> The task was designed to produce Nash equilibria that would fit story they wanted to tell. Unfortunately, this kind of malarkey is common in the social scien

> The task was designed to produce Nash equilibria that would fit story they wanted to tell. Unfortunately, this kind of malarkey is common in the social sciences today. In fact, more than half of the results are non-reproducible[1][2]. Whether published in Nature or a lesser journal, the current research climate forces me to treat social science results as noise, especially when the results happen to fit one of the major ideologies currently vying for political domination. Sure, this heuristic is unfair to well-designed, dispassionate studies, but since I'm not qualified to evaluate the merits of each study, I have to make conservative assumptions. [1] http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/09/18/whats-to-be-done-about-the-reproducibility-crisis-in-the-social-sciences/ http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/09/18/whats-to-be-done-abou... [2] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-repl...