Talk:Keynesian beauty contest

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Game theory Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in \| Fix a red link \| Add content \| Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Name in the literature[edit]

A cursory glance seems to indicate that this is known as the Keynesian Beauty Contest in the literature. Besides, a paradox is a counterintuitive statement, and in Keynes' words

It is not a case of choosing those [faces] which, to the best of one’s judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those which average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be. And there are some, I believe, who practise the fourth, fifth and higher degrees.” (Keynes, General Theory of Employment Interest and Money, 1936).

there is nothing counterintuitive. Pilatus 14:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bigger Dance[edit]

I've removed this recently added section for now because I don't think it has much to do with game theory:

The Bigger Dance

An example of a Keynesian beauty contest is the Bigger Dance sponsored by Seattle sports radio station KJR-AM.

The game is structured similar to that of an NCAA bracket, except with women instead of basketball teams. Listeners are encouraged to fill out an online bracket.

Once the Dance begins, the station begins having four-minute segments allocated to each game, with listeners calling in to vote for their choice. The woman with the most votes then goes on to the next level. Similar to other brackets for single-elimination tournaments, points are awarded for guessing the correct winner, depending on the round. The winner, determined by the person with the most points for their bracket, receives a prize - a trip to their choice of sporting event.

As a result, it is very common for listeners to make their selection based on their opinion of what the majority opinion will be, and even participate to ensure that their choice wins, regardless of their individual opinion of relative attractiveness.

How would this rather large section help readers to understand game theory? --Tony Sidaway 15:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After nearly three years, the result of this discussion was to keep. Mark Hurd (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge this with "Guess 2/3 of the average". It is a terrible idea which would detract from the key insight of each problem. All of game theory is related. That doesn't mean it is all the same. - R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.137.136 (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the merge suggestion up because 1) Guess 2/3 of the average is to my knowledge the most widely used and taught mechanism of the Keynesian beauty contest and 2) half of the Keynesian beauty contest article already discusses Guess 2/3 of the average. These two topics are not very different game theory topics, as one is just a manifestation of the other. For example, a coalition-proof Nash equilibrium is a specific type of Nash equilibrium, yet does not have its own article. Could you elaborate further on how you feel it would detract from the key insight of each problem? They seem very closely related to me. Halcyonhazard (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was adverse to a merger, however, it seems like a good idea now--Keyenesian Beauty Contest being the main article, with a sub-category of "Popular Examples" or "Examples of Keynesian Beauty Contests." TC 161.32.200.19 (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal to merge. The Guess 2/3 of the average game is an instance of a p-beauty contest type game. Keynesian beauty contest appears to be the common name for p-beauty contest. The "key insight" to which the first comment (24.105.137.136) seems to be referring is that in the Keynesian beauty contest, p=1 whereas p=2/3 in the "Guess 2/3 of the average" game. While these do yield different Nash equilibria, the concept as it relates to game theory does not seem to be so different as to warrant separate pages. Sho222 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this should be merged. The most common nontechnical name for this game is "Keynesian beauty contest" and the most common technical name for this game is "p-beauty contest". --Rinconsoleao (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This is consistent with my reading as well. walkie (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. These articles should not be merged. For the non technical reader they are two different problems with different motivations. The fact that they are they same instance of an abstract problem may be noted in each article, but that is not a case for merging. There are plenty of articles that overlap concepts and ideas in different contexts but no-one proposes to merge them. I think that readers should be able to find the information in as many ways as possible. Also I imagine a merged article would in fact be confusing to all readers. ChrisUK (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Similar topics, but the isn't immediately obvious (nor necessarily interesting) to non technical readers. Leave it as it is. // Cachedio (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keynesian beauty contest. 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/20060912014510/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/k/keynes/john_maynard/k44g/chapter12.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/k/keynes/john_maynard/k44g/chapter12.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Princess Bride[edit]

It occurred to me that Keynesian beauty contest is analogous to the (I think, widely familiar) iocane poisoning scene in The Princess Bride, and might be worthwhile briefly mentioning it as an analogy in popular culture. Although I fear it could be considered original research. Ypna (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]