Governing Dynamics

Governing Dynamics or Economics rather

The theory of Adam Smith, "The Father of Economics," said in competition, Individualism and Ambition serve the common good
'Aka'
"The best results come when everyone in the group does what's best for themselves" - Adam Smith
'Aka'
Everyone man for themselves

However, Adam Smith needs revision, because this result has been incomplete for the last 150 years

"The best results come when everyone in the group does what's best for themselves AND THE GROUP" - John Nash

Nash explains the concept as follows: A Nash equilibrium is a set of strategies, one for each player, such that no player has incentive to unilaterally change his action. Players are in equilibrium if a change in strategies by any one of them would lead that player to earn less than if he remained with his current strategy. [Ref: Gametheory.net]

Lets take the same example as in the movie (a simpler yet strong explanation).
Governing Dynamics [Ref:www.haverford.edu].

So, as per Nash, each of them goes for the other girls so that they dont block each other's way. But when the scene is looked upon closely, nobody gets the blonde!

I was googling for to understand "Nash Equilibrium" with a better example when I stumbled upon the motive behind the scene. Nash starts the dialogue by saying "If we all go for the blonde, we block each other and not a single one of us is gonna get her", so John may be considered one of the players. He suggests that "no one goes for the blonde", but the visual shows only his four friends pairing up with the other women. Implying John plans to pair himself with the blonde!!

Again, something was not feeling right.. [keeping aside the fact that Nash wanted the blonde for himself]. When everyone in the group does what's best for himself and the group, nobody gets the blonde? Nash explains in the scene that if they all go for the blonde in the first shot, they cancel each other. And then when they go for the other girls, they give a cold shoulder as nobody wants to be Second choice. Precisely my point! So, when the girls do not like to be second choice, the guys are actually ready to settle for their second choice??

In any competition, nobody gets 100% satisfied for second choice even though they end up not losing much.

And I figured there actually is a hypothesis that a Nash equilibrium need not yield a "best result" for any of the players. Contrary to John's statement at the end of the scene, the theory of noncooperative games assumes that each player does what is "best for himself", regardless of what is best for "the group".

Maybe John Nash needs revision? or Maybe I'm just looking at the big picture?! well, who am I to question a GENIUS like John Nash!