MD wrote: >The argument that evil is not in the "economist but in the
technique" >misses the point since it assumes that the technique of game
theory is >neutral, just as it assumes that economists are neutral.
>But Rod did not assume that economists are neutral. Nor did I. Again, I
>think that the problem with GT arises when it excludes other ways of
>understanding the world and other ways of understanding what to do. I see
>nothing in GT _per se_ which indicates that its use automatically leads
>to
>reactionary conclusions.
I have not seen among game theorists any Marxists, any socialists with a
progressive agenda. Show me one? The ones who have applied a
rational-choice brand of game theory to Marxism (Elster, Perzeworski,
Roemer, Wright) have moved away from Marxism in their attemps to build
economics on micro-foundations and individual decisions. GT is
methodologically on the right. Period. The reason for this is that
the attention to micro foundations through rational choice, game
theoric models and formal modeling of neo-classical economics
have tended to obscure the importance of relations of production and the
exploitative relationship between the capitalist and the worker.
GT lacks a progressive framework to explain systemic inequalities.
>While I respectfully say that this is A bullshit [a BS what? a BS
>argument?],
supposed "neutrality" of game theory...
>I think that the very assumptions of game >theory--individualism, profit
>maximizing agency, egoism, alturism >[altruism?] in return for benefit--
>are bombastically IDEOLOGICAL.
first of all, don't correct my words or intervene in the text. You are not
the editor here. I write quickly, and sometimes misuse letters. Knowing
that English is my second language, you are being *disgustingly racist*,
like once upon a time you called third world people *irrational* here. You
should consider an apology to the list, or at least to the international
members of the list!
>Someone already pointed out that GT need not involve individualism or
>profit-maximizing or egoism. One can apply altruism in making decisions
>in >the game. I don't think it's a very good theory of altruism, but
that's >another issue.
Altruism has a pragmatic connotation in cooperative game theory. You give
in order to receive. As Richard Dawkins wrote in _Selfish Gene_, the book
that is a prototype of fascism and sexism, men compete to fuck women in
order to transfer their superior genes to their offsprings. The
possibility of being fucked or selected from the pool depends on how men
are altrustic to women as well how much women can offer.
>Game theorists do not need to conspire with the US government at the
>moment, this is de passe; what they need to do is to teach the
governments >about how to resolve conflicts and play the diplomacy game
correctly in a >way to minimize nuclear threat >in a post-cold war era..
>This sounds as if you think that GT is a neutral tool that can be used to
>preserve peace. So GT isn't all bad?
NO. I am saying that the game theoretical applications of conflict
resolution to international relations and security studies (which I don't
think you are aware, btw) come up with explanations and results that
tend to promote the foreign policy interests of the US. Have you ever
attempted to see where game theorists publish their articles in the
majority of cases? They are the kind of journals such as _Foreign
Affairs_, _Washington Report_ _Strategic Studies_, _Journal of Military
Studies_, etc.. How do you assume that these people having their articles
published in these journals are objective, given that the institutional
basis of these journals is intimately related to the US political system
and the international political order it is trying to endorse. Once I was
reading a game theoretical explanation of military intervention in Haiti
in one of these journals. The study was briefly talking about how to keep
the junta in power with the US help and democratize Haiti in the mean time
without causing social conflict (revolt). The author was constructing a
game theory of how to make democracy work in Haiti without pissing off
the US as well as the junta. If this is not ideology, what is it?
>Furthermore, if something _empirically_ does not happen, it does not mean
>that game theory is not ideological. To argue >otherwise is very much
>like saying that I do not beat my wife, so there is >no sexism..
>I don't get this. Please tell me how GT is nothing but ideological. Is
>there something about GT that makes it inherently reactionary? More
>importantly, what is your alternative?
My alternative is not to use game theory as a methodological tool.
Just like socio-biology crap, game theory is inherently non Marxist, if
not anti liberal-left.
>African Americans have not chosen to be discrimanated by whites. Women
>have not chosen to be beaten by men..Nobody chooses the heads of
>corporations (even in some formal sense). If there is oppression, it is
>because there has been oppression against some others' rights to equality.
>Again, I can imagine someone could apply GT to model the way in which
>social institutions limit choice. On racism, for example, imagine a black
>person who decides whether to (a) stay with his or her community or (b)
>try
>to fit within white society.
How can a black "choose" to fit within a white society? If we start the
game with this individualistic assumption, then we end up saying that
blacks are responsible for causing racism by consciously choosing the
conditions they live in. One can *not* start the game with the assumption
that blacks and whites share the same circumstances, rules of the game and
the social institutions limiting their choices. Institutions do not limit
blacks and whites' choices equally. They discriminate...
> >The idea that people actually choose -- i.e. are not necessarily >
determined by the structural constraints of society -- is pretty obvious.
> People choose to post stuff on pen-l. They're not totally determined by
> their societal environments.<
>We are not talking about pen-l here. We are talking about a capitalist
>system charecterized by systemic inqualities-- the kind of
>inequalities that are beyond individuals' choices.
>Actually, we weren't talking about _either_ pen-l _or_ capitalism. You
>implied that choice played no role in individual life. I was presenting a
>counter-example.
I did *not* say this..
>I wasn't apologizing for GT. Further, I wasn't "adulterating" Marx's
>ideas.
>Though I don't want to get into quotation-mongering, I'll refer you to
>the
>"1844 Manuscripts" and the "18th Brumaire." I don't (?) you can find the
>structural-determinism of individual choice that you seem to attribute to
>Marx in his works, though he did put a big _emphasis_ on structural
>_limits_ on individual choice. (Marx was not a crude Althusserian
>structuralist.)
Where did I attribute "structuralist-determinism" to Marx? I would
appreciate if you don't make up stories to make GT look cool. For your
information, I am not an Althusserian Marxist, since I beleive capitalism
must be substituted with a better, more sustainable and more egalitarian
system if we are to have a just society.In order to be able to do
this, however, one needs to be criticial of the ideological flaws of
its own discipline, the profession and the scientific enterprise as a
WHOLE, including game theory. You can not be a progressive economist, Jim
if you refuse to take an hypothetical attitude to _truth_ claims of
popular theories in economics.
> >>Cooperative and competitive relations in one's bargaining with allies
> and opponents are emphasized by the social scientists in a fashion >
modeled after the economist's attention to exchange, especially through >
competitive market system<< > > >well, the real world has both cooperative
and competitive situations, > so that GT isn't irrelevant.<
>... the man [Chilcote] is criticizing what the game is trying to ENDORSE
>as a model of social relationships, and this model is competitive market
>system. He is attacking the hard core assumptions of game theory.
>>I dunno. I think that GT is a pretty abstract theory that can be
>>interpreted in lots of ways. Like supply & demand, it doesn't have to
>>endorse capitalism.
okey! what don't you tell us the _assumptions_ of game theory, since you
say those assumptions are _neutral_ like "supply and demand"?
btw, distribution of resources is a political act, including the
the organization of supply and demand in a capitalist economy (or in
any economy).
> > In focusing on systemic forecasting, Jantsch (1972) identified a >
number of tendencies in other social sciences. For sociology, he alluded >
to ways of " guiding human thinking in systemic fashion" and he mentioned
> scenario writing, gaming, historical analogy, and other techniques. For
> the policy sciences, he referred to the "outcome-orinted framework for >
strategic planning" known as the PLANNING-PROGRAMMING- BUDGETING SYSTEM, >
WHICH IS USED BY THE US GOVERNMENT AND OTHER COUNTRIES AS WELL"
< > > >are you saying that if the government uses something, it's bad? so
> if President Clinton breathes oxygen, we should avoid it?
>Mine responds:
>>Yes
>Okay, it's been nice knowing you....
Unlike you, I don't breath the air of Clinton, or try to look nice to his
bureaucrats, so it is _really_ nice knowing you after this discussion...
Mine
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS
