Learn Game Theory, for Free, from Stanford Professors

Ever wanted to dip your toes into the ocean of Game Theory?  Want to do it for free?

Now you can! Stanford’s offering several free courses online, starting in February.  A few of my esteemed Google colleagues pointed me towards this Game Theory class. It’s being taught by the inestimable Matthew O. Jackson and Yoav Shoham.

Here’s a description of the class:

Popularized by movies such as “A Beautiful Mind”, game theory is the mathematical modeling of strategic interaction among rational (and irrational) agents. Beyond what we call ‘games’ in common language, such as chess, poker, soccer, etc., it includes the modeling of conflict among nations, political campaigns, competition among firms, and trading behavior in markets such as the NYSE. How could you begin to model eBay, Google keyword auctions, and peer to peer file-sharing networks, without accounting for the incentives of the people using them? The course will provide the basics: representing games and strategies, the extensive form (which computer scientists call game trees), Bayesian games (modeling things like auctions), repeated and stochastic games, and more. We’ll include a variety of examples including classic games and a few applications.

There won’t be a lot of heavy math, and the lecture videos will broken into small chunks, usually between eight and twelve minutes each.

I signed up!  Let me know if you did, too, and we can work on this together.

Fail Fast: Six Degrees of Separation 2.0

About three months ago, I embarked on a less-than-epic, although very entertaining, quest to confirm or deny the famous Six Degrees of Separation experiment, originally conducted by Stanley Milgrim.  My goal was to send out letters, as in the original experiment, and have those recipients do their best to get those letters to a named someone in Boston.  Each link in the chain would write down their name on the letter, and, by the end, we’d have a list of how many people the letter went through to get to that final person.

Well, it’s time to report out on that experiment.  Get ready to have your mind blown.

Not one letter made it to my contact in Boston.

Possible reasons:

  1. The letters got raptured on Saturday.
  2. The letters were digitized and stored in Amazon’s cloud, next to Lady Gaga’s music.
  3. People don’t send letters anymore.
My subjects – the initial recipients of the letter – primarily consisted of young Silicon Valley entrepreneurs.  Despite including about $4 of stamps in each envelope, I’m guessing that most of the initial recipients didn’t actually send their original letter.  Snail mail is inefficient, and, outside of the Google mailboxes, I’m not even sure where I would go to find our local post office.
So, let’s look at the next iteration of social connection: the internet.  We’ll turn to Wikipedia for a rundown of experiments that have been done to test for these sorts of connections on computers.

In 2001, Duncan Watts, a professor at Columbia University, attempted to recreate Milgram’s experiment on the internet, using an e-mail message as the “package” that needed to be delivered, with 48,000 senders and 19 targets (in 157 countries). Watts found that the average (though not maximum) number of intermediaries was around six.

A 2007 study by Jure Leskovec and Eric Horvitz examined a data set of instant messages composed of 30 billion conversations among 240 million people. They found the average path length among Microsoft Messenger users to be 6.6 (some now call the theory, “the seven degrees of separation” because of this.).

It has been suggested by some commentators that interlocking networks of computer mediated lateral communication could diffuse single messages to all interested users worldwide as per the 6 degrees of separation principle via Information Routing Groups, which are networks specifically designed to exploit this principle and lateral diffusion.

Right now, due to the mass amount of social data on the site, Facebook is probably our best bet for measuring something like this.  However, that would probably be an invasion of privacy.  Also, don’t join any groups that claim to be a “Six Degrees of Separation” project.  None of them have any way of measuring that, and are probably just initiatives to create ever-larger groups on Facebook.
Twitter might be another outlet for measuring degrees of separation.  However, I follow people like Conan O’Brien on Twitter, and I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t count as a connection.  Alternatively, perhaps it does, and we need to redefine what constitutes a degree of separation in the digital world.
All in all, while this experiment was ultimately a failure, I think it tentatively confirms the hypothesis that the younger generations don’t send snail mail much.  But that’s not something the US Postal Service couldn’t have told us.

Why You Should Name Your Child “Peter”

One of my favorite parts about the tech revolution is the sheer amount of data that we, as end users, generate.  I’m thrilled when companies or organizations use data, voluntarily offered by their users, to write impromptu market research reports.  It’s even more exciting when market research isn’t their core competency.

One of the best examples of this is OKCupid‘s OKTrends, which reports on “Dating research from OKCupid.”

Insights, LinkedIn‘s equivalent market research arm, published a report on their blog that analyzes names.  The report analyzes names of professionals using LinkedIn. Specifically, the report looks at what names are overrepresented in different professional areas, such as among sales reps, CEOs, engineers, or athletes.

The top CEO names, for men:

  1. Peter
  2. Bob
  3. Jack
  4. Bruce
  5. Fred

And for women:

  1. Deborah
  2. Sally
  3. Debra
  4. Cynthia
  5. Carolyn

LinkedIn identifies two trends. Among males, CEO names tend to be either short or shortened versions of popular first names.  This could be because nicknames are often used to denote friendliness or openness.  Conversely, female CEOs use their full name to project a more professional image.

Here’s the infographic.

Read LinkedIn’s full report.

Six Degrees of Separation 2.0

Most people have heard of “Six Degrees of Separation” – the concept that any two people are only separated by a maximum of six connections.  That is to say, a chain of “a friend of a friend” statements can beg made to connect any two people in six steps or fewer.  Games like the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon – based on the assumption that any individual can be linked through film roles to actor Kevin Bacon in six steps – are modeled after this idea.

The concept is backed up by science, too.  One such example of scientific backing is the study done by American psychologist Stanley Milgram.  It’s described here, by Malcolm Gladwell:

In the late nineteen-sixties, a Harvard social psychologist named Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment in an effort to find an answer to what is known as the small-world problem: How are human beings connected? Do we belong to separate worlds, operating simultaneously but autonomously, so that the links between any two people, anywhere in the world, are few and distant? Or are we all bound up together in a grand, interlocking web?

Milgram’s idea was to test this question with a chain letter. For one experiment, he got the names of a hundred and sixty people, at random, who lived in Omaha, Nebraska, and he mailed each of them a packet. In the packet was the name and address of a stockbroker who worked in Boston and lived in Sharon, Massachusetts. Each person was instructed to write his name on a roster in the packet and send it on to a friend or acquaintance who he thought would get it closer to the stockbroker.

The idea was that when the letters finally arrived at the stockbroker’s house Milgram could look at the roster of names and establish how closely connected someone chosen at random from one part of the country was to another person chosen at random in another part. Milgram found that most of the letters reached the stockbroker in five or six steps. It is from this experiment that we got the concept of six degrees of separation.

You might have landed on this page because you received a similar letter.  I’m conducting an informal follow-up study, mainly out of curiosity, to see if this theory still holds.  Throughout the week of February 21st, I’ll be disseminating letters to people in my corner of the world – Mountain View, California – and having letter recipients try to contact someone in Boston.

This someone is a friend of a friend of mine, so I realize this doesn’t make the study completely legitimate.  But, to the best of my knowledge, none of the people to whom I’m giving a letter will know this person.

Using resources like Google, Facebook, or the Internet aren’t allowed, but I’m guessing letter recipients will use them anyway.

I’m mainly curious to see if this “six degrees” has shrunk at all since 1967, since Milgram completed his study.  I’m also curious to see how many of these actually get to the final recipient, since nobody uses snail mail anymore.  Six Degrees 3.0 will be the social media component, and should show up on the blog in a couple of months.

Want to participate?  Leave a comment and I’ll send you a letter!

Thinking about Thinking Recap

In the Information Overload series, we discussed the concept of distilling information down to manageable, bite-sized summaries.  In the Thinking about Thinking series, we talked about the need for deep thought and fleshed-out ideas.

For those of you in the Information Overload camp, here’s a summary of everything we talked about in the Thinking about Thinking series.  For those if you who want to read more, click through to read the entire series, in all of its glory.

  1. Thinking About Thinking. In this introductory post on how technology is rewiring our brains, we looked at some of the reasons this series is worth your time to read.  These included our increased penchant for multitasking, the ability of internet use to change our mental processes, and our affinity for each new electronic notification text message.
  2. Do We Really Need Deep Thought? The media we consume is decreasing in size, and, thus, depth of information.  Does that mean our thoughts are adjusting accordingly?  Most scientific breakthroughs actually do require deep thought – the “Ah-ha” moment is a myth.
  3. Are We Addicted? Our Brains On Technology. This post looks at the science behind addiction, and how some of that science shows our brains react to technology in the same way they react to other addictions.
  4. The Opposite of Technology. Studies show that being in – or thinking about – nature causes our brains to make connections.  Conversely, being in or thinking about man-made environments, like cities and highways causes our thoughts to become scattered and jumbled.
  5. Getting off of Social Media. This post took it one step further, and  looked at organizations and people who are turning off their technology and social media connections.  We borrowed the term Countertrend – a social backlash to a trend – to describe the phenomenon.
  6. Conclusion: Circuits and Cerebellums. In this final post, we talked about some suggestions for dealing with all of this technology.

On Monday, I’ll be attending FailCon 2010. According to the website, “FailCon is the premier conference on start-up failures and how to prepare and recover from them.” Panelists include representatives from Etsy, the New York Times, Formspring, Twitter, Zappos, and more.  Look forward to posts about failure – then subsequent success.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 408 other followers