was so cold that I looked around and was surprised to find everyone standing there, looking up at the shower pouring overhead from time to time. I just realized that they were waiting for me to drain the cold water alone! Now I am really stiff, and the cold feeling that comes with it can be described as "tragic". I want to thank another "big pig" who came into the bathroom later. It helped me drain the water, relieved and shortened my pain, and let these "little pigs" take a hot bath happily. The clever "little pigs" easily defeated the "big pig" in this "smart pig game" with their composure and wisdom. After the failure, I seriously reflected on this experience and came to the following conclusions: First, if another "big pig" and I don't pedal first, will any "little pig" pedal first? I think there will be. In a group that has been in trouble for a long time, there will always be a fool who dares to die for the benefit of the group, but his end must be tragic. Secondly, when the group morality is exhausted, is it possible for society to move forward? I think it's possible. If the manager of the bathroom adds several drain switches in the bathroom, the piglets can use this "advanced" device to quickly drain cold water and improve the welfare of the group. In other words, even if social moral standards are lowered to the limit (everyone becomes absolutely selfish), technological progress can still improve the welfare of the whole society. Perhaps this is the so-called "development is the last word". Third, can institutional constraints replace moral constraints? Can a system be established to gradually improve the ineffective behavior of this group? I think it's possible. If the bathroom is changed to a system of charging according to the length of bathing time and the speculative cost of "little pigs" is increased, a considerable number of them will become "big pigs". This is the method that modern western economists are racking their brains to explore. Finally, can this problem be solved through education? I think this is the most fundamental way out. But this kind of education should be different from the usual ideological and political education. People expect Beihang University to be a big family rather than a big family, and people are eager to live in a big family of unity, friendship, mutual assistance and mutual accommodation. However, in the process of building this big family, people largely ignore the most fundamental factor on which the family depends, that is, tolerance and love. It is impossible for a person who grew up in an environment where there is no tolerance and love, but only rules and regulations, to truly love this society and make contributions to social harmony and progress. In my opinion, to create such an environment, first of all, students should be tolerant and caring for each other as much as possible, but the most fundamental thing is that the managers of this family should change their management ideas, truly understand the truth that management is service, and truly understand and implement people-oriented management.

Reflect the "smart pig" game.