4 ms·

That's an overly simplistic view of animal behavior. Spend some time studding game theory and you will find cooperation is natural in all but the most ruthless

That's an overly simplistic view of animal behavior. Spend some time studding game theory and you will find cooperation is natural in all but the most ruthless environments. Aka 3 man enter 1 man leave suggests creating a temporary alliance. Shure animals may posture 1v1 but both competitors are trying to avoid injury.

JonnieCache 15y ago
The highly questionable practice of applying game theory to human psychology is also dangerous IMO. It didn't get anyone anywhere in the cuban missile crisis, and it won't help us understand the "problem of altruism" either. People are not rational! This is demonstrably true. Even if they were uber-rational, they never have enough data about the world to make useful rational decisions WRT maximising gene propagation through strategic altruism. It is very telling that this modern notion whereby every time someone acts selflessly towards another they are in fact acting with laser-precise logic in their own interests was developed by the RAND corporation at the height of 1950s/60s cold-war paranoia.
- onemoreact 15y ago
  Umm, I was not talking about human behavior. Bird flocks are often a great demonstration of emergent and cooperative behavior in the animal kingdom. As to your point, while I would not assume people are strictly rational it’s important to understand the transition points where rational behavior becomes destructive for society. Not because everyone acts in a strictly rational fashion but rather because there is a tendency for the average individual to do so. for example corruption often links to both the benefit and the risk of being corrupt and enforcement is far more important than what's in the books. IMO, the most important insight is given a large population there are usually several productive approaches that tend to balance over time. PS: If you think about it Sociology and Psychology are considered separate disciplines for obvious reasons. But economics is plenty complex to avoid being merged with Sociology because how you exit a burning building is only peripherally related to which brand of soda you buy.
- scott_s 15y ago
  People don't need to be rational for game theory to accurately describe our behavior. We may not be rational, but in aggregate, the results are. That is, our behaviors may be influenced more by our instinct than our reasoning. Our instincts are the result of a random exploration process where only certain strategies could win. Rational reasoning is not required.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    As I see it, that's pretty much the founding concept of game theory.
Hisoka 15y ago
People do cooperate when both sides have stake in each other - when there's a common goal. It's why people start companies together.

JonnieCache 15y ago

The highly questionable practice of applying game theory to human psychology is also dangerous IMO. It didn't get anyone anywhere in the cuban missile crisis, and it won't help us understand the "problem of altruism" either. People are not rational! This is demonstrably true. Even if they were uber-rational, they never have enough data about the world to make useful rational decisions WRT maximising gene propagation through strategic altruism. It is very telling that this modern notion whereby every time someone acts selflessly towards another they are in fact acting with laser-precise logic in their own interests was developed by the RAND corporation at the height of 1950s/60s cold-war paranoia.

onemoreact 15y ago
Umm, I was not talking about human behavior. Bird flocks are often a great demonstration of emergent and cooperative behavior in the animal kingdom. As to your point, while I would not assume people are strictly rational it’s important to understand the transition points where rational behavior becomes destructive for society. Not because everyone acts in a strictly rational fashion but rather because there is a tendency for the average individual to do so. for example corruption often links to both the benefit and the risk of being corrupt and enforcement is far more important than what's in the books. IMO, the most important insight is given a large population there are usually several productive approaches that tend to balance over time. PS: If you think about it Sociology and Psychology are considered separate disciplines for obvious reasons. But economics is plenty complex to avoid being merged with Sociology because how you exit a burning building is only peripherally related to which brand of soda you buy.
scott_s 15y ago
People don't need to be rational for game theory to accurately describe our behavior. We may not be rational, but in aggregate, the results are. That is, our behaviors may be influenced more by our instinct than our reasoning. Our instincts are the result of a random exploration process where only certain strategies could win. Rational reasoning is not required.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  As I see it, that's pretty much the founding concept of game theory.

Hisoka 15y ago

People do cooperate when both sides have stake in each other - when there's a common goal. It's why people start companies together.