4 ms·
It doesn't say how good anyone is at game theory. It might be a proxy for how social they are. The outcome is based on how "selfish" people are, or how much ret
by LionessLover 10y ago
It doesn't say how good anyone is at game theory. It might be a proxy for how social they are. The outcome is based on how "selfish" people are, or how much retribution they expect in future iterations. I don't see how this could possibly be used to make a deduction about the understanding of game theory (or practice).
- tP5n 10y agobut this is _exactly_ what game theory is about, the parent probably hinted at a failed unterstanding of the theory as shown by your comment ;) what i mean is, people may think they understand the concept of game theory but are often unable to link that to its practical consequences, as in this case.
- kybernetikos 10y agoI really enjoyed "Jane Austen, Game Theorist" which argues that Jane Austen systematically examined Game Theory years before it emerged. The author also argues that Jane Austen has analysed in more depth game theoretic 'cluelessness' than has been done since, and interestingly, many of her 'clueless' characters show signs of being unusually interested in numbers, maths, card games, etc.
- kchoudhu 10y agoThere was a user around here (michaelochurch?) who made exactly this point loudly and repeatedly. I wonder what happened to him...