4 ms·
Isn't the (only) problem with game theory that the actor optimization function is inappropriate? Rationality as an assumption is the problem. But everything els
by tw1010 9y ago
Isn't the (only) problem with game theory that the actor optimization function is inappropriate? Rationality as an assumption is the problem. But everything else, all the derived higher order structure above that seems, in my eyes, to be pretty useful. There are other contexts, like evolutionary game theory, where the optimization function is just darwinian fitness. And in that situation do most professionals seem to agree that the model is perfectly useful.
So game theory as a framework seems would be totally fine if we could only figure out a more psycologically plausible goal function, wouldn't you agree?
- Moodles 9y agoRubinstein makes the point (which I wholeheartedly agree with) that game theory is a lot like fables. They might help you interpret a certain situation in a certain way, but they have no value in actually predicting anything. I'm not sure how it will ever get there. If someone comes up with a goal function and actually makes predictions which work in the real world then yes, I would of course change my mind.
- tw1010 9y agoI used to be just as sceptical as you. (And I still am about traditional game theory.) But then I stumbled into evolutionary game theory, which seems much more robust. Have you read anything about it? What's your take? Apparently ESS has been used to model cancer very fruitfully.