6 ms·

yeesh, dominator.. Why are you overly restricting what game theory says?

quantified 4y ago
Game theory may say that Russia and China would demilitarize, but game theory relies on suitably rational actors who are playing just that game. There are many games being played simultaneously by all participants, if they are playing them. Theory is nice, and I admire game theory. Not everything is explained well or predicted well by game theory. The type of equilibrium and its causes may arise from some other conditions. Perhaps they only demimitarize after annexing quite a bit of newly undefended land. Did game theory explain any of the USA's recent military adventures? I expect the invasion or Iraq had a whole lot more to do with Saddam Hussein trying to assassinate George H W Bush, sometbing George W Bush would not let slide.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  > Perhaps they only demimitarize after annexing quite a bit of newly undefended land. I believe that the evidence indicates that this was Russia’s stated motive from the beginning - bringing people that identify as Russian from Eastern Ukraine into the Russian fold
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  > game theory relies on suitably rational actors i don’t believe that that assumption will hold up https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~kevinlb/teaching/cs532a%20-%202005-6/Projects/YaminHtun.pdf https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~kevinlb/teaching/cs532a%20-%202005-6/... in case you don’t read the whole thing: “In other words, the rational players disguise themselves as irrational; they make others believe they are altruistic, thus forcing others to play cooperatively. Therefore, this approach is also well known as “crazy perturbations.”” Thats a good example of what that researcher discovered back in ‘05
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
    additionally, “Though the solution concepts presented do not cover and explain all the possible short- comings of players’ rationality, they made significant contributions of explaining irrationality to the game theory which used to be all about rationality.”
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  > Did game theory explain any of the USA's recent military adventures? I’m sure that military and economic strategists have given plenty of game-theoretic thought to the matter, but I doubt that there are many or any published studies in the way of either open or proprietary academic game theory that attempt to put these recent, current events into a wider context.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  > There are many games being played simultaneously by all participants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_and_Infinite_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_and_Infinite_Games
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  > I expect the invasion or Iraq had a whole lot more to do with The evidence seems to indicate that the invasion was due to morality-baiting by Al Quaeda: their aim was to drain the US economy with a long, protracted guerilla war, like they did to the Russians. Sadly G H W and G W Bush both played right into their hands - entirely predictable, to quote a phrase, is probably what the Al Quaeda game-theoretic strategy was.

Game theory may say that Russia and China would demilitarize, but game theory relies on suitably rational actors who are playing just that game. There are many games being played simultaneously by all participants, if they are playing them. Theory is nice, and I admire game theory. Not everything is explained well or predicted well by game theory. The type of equilibrium and its causes may arise from some other conditions. Perhaps they only demimitarize after annexing quite a bit of newly undefended land. Did game theory explain any of the USA's recent military adventures? I expect the invasion or Iraq had a whole lot more to do with Saddam Hussein trying to assassinate George H W Bush, sometbing George W Bush would not let slide.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
> Perhaps they only demimitarize after annexing quite a bit of newly undefended land. I believe that the evidence indicates that this was Russia’s stated motive from the beginning - bringing people that identify as Russian from Eastern Ukraine into the Russian fold
9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
> game theory relies on suitably rational actors i don’t believe that that assumption will hold up https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~kevinlb/teaching/cs532a%20-%202005-6/Projects/YaminHtun.pdf https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~kevinlb/teaching/cs532a%20-%202005-6/... in case you don’t read the whole thing: “In other words, the rational players disguise themselves as irrational; they make others believe they are altruistic, thus forcing others to play cooperatively. Therefore, this approach is also well known as “crazy perturbations.”” Thats a good example of what that researcher discovered back in ‘05
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  additionally, “Though the solution concepts presented do not cover and explain all the possible short- comings of players’ rationality, they made significant contributions of explaining irrationality to the game theory which used to be all about rationality.”
9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
> Did game theory explain any of the USA's recent military adventures? I’m sure that military and economic strategists have given plenty of game-theoretic thought to the matter, but I doubt that there are many or any published studies in the way of either open or proprietary academic game theory that attempt to put these recent, current events into a wider context.
9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
> There are many games being played simultaneously by all participants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_and_Infinite_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_and_Infinite_Games
9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
> I expect the invasion or Iraq had a whole lot more to do with The evidence seems to indicate that the invasion was due to morality-baiting by Al Quaeda: their aim was to drain the US economy with a long, protracted guerilla war, like they did to the Russians. Sadly G H W and G W Bush both played right into their hands - entirely predictable, to quote a phrase, is probably what the Al Quaeda game-theoretic strategy was.