The Karma of Asymmetric Games: Game Theory When Positions Are Unequal

In 1982, economists Werner Güth, Rolf Schmittberger, and Bernd Schwarze conducted an experiment that upended economic theory. In the "Ultimatum Game," one participant received money and could offer a portion to a second — who could either accept or reject it, leaving both with nothing. Classical economic theory predicted: a rational person would accept any offer above zero, since something is better than nothing. Reality proved otherwise. People systematically rejected offers below 20–30%, sacrificing real money to punish an "unfair" opponent. It later emerged the same pattern appears in chimpanzees, capuchin monkeys — and even some birds. The sense of fairness is not a cultural construct. It is a biologically embedded mechanism.

Game Theory Basics: Cooperation, Defection, Dominant Strategies

Game theory is the mathematical study of strategic interactions in which each participant's outcome depends on the decisions of others. John Nash developed the Nash equilibrium: the state in which no player can improve their outcome by changing their strategy unilaterally, assuming others keep theirs unchanged. In the classic "Prisoner's Dilemma," two suspects can either stay silent (cooperate) or betray their partner (defect). Both staying silent means a light sentence; one betraying means the betrayer goes free while the partner gets the maximum; both betraying means both get a middle sentence. The dominant strategy is to defect, even though mutual silence is better for both. But this holds only in a one-shot game. In a repeated game, cooperation becomes viable — mathematically proven by Robert Axelrod in his famous Prisoner's Dilemma tournaments in the 1980s. The winning strategy was Tit for Tat: start with cooperation, then mirror your partner's last move.

Asymmetric Power in Real-World Games

Most game theory models assume equal positions. But the real world is dominated by games with asymmetric power distributions. Employer and employee: the employer controls salary, conditions, market information, and the firing decision. State and citizen: the state sets laws, controls enforcement, and holds a monopoly on norm interpretation. Platform and user: the platform controls algorithms, terms of use, and pricing. In such games, the Nash equilibrium may be formally stable but deeply unjust: the weaker side optimises within constraints it never chose. This is not only an economic problem — it is an ethical one. For more on how the conditions of a contest shape its outcome, see our piece on game theory and ethics; you can also test your own strategies in duels on karm.top.

The Karma of Designing Rules

Philosopher John Rawls, in his "A Theory of Justice," proposed the thought experiment of the "veil of ignorance": imagine you are designing the rules of a society without knowing what position you will occupy — rich or poor, majority or minority. Rawls argued that only this kind of design produces genuinely fair rules. This principle applies to any rule designer — whether a legislator, CEO, manager, or platform creator. Those who set the rules carry a special karmic responsibility: they determine how wide the space of fair play will be for everyone else. An organisation that deliberately creates information asymmetry in its favour (for example, by obscuring contract terms), or a platform that engineers dark patterns to manipulate users, is playing an asymmetric game with a predetermined outcome. This is not merely dishonest — it accumulates systemic karmic debt that eventually manifests as loss of trust, regulatory sanctions, or social rupture. For more on privilege as a factor of asymmetry, see our piece on the karma of privilege.

Moral Hazard: When Safety Nets Enable Harm

One of the most important concepts in asymmetric game theory is "moral hazard." Originally an insurance term: when you are insured against theft, you may think less carefully about locking your bicycle. In the broader sense: when the consequences of risky decisions are borne by others rather than those who make the decisions, incentives become distorted. The classic example is the 2008 financial crisis: banks took excessive risks knowing the state would bail them out ("too big to fail"). Moral hazard is a game of asymmetric accountability: profits are privatised, losses are socialised. At the individual level, it appears when a manager makes reckless decisions whose consequences fall on the team, or when a privileged person takes on risks that are non-critical for them but devastating for more vulnerable participants in the same system.

Strategies for the Weaker Player

What do you do when the rules of the game are inherently unfair? Game theory and practical ethics offer several approaches. First — "exit" (Hirschman): leave the game if possible. Second — "voice": publicly raise the question of the rules' unfairness, changing them through external pressure and negotiation. Third — "conditional loyalty": remain in the game but form coalitions with other weaker players (unions, associations, collective bargaining). Fourth — "metagame": change the game from within by acquiring sufficient power to renegotiate the rules. The key ethical principle for the weaker player: do not confine yourself to strategies that reproduce the injustice. "You cheated me, so I'll cheat you" is an effective tactic in a one-shot game but a destructive strategy in a repeated game with life.

Practical: How to Recognise Asymmetric Games You're Playing

Many of us participate in asymmetric games without realising it. Here are the signs you are in one:

• Information asymmetry: the other party knows significantly more about the rules, risks, and alternatives than you do.
• Exit asymmetry: it is harder for you to leave the game than for the other side (dependence on a single employer, a loan, a monopoly supplier).
• Consequence asymmetry: failure carries disproportionately greater losses for you than for the other side.
• Rule asymmetry: the rules were written in the other side's interests and can be changed by them unilaterally.

Recognition is the first step. The second is a conscious choice of strategy: not the one automatically imposed by the game's structure, but the one that aligns with your values and long-term interests. Unfair rules are not fate. They are design — and design can be criticised, circumvented, or changed.