[was: RE: [PEN-L:24200] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: "Nobel" Prize]
Why is it that "game theory" focuses only on the 2x2 matrix type of game (or the N-person game)? or am I wrong to think that it is so one-tracked in its mind? When I'm wasting my time (in other ways besides silly e-mail discussions), I wonder if a game of solitaire could be used as an analogy for real-world situations the way the 2x2 game is used as a metaphor for some specific social situations. Perhaps Lenin or some other social revolutionary could be modeled as playing "freecell," with the chances of victory depend on not only on what's "in the cards" (the situation created by the conflict of forces & relations of production) but also on strategy & skill. Maybe this analogy is a way of reconciling determinism and the role of individual leaders. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: Davies, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 8:13 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: [PEN-L:24200] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: "Nobel" Prize > > > > >Well maybe, take it up with the architects of the PD, > Taylor, Rapaport, vN > & > >M, all of whom insist on the noncom condition, frankly, > > Sorry mate; I'm clearly getting your back up here and I > didn't mean to. > > The fact that communication has to be more than "cheap talk" > if it is to be > more than a wheel which doesn't turn anything in the > mechanism, is pretty > well known in the literature, though it probably came later > than von Neumann > and Morgenstern. In fact a lot of it is the reason why > Harsanyi and Selten > shared the Nobel equally with Nash, although they didn't get > a film written > about them. > > I'd be wary of relying on Rapaport too heavily; as far as I > know, his main > contribution to game theory have been a fallacy (the Symmetry > Fallacy in the > one-shot PD) and joint responsibility for all the horrendous confusion > engendered by that book "The Evolution of Co-operation" (summarised at > http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/1/1/review1.html ). Thomas Schelling's > "Strategy of Conflict" is lumps better as a text on game theory from a > political science point of view. > > anyway, whatever. I suspect that diminishing returns has set > in on this by > now > > dd > > > ___________________________________________________ > Email Disclaimer > > This communication is for the attention of the > named recipient only and should not be passed > on to any other person. Information relating to > any company or security, is for information > purposes only and should not be interpreted as > a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. > The information on which this communication is based > has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, > but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. > All expressions of opinion are subject to change > without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, > are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful > business purposes. > ___________________________________________________ >
