|
@aaronzlewis | |||||
|
i wish my game theory classes had taught me the history behind the assumptions in the models
e.g. if we’re going to say the world is filled with isolated individuals who optimize for their own self-interest, we should take a look at how we became so atomized in the first place
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
🅐🅩🅛
@aaronzlewis
|
21. kol |
|
in my behavioral econ classes, game theory was presented as a universal model for understanding human behavior in social/political contexts
now i’m wondering if it’s more like a historical description of how a specific type of strategic mind worked in the mid 20th century
|
||
|
|
||
|
🅐🅩🅛
@aaronzlewis
|
22. kol |
|
it feels weird to me that these models were presented as de-contextualized artifacts rather than products of their time. they were totally divorced from the social and historical circumstances that led to their creation
|
||
|
|
||
|
Mihaly Borbely
@vizslah
|
22. kol |
|
I don't think the assumption is about isolated individuals, but simply about most interactions taking place between strangers. This has to be the case by definition in large-scale societies. So I think the assumption is more robust than you suggest.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Mihaly Borbely
@vizslah
|
22. kol |
|
To clarify: "has to be the case" is not strictly true, but without this the system wouldn't be flexible and therefore sustainable. This is why we used to live at tribal scale for so long, and this is why hippy communes disintegrate at a certain size.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Molten Steel
@_molten_steel_
|
22. kol |
|
I'd recommend reading some Eva Tardos, who challenges a lot of the assumptions (math heavy tho)
twitter.com/_molten_steel_…
|
||
|
|
||
|
Molten Steel
@_molten_steel_
|
22. kol |
|
You also might like Elinor Ostrom's book Governing the Commons, on common pool resource allocation in real historical settings
twitter.com/_molten_steel_…
|
||
|
|
||
|
clay
@claytharrison
|
22. kol |
|
It's because game theory is mathematics, not social science. Since game theory's goal is to optimize strategy, it must be assumed that all players can and WILL achieve their respective optimum strategy for us to be able to use math to do the optimization.
|
||
|
|
||
|
clay
@claytharrison
|
22. kol |
|
Many of the concepts Nash and Shapley developed in the mid-century are simple enough to be taught in undergrad levels, introducing layers of complexity to account for human weirdness would be WAY above that level
|
||
|
|
||
|
Michael Lane 🏖️
@mlanetrain
|
22. kol |
|
It’s important to note that in game theory nothing assumes individuals are selfish.
It’s perfectly within the assumptions of the most basic game theory models that an individual’s preferences include other people’s welfare.
|
||
|
|
||
|
nice
@mutual_ayyde
|
22. kol |
|
recommending Markets in the Name of Socialism by Johanna Bockman here for what is probably the most eye-opening bit of economics history I've ever come across
sup.org/books/title/?i…
|
||
|
|
||
|
Turil Cronburg
@thewiseturtle
|
22. kol |
|
It's not even self-interest that game theory measures, since with humans, we are most interested in creative collaboration (sexual procreation, genetic, artistic, technological, or philosophical).
So cooperation is the highest payoff for us animals.
|
||
|
|
||