Jim: > As I noted, GT doesn't (usually?) take individual > tastes, ideologies, etc. as endogenously determined > by the social structure or game.
Exactly. At least, the Nash Equilibrium Version of it does not. If someone asked me what the most important aspect/issue of/with economics/econometrics is, I would say without hesitation that it is "endogeneity". Heterogeneity among individuals and associated with that the so-called state-dependence (history as well as geography dependence) which are important dimensions of "endogeneity" are absent from the "classical" game theory, whatever "classical" means. I don't think if Michael Perelman and I played the Prisoners' Dilemma Game between the two of us, we would have ended up playing the Nash Equilibrium. Also, Nash was a paranoid-schizophrenic not because of Game Theory but Game Theory, at least, its Nash Version, is paranoid-schizophrenic because of Nash's psychology. Anyway! Sabri
