Re: :McArthur grantee (fwd)
Jim and others, Mine seems to have backed off. I, for one am grateful. So, I think that we can let this drop. At least I hope so. Jim Devine wrote: > I guess I've got to respond to this message because Mine dug up (spurious) > "evidence" to show that I said that third world people were irrational. > However, I doubt that anyone has to read this message except Mine. > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: GT [was: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee (fwd)
I guess I've got to respond to this message because Mine dug up (spurious) "evidence" to show that I said that third world people were irrational. However, I doubt that anyone has to read this message except Mine. Mine wrote: > 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. I wrote: >no, the problem is that GT typically assumes relative equality in "games." >It need not do so. Mine ripostes: >well, my argument is that one can not start with a relative equality >assumption to desribe a capital-labor relationship. If you do, you are >implying that capitalism is a system of equality, given that it is not. I wasn't referring to capitalism as a system of equality. If Mine reallys thinks that I do, she should read what I say for actual _content_ as much as she looks for (spurious) politically incorrectness. In any event, the topic was GT, not capitalism. I don't think GT has produced a model that reveals much if anything about capitalism, as I've said before. In two separate messages, Mine wrote: > >>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 wrote: >Actually, I am (and an economist too). One of the frustrating things about >threads in on-line discussions is that they rapidly become >incomprehensible to the readers. >I don't see it. Whoever reads "alturism" above can perfectly understand >that it is meant "altruism", if s(he) does not suffer from an acute mental >problem of comprehension, of course... Okay perhaps I did some editing that wasn't necessary. So how does that make me racist? not to mention "disgustingly racist"? (BTW, Justin S. types really poorly too, even though he speaks English as a first language, so I sometimes correct his messages.) Mine had written: >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. << I wrote: >As far as I am concerned, you can have any opinion of me that you want. >But the fact that you're stooping to calling me names says that this >conversation is over. This is my last contribution to this thread. Mine now responds: >yuppie! goodness! how do you know I'm urban? It's too bad that that wasn't my last contribution. Actually, I wouldn't call this one a "contribution" as much as a simple defense against lying attacks (or willful misinterpretation or simple ignorance). I wrote: >More importantly, I _never_ referred to third world people as >irrational. I would like to see documentation of this totally outrageous >claim. If you have any evidence, I _will_ respond, to show that it is >spurious and libelous. Mine now writes: >I did not say that you were a racist par excellence. Yeah, but you called me "disgustingly racist." That's not the same as putting me in the same league as Adolph Eichmann (a racist par excellence), but it's the kind of thing which needs more serious justification. Not that I take such charges from you seriously, since you seem to throw words like "racist" about. In European folklore, it's called "crying wolf." Mine writes: >Once upon a time, however, you made a comment in this list which I thought >had culturally racist implications, despite your own intentions.. In the >below passage, you are labeling some people as irrational from the >standpoint of rationality you are socialized into. I don't mind quick >comments _that_ much and let them go, but when it comes to religious >labeling, I strongly disagree. Here is your post: In this infamous message, I wrote: >Non-religious folks have this kind of upbringing, training, faith in the >socialist tradition etc. Either way, there seems to be an "irrational" >component, an element of _faith_. BTW, there is nothing in this quote about the "third world," nor anything about the third world being "irrational." Religion is not the same thing as "third world." You'll note that I put the word "irrational" in quotation marks. That's because _I do not accept_ the standard meanings of the words "rational" and "irrational" but was deliberately indicating to the readers that I was using the standard meanings. Unlike the definition of "rationality" which Mine _presumes_ I was "socialized
Re: Re: Re: GT [was: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee (fwd)
>Jim Devine says: As far as I am concerned, you can have any opinion of me that you want. >But >the fact that you're stooping to calling me names says that this >conversation is over. This is my last contribution to this thread. Mine responds: yuppie! Mine, is what it has come down to? It's way over the top. Joel Blau
Re: Re: GT [was: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee(fwd)
>> 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. >no, the problem is that GT typically assumes relative equality in >"games." >It need not do so. well, my argument is that one can not start with a relative equality assumption to desribe a capital-labor relationship. If you do, you are implying that capitalism is a system of equality, given that it is not. >> >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. >Actually, I am (and an economist too). One of the frustrating things >about >threads in on-line discussions is that they rapidly become >incomprehensible to the readers. I don't see it. Whoever reads "alturism" above can perfectly understand that it is meant "altruism", if s(he) does not suffer from an acute mental problem of comprehension, of course... >>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. >As far as I am concerned, you can have any opinion of me that you want. >But >the fact that you're stooping to calling me names says that this >conversation is over. This is my last contribution to this thread. yuppie! >More importantly, I _never_ referred to third world people as irrational. >I would like to see documentation of this totally outrageous claim. If >you >have any evidence, I _will_ respond, to show that it is spurious and >libelous. I did not say that you were a racist par excellence. Once upon a time, however, you made a comment in this list which I thought had culturally racist implications, despite your own intentions.. In the below passage, you are labeling some people as irrational from the standpoint of rationality you are socialized into. I don't mind quick comments _that_ much and let them go, but when it comes to religious labeling, I strongly disagree. Here is your post: http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/2000I/msg02544.html >Non-religious folks have this kind of upbringing, training, faith in the >socialist tradition etc. Either way, there seems to be an "irrational" component, an element of _faith_. Furthermore, you posted and wholeheartedly defended an article published in SLATE magazine by a right wing journalist who was implictly suggesting that blacks were not discriminated in the criminal justice sytem. I am sure you remember the debate. The author is well known to be relating racial inequality to black cultural patterns. Excuse me but the article was a destructive nonsense. I always take a second before posting such articles and seriously think about where the argument of the author politically goes. >You should consider an apology to the list, or at least to the >international members of the list! >An apology is appropriate only appropriate if I'd done something wrong. Fine. If somebody had warned me about an inappropriate use of language (especially with regards to racism and sexism issues), I would have automatically apologized. I don't approach criticism dogmatically. >>... 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
Re: Re: Re: GT [was: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee
Justin wrote: >The PD generates the players' second worst outcome, not the worst one. The >worst is generated by I cooperate, you defect. --jks Justin, I hope you don't mind that I edited what you said here, dropping the extraneous "L." What the "worst outcome" is depends on your perspective. The "I cooperate, you defect" outcome is the worst only from an individual's (my) perspective, whereas the "you cooperate, I defect" would be the worst from the other individual's (your) perspective. From the _social_ perspective, the worst would be "both defect." Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
Re: Re: GT [was: Re: McArthur grantee (fwd)
>G'day Mine, G'day... I wrote: >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 as how >much women can offer. >I think there's a lot to Dawkins' theory - and it is a theory that may or >may not be deployed to support fascism and sexism (I think Dawkins >himself >read too much and too little into his theory, especially in his first >edition), but I maintain it is not *necessarily* what you say it is. >Part of the environment within which our genes march through history is >human culture and the particular power relations of the moment - that >makes our genetic history a rather particular and complex business - but >it doesn't deny Dawkins so much as introduce a dialectical relationship >into the mix. Fine. Rob, as the author himself said in many occasions, the main purpose of Dawkin's book is to reject Marx's dialectic and instead to introduce the _primacy_ of genes in determining human behavoir. In other words, Dawkins is not saying the things you would like to attribute to him-- ie., evolution of human genetic structure throughout history. On the contrary, he is saying that social environment, history, power relations have no influence on the development of human nature. He is trying to eliminate the role of external factors to openly say that we (like other non human animals) are "machines created by genes". In the book, Dawkins goes into a deep explanation of what genes are, what they serve for and how they survive. The politically dangerous aspect of this genetic reductionism is that it sees the charecteristics human beings learn in society (competitiveness, selfishness, egoism, possessiveness, private property, rape etc..) in the human genetic make up. His argument is implicity reactionary not only because he sees human nature as fixed and unchanging but also because it ahistorically projects the charectristics of competitive market society (which he *reifies* like neo-classical economists) onto human nature to *imply* that capitalism is what we *naturally* have and it is what we are doomed to have in the future. Accordingly, he is ridiculing at the Marxist agenda of replacing capitalism with socialism or an egalitarian form of society. The man's problem is with equality. >And anyway, experience tells us that women in liberal capitalist polities >compete no less than men when it comes to the mating game (I imagine this >would be true in much, but perhaps not all, of Turkey, too). Correct, but this is not Dawkins. Dawkins is *not* saying that "liberal capitalist policies" force men and women to act in certain ways, though I would still suggest capitalism reinforces traditional sexual practices by disempowering women in the mating game. Yes, women compete no less than men, but when it comes to how women expect men to treat them in certain ways, you will see that capitalism maintains the hierarchial structure of gender relations. Regarding competition and cooperation, many anthropological studies show that these concepts gain their meanings within the form of social organization and type of society individuals live in. It also depends on which historical period we are talking about. We can not expect ancient Athenians, for example, subscribing to the notion of capitalist rationality and competitive individualism that we understand in the modern sense of the term today. They had a different societal structure and property regime.or think about hunting gathering societies; Eventhough in those societies, there was still a division of labor by sex, gender inegualities were not as systemic and cumulative as they are under capitalism. Furthermore, cross-cultural and cross-historical studies have proven variations among how these terms apply given country's situatedness with the capitalist world system. in any case, as somebody's post clarifed about what Rabin's work is and where the source of funding comes from,I see neither Rabin's work nor Dawkin's particulary useful for leftist politics..whoever thinks it is useful is mistaken and does harm to Marxism. DAwkins say: "Each individual wants as many surviving children as possible. The less he or she is obliged to invest in any one of those children, the more children he or she can have. The obvious way to achieve this desirable state of affairs is to induce your sexual partner to invest more than his or her fair share of resources in each child, leaving you free to have other children with other partners. This would be a desirable strategy for either sex, but it is more difficult for the female to achieve".
Re: Re: GT [was: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee
The PD generates the players' second worst outcome, not the worst one. The worst is generated byL I cooperate, you defect. --jks In a message dated Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:38:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << I believe Michael Ellman, in his book on Socialist Planning some twenty or more years ago, actually started off the book with the classical prisoners' dilemma, using it to show how it generated the _worst_ outcome. That came about because of the initial assumptions that individuals would seek to maximize their utility, in this instance defined as length of prison sentence. Thus, the classical prisoners' dilemma demonstrated that under such assumptions -- precisely the assumptions of standard economic thinking -- one got the _worst_ of all possible worlds! A delicious and simple demonstration of the conceit of the claims of neo-classical economic thought. There's really nothing in game theory as such that's ideological. Whatever ideology there is resides in the initial assumptions, and those initial assumptions embody the structural constraints. So it depends on how one structures the game, i.e. how one specifies those initial conditions/assumptions. For instance, in that classical prisoners' dilemma, the outcome would change if one added in an assumption of a prior commitment to solidarity arising from, say, membership in a movement for national liberation. In that case, with such a prior commitment, then the rules would be solidarity over imprisonment and, lo and behold!, the outcome would be both would not confess, resulting in the best of all possible outcomes from a straightforward utility point of view, i.e. they _both_ get the shortest sentence. Thus, the oldest and most famous of game theoretic examples illustrates that, e.g., solidarity trumps utility maximization as a strategy!! I can't think of a simpler demonstration of the utility of solidarity and the disutility of individualistic selfishness. Furthermore, in iterative prisoners' dilemma, it turns out that the best course of action is to start off assuming cooperation, not competition. As to whether the fact that unique solutions are available only for two-person (and of course 'person' here is not 'individual person') games is a weakness or not would depend upon how one simplifies the situation to assimilate it to a two-person situation. Such simplifications are common enough in physics where the n-body (n>2) problem remains unsolved, I believe. Basically, mathematical models all depend upon how one specifies initial conditions and parameters, and their use depends upon recognising the adequacy of the model to the issue at hand. It would be foolish to try and apply game theory to everything, but is there a theory of everything, superstrings notwithstanding? KJ Khoo Jim Devine wrote: >At 03:11 PM 06/17/2000 -0400, you wrote: >>I don't understand the antagonism to game theory. It is a logical >>technique--a >>tool that can be used to focus the mind on strategic decisions. It >>has the >>weakness that it can only practically discuss the interaction of >>two people, >>but surely there is nothing inherent in it that would bring out >>this scorn. > >I'm not antagonistic toward game theory, _per se_. I even studied it in >High School (back in 1967 or 1968) and thought it was pretty cool. The >problem, as with all theory, is how it's used and whether the theory is >reified or not. I've been convinced (partly by previous discussions on >pen-l) that there's nothing inherent in game theory that says that >John von >Neumann would automatically apply it to call for a preemptive unilateral >nuclear attack on the USSR. There's nothing inherent in game theory that >says that up-and-coming young economists have to prove their cojones by >using fancy techniques like game theory (GT). What I reject is the >_reduction_ of economics to such formalisms as game theory (so that >empirical research, a historical perspective, non-game theories, >philosophy, etc. aren't necessary). Even worse is _cooperative_ game >theory, which not only gets rid of the more interesting conclusions >of the >theory but represents a Panglossian "best of all possible worlds" >approach. >But we should also remember that other theories have been misused, >including Marxian theory. > >Mine quotes Ronald Chilcote: >Game theory and formal modeling have >generated mathemetical explanations of strategies, especially for >marketing >and advertising in business firms. Game theory has had an impact on >economics and it has been widely used in political science analyses of >international confrontations and electoral strategies. In fact, game >theory >has been extensively used by political scientists in the testing and >implementation of rational choice theory, which assumes that THE >STRUCTURAL >CONSTRAINTS OF SOCIETY DO NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINE THE ACTIONS OF >INDIVIDUALS AND THAT INDIVIDUALS TEND TO CHOOSE ACTIONS THAT BRING >THEM THE >BEST RESULTS.< > >I
Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee (fwd)
Well, there is a hell of a lot of stuff attacking rational choice models generall. In polisci--Mine is in polisci, no?--there is a book called Pathologies of Rational Choice theory that raised quite a flap a few years ago. In psychology, Kahnemann and Tversky (see, e.g., Judgment Under Uncertainty), or Nisbett and Ross (see e.g., Human Inference), or Johnson-Laid (Mental Models), have carried out long wars arguing that actual humans do not instantiate the assumptions of game theory or rat choice models anyway. Elster, oddly enough, has briefly encompassed many of these objection in a number of books, including his 1982 classic, Sour Grapes. Elizabeth Anderson discusses them as well in her value in Ethics and Economics. All that being said, rat choice and game theory offer a powerful set of tools that is very useful as long as you don't let it run away with your brain. --jks In a message dated Sat, 17 Jun 2000 3:20:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: << Game theory has always irritated the hell out of me, too, Mine (artificially bounded, neglectful of interpersonal and cultural norms, and ever in the thrall of that inevitable moment of equilibrium). I'd be most interested to watch you wage your noble war, anyway. Or perhaps, point me at any concise demolition article of which you might be aware. Cheers, Rob. >>
Re: McArthur grantee
>What's happening on this thread is a microcosm of what generally happens >in 'science'. Nobody posting appears to have read anything by >Rabin. Everyone has an opinion/prejudice on some general issue related to >the fields Rabin is known to be investigating -- game theory, psychology >etc. Whatever contribution Rabin may have made or not made to >understanding gets buried in a rehash of preconceptions. Ultimately, what >will matter is what kind of impression the fellow's manners have made on >the folks with the most influence in the profession (brilliant, good >company). It doesn't matter what you say, it's still the conventional >wisdom at the end of the day. > >Tom Walker I did take a look at Matthew Rabin's home page, etc., and based upon the abstracts of his papers, I'd say his work is not useful for Progressive Economists. See below for sample abstracts (the main points of "Psychology and Economics" -- the article Jim D mentioned, I believe -- may appear mildly interesting if no news to us; the thesis of "Bargaining Structure, Fairness, and Efficiency" looks inoffensive -- in the context of mainstream economics -- but not particularly useful in left-wing practice; and the rest look bad, in that they are implicitly written from the point of view of managers/gov. technocrats setting up structures of rewards & punishments for individuals to achieve efficiency): * "Psychology and Economics," Berkeley Department of Economics Working Paper No. 97-251, January 1997 Abstract: Because psychology systematically explores human judgment, behavior, and well-being, it can teach us important facts about how humans differ from traditional economic assumptions. In this essay I discuss a selection of psychological findings relevant to economics. Standard economics assumes that each person has stable, well-defined preferences, and that she rationally maximizes those preferences. Section 2 considers what psychological research teaches us about the true form of preferences, allowing us to make economics more realistic within the rational-choice framework. Section 3 reviews research on biases in judgment under uncertainty; because those biases lead people to make systematic errors in their attempts to maximize their preferences, this research poses a more radical challenge to the economics model. The array of psychological findings reviewed in Section 4 points to an even more radical critique of the economics model: Even if we are willing to modify our familiar assumptions about preferences, or allow that people make systematic errors in their attempts to maximize those preferences, it is sometimes misleading to conceptualize people as attempting to maximize well-defined, coherent, or stable preferences. * * BARGAINING STRUCTURE, FAIRNESS, AND EFFICIENCY Matthew Rabin Department of Economics University of California, Berkeley First Draft: June 15, 1996 This Draft: February 24, 1997 Abstract: Experiments with the ultimatum game -- where one party can make a take-it-or-leave-it offer to a second party on how to split a pie -- illustrate that conventional game theory has been wrong in its predictions regarding the simplest of bargaining settings: Even when one party has enormous bargaining power, she may [Yoshie: the word "not" seems missing here] be able to extract all the surplus from trade, because the second party will reject grossly unequal proposals. But ultimatum games may lead us to misconstrue some general lessons: Given plausible assumptions about what preferences underlie ultimatum-game behavior, alternative bargaining structures that also give a Proposer enormous bargaining power may lead to very different outcomes. For virtually any outcome in which the Proposer gets more than half the pie, there exists a bargaining structure yielding that outcome. Notably, many bargaining structures can lead to inefficiency even under complete information. Moreover, inefficiency is partly caused by asymmetric bargaining power, so that "fairer environments" can lead to more efficient outcomes. Results characterize how other features of simple bargaining structures affect the efficiency and distribution of bargaining outcomes, and generate testable hypotheses for simple non-ultimatum bargaining games. Keywords: Bargaining, Efficiency, Fairness, Inefficiency, Inequality, Ultimatum Game JEL Classification: A12, A13, B49, C70, D63 * * INCENTIVES FOR PROCRASTINATORS Ted O'Donoghue Department of Economics Cornell University and Matthew Rabin Department of Economics University of California, Berkeley November 17, 1998 Abstract: We examine how principals should design incentives to induce time-inconsistent procrastinating agents to complete tasks efficiently. Delay is costly to the principal, but the agent faces stochastic costs of completing the task, and efficiency requires waiting when costs are high. If the principal knows the task-co
Re: Re: GT [was: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee (fwd)
At 11:28 PM 06/18/2000 -0400, you wrote: > 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. no, the problem is that GT typically assumes relative equality in "games." It need not do so. > >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. Actually, I am (and an economist too). One of the frustrating things about threads in on-line discussions is that they rapidly become incomprehensible to the readers. And frankly, I'm not talking just to you but to others who are reading this. I try to make it comprehensible to them. Further, "editing" something allows me to be more careful in my reading of it. Anyway, putting little comments in brackets like "[altruism?]" is not the same as editing. >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. As far as I am concerned, you can have any opinion of me that you want. But the fact that you're stooping to calling me names says that this conversation is over. This is my last contribution to this thread. More importantly, I _never_ referred to third world people as irrational. I would like to see documentation of this totally outrageous claim. If you have any evidence, I _will_ respond, to show that it is spurious and libelous. >You should consider an apology to the list, or at least to the >international members of the list! An apology is appropriate only appropriate if I'd done something wrong. >... 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? This suggests that GT is so empty that it can be used to justify _anything_. Hey, that's a sustantive criticism! > >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? you'll notice that I used the phrase "try to fit." A lot of black people had lighter skin have been pretty successful at this. Even the darker-skinned types can try to fit in _culturally_. I didn't say that they would succeed. >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... I didn't say that "blacks and whites share the same circumstances, rules of the game and the soc
Re: Re: Re: GT [was: Re: McArthur grantee
I have been on pen-l now for 8 years. Calling people racists on this list is infantile to say the least. Storm in a tea cup I hope:) Cheers, Anthony xxx Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of WashingtonTaylor Institute & South Asia Program 1900 Commerce StreetJackson School of International Studies Tacoma, WA 98402, USA University of Washington, Seattle Phone: (253) 692-4462 Fax : (253) 692-5612 xxx
Re: Re: GT [was: Re: McArthur grantee
G'day Mine, >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. I've read some Elster, and he deploys mainstream methods (like games theory) to destroy mainstream stuff like public choice theory, transferred preferences, stability therof etc etc, doesn't he? Good work, I'd've thought! And, anyway, we don't want to react to the institutional blindness to institutional constraint (in which connection, incidentally, I think we could frame Marx as an institutionalist par excellence - as Tsuru claims) by effectively positing an absolutely determinant economic base and a helpless subject - some Marxists have gone that route, and I don't reckon it works as theory - neither explaining our lives today nor making thinkable a humanity that is as much subject as object of its history. >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! Well, if Jim is disgustingly racist, you can give up on all hope here and now, Mine. If I make mistakes, I'd like them corrected - whatever the nature of my mistake. That's how we learn. It's not fair that cyberspace is dominated by American English, but it's not the fault of American English speakers either. English is my second language, too, but now I've been corrected so often, and so well, that I speak and write it rather better than my first. >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. I think there's a lot to Dawkins' theory - and it is a theory that may or may not be deployed to support fascism and sexism (I think Dawkins himself read too much and too little into his theory, especially in his first edition), but I maintain it is not *necessarily* what you say it is. Part of the environment within which our genes march through history is human culture and the particular power relations of the moment - that makes our genetic history a rather particular and complex business - but it doesn't deny Dawkins so much as introduce a dialectical relationship into the mix. Fine. And anyway, experience tells us that women in liberal capitalist polities compete no less than men when it comes to the mating game (I imagine this would be true in much, but perhaps not all, of Turkey, too). I mean, we are, at least in part, talking about individuals engaged in competition, aren't we? You'd need strong rules and stronger enforcement to have it otherwise, I reckon (Taliban-like patriarchy. for instance). And, yeah, its those rules (especially uncodified cultural norms) that GT can miss. BTW, just to get a bit humanistic about all this, I don't reckon we're a purely cooperative species at all, myself. We're just not purely competitive, that's all. Cooperation was, I submit, how we competed as a species - and we must not confuse competition at the unconscious species level with that at individual, and often conscious, level (like the Spencerian 'social darwinists' and their latter day acolytes seem to think). >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. I just don't find the outcomes of game theory to explain much at all about the world within which I live (on the strength of introductory economics and public choice texts, anyway), and I don't think it privileges what's most important to decision-making. So I don't like it insofar as I understand it. I'd accept non-Marxist in that sense. 'Anti-Marxist', it seems to me, remains rather moot. >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... I agree. >>I wasn't apologizing for GT
Re: GT [was: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee (fwd)
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 op
Re: GT [was: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee (fwd)
Rod wrote: >I agree Jim. The evil is in the economist not in the technique.< Though I think you're saying this implicitly, it's important to make it explicit that it's not that the economists are evil, but that the institutions within which they work (capitalism, academia, the economics hierarchy) create incentives for them to act in an evil way (in terms of objective effects) while encouraging them to take on an "evil" (i.e., very individualistic, opportunistic) attitude. (There's that famous study which showed that students who took economics courses became more likely free ride in prisoners' dilemma games.) 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. It's akin to supply & demand, which has been used for reactionary purposes but need not be used in that way. >While I respectfully say that this is A bullshit [a BS what? a BS >argument?], I think that the very assumptions of game >theory--individualism, profit maximizing agency, egoism, alturism >[altruism?] in return for benefit-- are bombastically IDEOLOGICAL. 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. I see the idea of agency as okay, since to treat people as non-agents is to not show them respect. I just don't see people as individualistic, profit-maximizing, egotistical agents having goals that are predetermined independent of society (i.e., having "given tastes"). >One can not seperate the assummptions from the technique on the fallistic >[fallacious?] assumption that game theorists will not automatically apply >their theories to engage in a nuclear attack against USSR. I was simply saying that we can't assume automatically that GT will be used for evil purposes. You seem to be saying that GT is always evil. I was saying that the link between GT and John von Neumann's conclusions from it is tenuous at best. >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? >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? I had written: > >But the idea that people choose actions that bring them the best results > is tautological and therefore unobjectionable as long as it's not reified.< Mine responds: >Where is the tautology here? I did not choose to live in a capitalist system. Of course you didn't. But the fact that you didn't make that choice doesn't mean that you don't make other choices. Or is there someone or something who programs you or dictates to you to make you choose which clothes to wear each day? I don't think so. Are you totally constrained in your choices or totally brainwashed? Between the issue of living under capitalism and that of what clothes to wear, there's a continuum of different situations involving less individual choice (like with capitalism, racism, etc.) and more individual choice (like with what you eat). In the middle, for example, I am highly restricted in what method you take to get to work (a car, car-pooling, bicycling, public transportation) but I do have some choice. BTW, the GT practitioners don't believe that all results in our lives are a matter of choice, since the "game" itself exists independent of the individual wills of its participants. I can imagine that someone thinks that GT can be used to construct a game to describe the dilemmas that people face under capitalism. I don't think the model would be adequate, though it might capture some elements of the way in which choices are limited by social institutions such as capitalism. The big problem is when someone thinks the GT model is adequate. I would think of capitalism as a collective action problem instead of as a game. It's bad for workers as a class (compared to running
Re: GT [was: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee (fwd)
>>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, >Would you consider, first, going and reading something that Matthew >Rabin has actually written? Why don't you enlighten us about the hero's work, Brad? particulary his assumptions about how a capitalist economy should work??. Mine
Re: GT [was: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee(fwd)
>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, Would you consider, first, going and reading something that Matthew Rabin has actually written?
Re: Re: GT [was: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee
At 11:23 AM 06/18/2000 +0800, you wrote: >As to whether the fact that unique solutions are available only for >two-person (and of course 'person' here is not 'individual person') >games is a weakness or not would depend upon how one simplifies the >situation to assimilate it to a two-person situation. Such >simplifications are common enough in physics where the n-body (n>2) >problem remains unsolved, I believe. can't physicists deal with cases where n = infinity? After all, economists using purely formal techniques can handle the case where n = 1 (monopoly) or n = infinity (mythical perfect competition) and just barely handle n = 2 (duopoly) . Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS
Re: McArthur grantee
What's happening on this thread is a microcosm of what generally happens in 'science'. Nobody posting appears to have read anything by Rabin. Everyone has an opinion/prejudice on some general issue related to the fields Rabin is known to be investigating -- game theory, psychology etc. Whatever contribution Rabin may have made or not made to understanding gets buried in a rehash of preconceptions. Ultimately, what will matter is what kind of impression the fellow's manners have made on the folks with the most influence in the profession (brilliant, good company). It doesn't matter what you say, it's still the conventional wisdom at the end of the day. Tom Walker
GT [was: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee (fwd)
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. While I respectfully say that this is A bullshit, I think that the very assumptions of game theory--individualism, profit maximizing agency, egoism, alturism in return for benefit-- are bombastically IDEOLOGICAL. One can not seperate the assummptions from the technique on the fallistic assumption that game theorists will not automatically apply their theories to engage in a nuclear attack against USSR. 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..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.. Jim Devine wrote: >I'm not antagonistic toward game theory, _per se_. I even studied it in >High School (back in 1967 or 1968) and thought it was pretty cool. The >problem, as with all theory, is how it's used and whether the theory is >reified or not. I've been convinced (partly by previous discussions on >pen-l) that there's nothing inherent in game theory that says that John >von >Neumann would automatically apply it to call for a preemptive unilateral >nuclear attack on the USSR. There's nothing inherent in game theory that says that up-and-coming young economists have to prove their cojones by using fancy techniques like game theory (GT). See above.. >Mine quotes Ronald Chilcote: >Game theory and formal modeling have generated mathemetical explanations of strategies, especially for marketing and advertising in business firms. Game theory has had an impact on economics and it has been widely used in political science analyses of international confrontations and electoral strategies. In fact, game theory has been extensively used by political scientists in the testing and implementation of rational choice theory, which assumes that THE STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINTS OF SOCIETY DO NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINE THE ACTIONS OF INDIVIDUALS AND THAT INDIVIDUALS TEND TO CHOOSE ACTIONS THAT BRING THEM THE BEST RESULTS.< >I presume that the use of ALL CAPS indicates that you don't approve of >these aspects of the theory. YES >But the idea that people choose actions that bring them the best results >is tautological and therefore unobjectionable as long as it's not >reified. Where is the tautology here? I did not choose to live in a capitalist system. 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. >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. >I prefer Marx's view, i.e., that individuals create society (though >hardly >ever as intended) _and_ the society limits and shapes individual choices, >personalities, and the results of their actions, as a unified and dynamic >(dialectical) process. I know all these. I don't adulterate Marx's ideas to apologize game theory.. > >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. ABOVE, the man 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. > 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? Yes Jim Devine
Re: GT [was: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee
I agree Jim. The evil is in the economist not in the technique. Rod Jim Devine wrote: > At 03:11 PM 06/17/2000 -0400, you wrote: > >I don't understand the antagonism to game theory. It is a logical technique--a > >tool that can be used to focus the mind on strategic decisions. It has the > >weakness that it can only practically discuss the interaction of two people, > >but surely there is nothing inherent in it that would bring out this scorn. > > I'm not antagonistic toward game theory, _per se_. I even studied it in > High School (back in 1967 or 1968) and thought it was pretty cool. The > problem, as with all theory, is how it's used and whether the theory is > reified or not. I've been convinced (partly by previous discussions on > pen-l) that there's nothing inherent in game theory that says that John von > Neumann would automatically apply it to call for a preemptive unilateral > nuclear attack on the USSR. There's nothing inherent in game theory that > says that up-and-coming young economists have to prove their cojones by > using fancy techniques like game theory (GT). What I reject is the > _reduction_ of economics to such formalisms as game theory (so that > empirical research, a historical perspective, non-game theories, > philosophy, etc. aren't necessary). Even worse is _cooperative_ game > theory, which not only gets rid of the more interesting conclusions of the > theory but represents a Panglossian "best of all possible worlds" approach. > But we should also remember that other theories have been misused, > including Marxian theory. > > Mine quotes Ronald Chilcote: >Game theory and formal modeling have > generated mathemetical explanations of strategies, especially for marketing > and advertising in business firms. Game theory has had an impact on > economics and it has been widely used in political science analyses of > international confrontations and electoral strategies. In fact, game theory > has been extensively used by political scientists in the testing and > implementation of rational choice theory, which assumes that THE STRUCTURAL > CONSTRAINTS OF SOCIETY DO NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINE THE ACTIONS OF > INDIVIDUALS AND THAT INDIVIDUALS TEND TO CHOOSE ACTIONS THAT BRING THEM THE > BEST RESULTS.< > > I presume that the use of ALL CAPS indicates that you don't approve of > these aspects of the theory. > > But the idea that people choose actions that bring them the best results is > tautological and therefore unobjectionable as long as it's not reified. > > 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. In any event, no-one has developed a theory of > society that's so good that it can predict individual behavior 100% of the > time. Even if such a theory could be developed, it would be a _behaviorist_ > theory (like that of BF Skinner). That's a road that leads "beyond freedom > and dignity" into the realm of authoritarianism. > > I prefer Marx's view, i.e., that individuals create society (though hardly > ever as intended) _and_ the society limits and shapes individual choices, > personalities, and the results of their actions, as a unified and dynamic > (dialectical) process. > > Game theory is only about how the results of individual actions are limited > by the structure of (a very simple) society (and how individuals make > choices within that structure). It ignores the rest of the picture, and > thus presents a very one-sided vision (or less than one-sided vision) of > the world. For example, basic GT discusses the "prisoners' dilemma" without > discussing how the cops have the power to create such a dilemma (creating > the rules of the "game"). Similarly, it ignores other police tactics, such > as the "tough cop/nice cop" routine that does the mindf*ck to the prisoner. > > >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. > > > 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? > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GT [was: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee
At 03:11 PM 06/17/2000 -0400, you wrote: >I don't understand the antagonism to game theory. It is a logical technique--a >tool that can be used to focus the mind on strategic decisions. It has the >weakness that it can only practically discuss the interaction of two people, >but surely there is nothing inherent in it that would bring out this scorn. I'm not antagonistic toward game theory, _per se_. I even studied it in High School (back in 1967 or 1968) and thought it was pretty cool. The problem, as with all theory, is how it's used and whether the theory is reified or not. I've been convinced (partly by previous discussions on pen-l) that there's nothing inherent in game theory that says that John von Neumann would automatically apply it to call for a preemptive unilateral nuclear attack on the USSR. There's nothing inherent in game theory that says that up-and-coming young economists have to prove their cojones by using fancy techniques like game theory (GT). What I reject is the _reduction_ of economics to such formalisms as game theory (so that empirical research, a historical perspective, non-game theories, philosophy, etc. aren't necessary). Even worse is _cooperative_ game theory, which not only gets rid of the more interesting conclusions of the theory but represents a Panglossian "best of all possible worlds" approach. But we should also remember that other theories have been misused, including Marxian theory. Mine quotes Ronald Chilcote: >Game theory and formal modeling have generated mathemetical explanations of strategies, especially for marketing and advertising in business firms. Game theory has had an impact on economics and it has been widely used in political science analyses of international confrontations and electoral strategies. In fact, game theory has been extensively used by political scientists in the testing and implementation of rational choice theory, which assumes that THE STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINTS OF SOCIETY DO NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINE THE ACTIONS OF INDIVIDUALS AND THAT INDIVIDUALS TEND TO CHOOSE ACTIONS THAT BRING THEM THE BEST RESULTS.< I presume that the use of ALL CAPS indicates that you don't approve of these aspects of the theory. But the idea that people choose actions that bring them the best results is tautological and therefore unobjectionable as long as it's not reified. 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. In any event, no-one has developed a theory of society that's so good that it can predict individual behavior 100% of the time. Even if such a theory could be developed, it would be a _behaviorist_ theory (like that of BF Skinner). That's a road that leads "beyond freedom and dignity" into the realm of authoritarianism. I prefer Marx's view, i.e., that individuals create society (though hardly ever as intended) _and_ the society limits and shapes individual choices, personalities, and the results of their actions, as a unified and dynamic (dialectical) process. Game theory is only about how the results of individual actions are limited by the structure of (a very simple) society (and how individuals make choices within that structure). It ignores the rest of the picture, and thus presents a very one-sided vision (or less than one-sided vision) of the world. For example, basic GT discusses the "prisoners' dilemma" without discussing how the cops have the power to create such a dilemma (creating the rules of the "game"). Similarly, it ignores other police tactics, such as the "tough cop/nice cop" routine that does the mindf*ck to the prisoner. >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. > 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? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS
Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee (fwd)
You can not understand the antogonism to game theory, because you are blind to ideology behind it: "Game theory and formal modeling have generated mathemetical explanations of strategies, especially for marketing adn advertising in business firms.Game theory has had an impact on economics and it has been widely used in political science analyses of international confrontations and electoral strategies. In fact, game theory has been extensively used by political scientists in the testing and implementation of rational choice theory, which assumes that THE STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINTS OF SOCIETY DO NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINE THE ACTIONS OF INDIVIDUALS AND THAT INDIVIDUALS TEND TO CHOOSE ACTIONS THAT BRING THEM THE BEST RESULTS. 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" " 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" (Ronald Chilcote, p.125). Mine >I don't understand the antagonism to game theory. It is a logical >technique--a >tool that can be used to focus the mind on strategic decisions. It has >the >weakness that it can only practically discuss the interaction of two >people, >but surely there is nothing inherent in it that would bring out this scorn. >Rod >Jim Devine wrote: >> >Brad De Long wrote: > >>He's [Matt Rabin is] brilliant, and very witty: good company. Lots of > >>interesting ideas about how game theory should be developed... > > >Doug writes: >> >To what end? What's the point of game theory? What does it explain that > >things other than game theory don't? > > >I hope that Rabin is leading the fight against cooperative game theory. But > >I'd like to hear what Rabin's contributions to this field have been. > > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS -- >Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee
Rod Hay wrote: >I don't understand the antagonism to game theory. It is a logical technique--a >tool that can be used to focus the mind on strategic decisions. It has the >weakness that it can only practically discuss the interaction of two people, >but surely there is nothing inherent in it that would bring out this scorn. There's something horrifyingly banal and fetishized about it, a bloodless and asocial representation of human behavior. It gives me the creeps, viscerally. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee
I don't understand the antagonism to game theory. It is a logical technique--a tool that can be used to focus the mind on strategic decisions. It has the weakness that it can only practically discuss the interaction of two people, but surely there is nothing inherent in it that would bring out this scorn. Rod Jim Devine wrote: > >Brad De Long wrote: > >>He's [Matt Rabin is] brilliant, and very witty: good company. Lots of > >>interesting ideas about how game theory should be developed... > > Doug writes: > >To what end? What's the point of game theory? What does it explain that > >things other than game theory don't? > > I hope that Rabin is leading the fight against cooperative game theory. But > I'd like to hear what Rabin's contributions to this field have been. > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee (fwd)
well, actually, some people, were bombastically praising the man's work a couple of posts ago. It is not a novel thing to see that people update their arguments according to the member composition of the list... Mine >Good point Jim. "Cooperative game theory" is just another bullshit cover >for competitive equilibrium. > It is being used in the battles I'm in to justify deregulating >electric >power, concluding that just the "right" amount of capacity can be built >as the >fierce competitors play out their games. >>> I hope that Rabin is leading the fight against cooperative game theory. But >>> I'd like to hear what Rabin's contributions to this field have been. > >>> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS
Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee
Good point Jim. "Cooperative game theory" is just another bullshit cover for competitive equilibrium. It is being used in the battles I'm in to justify deregulating electric power, concluding that just the "right" amount of capacity can be built as the fierce competitors play out their games. Gene Coyle Jim Devine wrote: > >Brad De Long wrote: > >>He's [Matt Rabin is] brilliant, and very witty: good company. Lots of > >>interesting ideas about how game theory should be developed... > > Doug writes: > >To what end? What's the point of game theory? What does it explain that > >things other than game theory don't? > > I hope that Rabin is leading the fight against cooperative game theory. But > I'd like to hear what Rabin's contributions to this field have been. > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS
Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee
>Brad De Long wrote: >>He's [Matt Rabin is] brilliant, and very witty: good company. Lots of >>interesting ideas about how game theory should be developed... Doug writes: >To what end? What's the point of game theory? What does it explain that >things other than game theory don't? I hope that Rabin is leading the fight against cooperative game theory. But I'd like to hear what Rabin's contributions to this field have been. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS
Re: Re: McArthur grantee (fwd)
Rob, you may wish to consider Ronal Chilcote's _Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm Reconsidered_, for an excellent critique of game theory and methodology of mainstream social sciences. (Westview Press, 1994)..The book presents a critique of modernization theory, game theory and rational choice theories.. I have got to go.. Mine >Game theory has always irritated the hell out of me, too, Mine >(artificially bounded, neglectful of interpersonal and cultural norms, >and >ever in the thrall of that inevitable moment of equilibrium). I'd be >most >interested to watch you wage your noble war, anyway. Or perhaps, point >me >at any concise demolition article of which you might be aware. Cheers, Rob.
Re: Re: McArthur grantee (fwd)
Game theory has always irritated the hell out of me, too, Mine (artificially bounded, neglectful of interpersonal and cultural norms, and ever in the thrall of that inevitable moment of equilibrium). I'd be most interested to watch you wage your noble war, anyway. Or perhaps, point me at any concise demolition article of which you might be aware. Cheers, Rob.
Re: McArthur grantee (fwd)
Which is why people preach him, and give such people grants game theorization of economics has unfortunately imperialized other fields of social sciences too. sorry, i am waging a total war against game theory. it is an intellectual establishment designed to perpetuate the ideology of mainstream social sciences a little bit of psychology, a litle bit of "actor" theory, a little bit of pragmatism.. It teaches you how to play the role of a good capitalist!! bingo.. Mine >He's brilliant, and very witty: good company. Lots of interesting >ideas >about how game theory should be developed... >this fellow got a McArthur grant yesterday. Anybody know of him? > > >Matthew Rabin > > Professor of Economics > University of California, Berkeley > Age: 36 > Residence: San Francisco, >California > Links: Matthew Rabin's home page > > Rabin is a pioneer in behavioral >economics, a field that applies > such psychological insights as >fairness, impulsiveness, biases, and > risk aversion to economic theory >and research. He is credited > with influencing the practice of >economics by seamlessly > integrating psychology and >economics, freeing economists to talk with new > perspectives on such phenomena as >group behavior and addiction. Rabin has > demonstrated particular strength in >distilling from psychological research those > insights that can be modeled >mathematically.
Re: Re: McArthur grantee
Brad De Long wrote: >He's brilliant, and very witty: good company. Lots of interesting >ideas about how game theory should be developed... To what end? What's the point of game theory? What does it explain that things other than game theory don't? Doug
Re: McArthur grantee
He's brilliant, and very witty: good company. Lots of interesting ideas about how game theory should be developed... >this fellow got a McArthur grant yesterday. Anybody know of him? > > >Matthew Rabin > > Professor of Economics > University of California, Berkeley > Age: 36 > Residence: San Francisco, >California > Links: Matthew Rabin's home page > > Rabin is a pioneer in behavioral >economics, a field that applies > such psychological insights as >fairness, impulsiveness, biases, and > risk aversion to economic theory >and research. He is credited > with influencing the practice of >economics by seamlessly > integrating psychology and >economics, freeing economists to talk with new > perspectives on such phenomena as >group behavior and addiction. Rabin has > demonstrated particular strength in >distilling from psychological research those > insights that can be modeled >mathematically.
Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee
Jim wrote: > > The article that I read by Rabin was hardly mathematical, though one might > say that his biases are toward behaviorism rather than toward > psychoanalysis. But I think that it's a mistake to condemn the guy based on > a minuscule profile. (hey, my profile ain't so hot either. It makes me look > fat.) > I wasn't condemning Rabin. I don't know his work. I was addressing the profile's identification of psychology with a particular approach to psychology - "behavioral psychology" - and what appeared to be the implicit idea that mathematics is the best language for "scientific" expression. Both the identification and the idea are mistaken. The psychoanalysis to which I pointed offers an explanation of the immunity of such thinking to rational critique e.g. the kind of philosophical critique made by Whitehead and Keynes of the uncritical application of particular kinds of mathematical reasoning to the material of the "moral sciences". "Behavioral psychology" seems to be pretty much the only kind of psychology to which economists are willing or able to pay attention. Ted -- Ted WinslowE-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Division of Social Science VOICE: (416) 736-5054 York UniversityFAX: (416) 736-5615 4700 Keele St. Toronto, Ontario CANADA M3J 1P3
Re: Re: McArthur grantee
At 02:35 PM 6/15/00 -0400, you wrote: > >From the profile of Mathew Rabin: > > > Rabin has > > demonstrated particular strength in > > distilling from psychological research those > > insights that can be modeled > > mathematically. > >The wider conventional basis of the dominant approaches of both psychology >and economics is "physics envy". The profile identifies "psychology" with >the "behavioral" approach to it now dominant. The article that I read by Rabin was hardly mathematical, though one might say that his biases are toward behaviorism rather than toward psychoanalysis. But I think that it's a mistake to condemn the guy based on a minuscule profile. (hey, my profile ain't so hot either. It makes me look fat.) I also see nothing wrong _per se_ with modeling psychology mathematically. I'd have to look at the assumptions and the empirical evidence marshalled to justify the assumptions. (Does the value of the insights outweigh the costs imposed by silly assumptions?) Also, it's possible that the practitioner of "mathematical psychics" would miss the limitations of her or his model (just as Chicago-school economists, including those at UCBerkeley, confuse the ideal market with the empirical reality), but that's not necessarily a problem with the model itself. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
Re: McArthur grantee
>From the profile of Mathew Rabin: > Rabin has > demonstrated particular strength in > distilling from psychological research those > insights that can be modeled > mathematically. The wider conventional basis of the dominant approaches of both psychology and economics is "physics envy". The profile identifies "psychology" with the "behavioral" approach to it now dominant. Shiller's *Irrational Exuberance* is another example of the same approach. (Confirming the point I made some time ago about the blindness of economists to the psychological foundations of Keynes's economics, Shiller - at least so far as I've been able to find in *Irrational Exuberance* - makes no mention of Keynes's analysis of financial markets.) Keynes gives some very good reasons why a physics based approach, whether in economics or psychology, is incapable of handling essential features of the real phenomena involved (it's interesting that these disciplines define themselves in terms of a particular physics based approach rather than in terms - as does say Alfred Marshall's definition of economics - of the real phenomena that constitute their subject matter). As part of this, as I've pointed out before, he demonstrates that conventional mathematical methods (e.g. those making use of the "variable") have only a very limited applicability in these disciplines. Consequently, insight is most often blocked by the insistence on identifying a "scientific" approach with a "mathematical" approach. This is not a "strength". Keynes treated "physics envy" as itself an irrational psychological phenomenon needing explanation. His account suggests it is an obsessional symptom functioning as a defence against psychotic anxiety. This is consistent with the Kleinian psychoanalytic explanation of the inability of "the scientist" to take account of essential aspects not only of social phenomena but of phenomena of life in general. Wilfred Bion makes this point as follows: "The scientist whose investigations include the stuff of life itself finds himself in a situation that has a parallel in that of the patients I am describing. The breakdown in the patient's equipment for thinking leads to dominance by a mental life in which his universe is populated by inanimate objects. The inability of even the most advanced human beings to make use of their thoughts, because the capacity to think is rudimentary in all of us, means that the field for investigation, all investigation being ultimately scientific, is limited, by human inadequacy, to those phenomena that have the characteristics of the inanimate. We assume that the psychotic limitation is due to an illness: but that that of the scientist is not. Investigation of the assumption illuminates disease on the one hand and scientific method on the other. It appears that our rudimentary equipment for 'thinking' thoughts is adequate when the problems are associated with the inanimate, but not when the object for investigation is the phenomenon of life itself. Confronted with the complexities of the human mind the analyst must be circumspect in following even accepted scientific method; its weakness may be closer to the weakness of psychotic thinking than superficial scrutiny would admit." Bion, *Learning from Experience*, in *Seven Servants*, p. 14 Ted Winslow -- Ted WinslowE-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Division of Social Science VOICE: (416) 736-5054 York UniversityFAX: (416) 736-5615 4700 Keele St. Toronto, Ontario CANADA M3J 1P3
Re: McArthur grantee
At 10:05 PM 6/14/00 -0700, you wrote: >this fellow got a McArthur grant yesterday. Anybody know of him? > >Matthew Rabin I read an article he had in the JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE, which surveyed the psychology literature that he deemed relevant to economists. It was quite competent and interesting. Among other things, his survey suggested that a pure market environment encourages opportunistic psychology and behavior. This goes against some of the most hallowed faiths of economic orthodoxy. A colleague who was a student of Rabin's at UC-Berkeley has some personal details, but I'll skip them. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
