Recently I was sitting around thinking about distributive justice, and comparing things like Communism and the Laissez Faire approach to economics and what they say about distribution. I, of course, quickly moved on to things like liberty, the idea of a social contract etc.....

I quickly came to the conclusion that at a level of philosophical abstraction, for me at least, communism seems to be the better of the two systems. However, we've seen that it isn't really practicable--and it isn't practicable, presumably, because the philosophical abstraction of the idea doesn't take into consideration the actions of the people.

Game theory is supposed to solve this problem. It's supposed to be able to predict human behaviors in virtually every sort of situation. The problem that I see with game theory though, is that it's a game. In the world of the game the incentives are minimal, sympathy is minimal or non-existent. The individual playing the game doesn't have to think about his opponent that he sent home with only a dollar for the week having to see his children starve, and on the other side of the coin--he doesn't actually get to USE his gain for personal satisfaction--he cannot bring smiles to the faces of his family... Things like this, it would seem to me, are a fundamental flaw of game theory. In order for something in the vein of game theory to work, it would need to be a virtual reality game wherein the players didn't know it was only a game.

In the meantime, do you think there's anything else that might work to discover the way humans will respond to things?

Things like this are flawed in that human behavior is based on emotion, not logic. For example: dirt bikes. Illogically dangerous contraptions that are just so much fucking fun to ride!

I describe myself as a political sovereigntist. I believe that the people who live in a particular community should have complete control over the land they occupy.

Is less tyrannical to enforce an unpopular law on a group that doesn't support it simply because a greater majority says so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Osborne_Wilson

A few scientists have tried to study human nature as biologists with respected results, he is one of them.

In the world of the game the incentives are minimal, sympathy is minimal or non-existent.... Things like this, it would seem to me, are a fundamental flaw of game theory.

Actually, you can assign any value to any variable.

Have you actually applied game theory? For starters, no real persons are 'playing;' only mathematical models are.

Actually, you can assign any value to any variable.

Have you actually applied game theory? For starters, no real persons are 'playing;' only mathematical models are.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. I know that math is used a lot in the creation of the game theory, in the simulation of the events, in determining probabity, etc.... but I'm quite certain that it is manifest as an actual 'game' or simulation of an event to which players respond. This shows us something about humans respond in this situation.

For example, look at the Prisoner's Dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

"In this game, regardless of what the opponent chooses, each player always receives a higher payoff (lesser sentence) by betraying; that is to say that betraying is the strictly dominant strategy. For instance, Prisoner A can accurately say, "No matter what Prisoner B does, I personally am better off betraying than staying silent. Therefore, for my own sake, I should betray." However, if the other player acts similarly, then they both betray and both get a lower payoff than they would get by staying silent. Rational self-interested decisions result in each prisoner's being worse off than if each chose to lessen the sentence of the accomplice at the cost of staying a little longer in jail himself."

--I admit that I may be confused. It may be that we're talking about two different applications of game theory, even. I'd be happy if you'd explain whatever I'm missing though. The entire page on Wiki for "Game Theory" is filled with references to "players," and that leads me to believe that the math is foundational for the theory, but that the 'game' is actually practiced.



--------------Edit: And if mathematical models are the players in the game, then how do the people running the models decide which values best reflect that of the general population? How do they decide which values to run? How can they possibly say that whatever works best in the mathematical model relates to how people work? It seems like it wouldn't be at all a satisfactory mode for understanding human behavior still.

Actually, you can assign any value to any variable.

Have you actually applied game theory? For starters, no real persons are 'playing;' only mathematical models are.

JP, I have a chemistry-related concern/idea I need to talk to you about. Email me plz. And no, this can't go in Lab Tips.

OP: People don't follow logic-only principles. If they did, you'd have had your utopia ages ago. Since game theory posits that this is true for the people it substitutes into its equations (or not I suppose, depending on how you look at it), it will never function as a true predictor of what people in the real world (that is, people with emotions, not just logic machines) will do. Perhaps only mathematical models are playing, but since they're not perfectly correlated to human beings, the best we can achieve from game theory is an explanation of how situations would turn out if people were logic machines. Either that or an approximation of their true selves as we know them, with closer results stemming from less logical constrictions.

Edit: And if mathematical models are the players in the game, then how do the people running the models decide which values best reflect that of the general population? How do they decide which values to run?

Mostly by declaration and definition. It tends not to assert "this is so," but rather that "if (equation here) is the motivational schema, (outcome here) is the most stable and optimal form of action."

For instance, let's look at a simple game of suicide, with one player... let's start with a nonsuicidal player. Values will be ordinal, rather than cardinal.

Commits suicide : 0
Doesn't commit suicide : 1

Now, since 1>0, the non-suicidal have an advantage in not committing suicide. When played with a suicidal player, however...

Commits suicide : 1
Doesn't commit suicide : 0

...suicide becomes the desired outcome (1>0).

Of course, this is just using definition in a circular sort of fashion, and doesn't tell us much... so, let's create a new game, with variables... same basic thing, but...

Commits suicide : x
Attempts suicide and mangles self horribly : y
Doesn't commit suicide : z

Now, being suicidal is still defined as x>z, and being nonsuicidal is still defined as z>x... but, this game gives us a fascinating observation. Let's rearrange the choices, shall we? After all, if one had a say in whether one fails in sucicide, no one would end up in a carbon monoxide coma.

So... let c = "chance of suicidal success,' here, ranging from 0 to 1. 'n btw, x, y, 'n z are now cardinal, not ordinal.

tries to commit suicide : (x * c) + (y * (1-c))
doesn't try suicide : z

Now, we can plug some values into this if we wish, looking for the highest value... zero makes a good breakeven point, incidentally... but we find that suicide attempts are predicated upon...

- the desire to commit suicide (x-z).

- the chances of success, and...

- the undesireability of ending up mangled by a failed suicide attempt.

In fact, regarding the last two... as c approaches 1 (100% certainty of success), or as y approaches zero (don't care if one leads a long painful life as a deformed cripple), the chances of suicide become more and more plainly the simplified game above, the relationship between x and z. In fact, if either y or c is zero, the evaluation becomes an essentially pure x:z relationship.

Conversely, however, if one were an outside interest in suicide prevention (here pitted against the suicidal "player," who is the mathematical equation directly above), your best solution would be to maximize the percieved costs of failure (y), while minimizing the percieved chances of success (c). The value of any effected change to either depends on the resources avaliable to you contrasted against the value of player 1's non-suicide, and the cost and effectiveness of changing any given variable - decreasing c, for instance, is useless for all cases where y=0, x>0, and z<0, and thus would not be a valid use of resources at any cost until y was increased. Thus, the game becomes player one trying to get accurate information to make the real-world decision which actually has the optimal outcome, while player two tries to manipulate perception of costs to deter suicide with minimal resource expenditure.

If you want to see how that plays out IRL, look at the drug war in the US, where goverenment "drug education" foists bullshit while citizens try to cut through the bullshit and get accurate information for their choices.

How can they possibly say that whatever works best in the mathematical model relates to how people work? It seems like it wouldn't be at all a satisfactory mode for understanding human behavior still.

By itself, it is not - all the game schema for a single-player game of suicide says is that if a person calculates their chances of success, benefits of suicide, costs of failed attempts, and undesireability of life in the fashion described by the equation, then the equation describes whether or not, and under what conditions, a person will commit suicide.

In short - if the equation is accurate, the equation is accurate. Doesn't say much by itself, does it?

Usually, attempts to derive all the factors are produced by simple brainstorming - one is a representative human, try to think of everything that could be a factor and chuck it into the equation. It's simple, but it works a lot more often than one would expect - crap like "I prefer having a fuckload of money over not having a fuckload of money," or "I would rather not experience extreme pain than experience extreme pain," are fairly common things... and luckily, since the variables are unquantified, and since the equation describes the relation, there are no complex thought in the variables themselves - "I would like a fuckload of money, but not at the expense of others' welfare" is simply "I would like a fuckload of money" and "I would prefer not to be responsible for harming others," rather than a single complex variable... so, it's pretty easy to figure out 'n track down. Remarkably simple impulses.

The study of how people factor their decisions is usually experimental psychology, which is a completely different field... and that involves everything from polling people's opinions, to actually running complex games and seeing if they behave as the equation predicted, to throwing people in a situation, observing what they do, trying to form an equation to describe the results, and then testing that equation by adjusting variables until one has it right. 'n often, experimental psychology involves wierd shit which doesn't involve but still affects game theory, including the experimental psychology of game theory... wierd shit like "tryptophan increases trust" (actual finding)... which, in game theory, would translate to a reduction in percieved risk from favoring an outside human actor, generally.

So, yeah... these mathematical models are nothing more than an if-then, with no claim of proof (in game theory, experimental psych goes looking for proofs just as much as it looks for things which affect variables). It doesn't say "if I mug you with a lethal weapon, you will give me your wallet" - it says "in mugging you with a lethal weapon, if and only if you value your life more than the contents of your wallet will you surrender your wallet." (That's a bit simplified, actually - there's chances of success or failure.. but... yeah).

It's some pretty useful shit in political work, but every now 'n then, you have to raid pubmed to answer the question of "what's the motivation," especially when the motivations appear nonsensical to one's own point of view (why the fuck would anyone outside government desire more government control?)... 'n one has to be able to revise one's equations to match the evidence, in realtime, in the field...

...but, yeah. In the "suicide" game for one, "player 1" was the equation ((x * c) + (y * (1-c))) > z. Nothing more, nothing less... 'n as the chances 'n values change, so will the player's actions in the game. ;)

's nifty stuff. Especially for taking on governments and hostile domestic terror cells.

Thanks Joe! That was actually extraordinarily helpful. It sort of looks like game theory is just... a more systematized approach to analyzing problems philosophically--an application of the precision of mathematics to 'philosophical' problems.

Thanks Joe! That was actually extraordinarily helpful. It sort of looks like game theory is just... a more systematized approach to analyzing problems philosophically--an application of the precision of mathematics to 'philosophical' problems.

To a great extent, it is - the hawk/dove game has done wonderful work in the question of "why does agression occur?," for instance.

...but, if you're willing to go out, sample data, and revise the model to fit the observations, it can also work well for applied "how" problems - like, "how do we make the @#$% government stop the drug war?" (less profitable? less expansion of government power? more unrest? something else? One would have to experiment on the government to see...)

But... yeah, it can be a beautiful tool of both philosophy, psychology, and politics. :)

--
(btw, nshan... could you make a disposable email 'n post it? My system doesn't work too well with &t's mail proxy for various reasons...)

ns9908@yahoo.com

Joe you never fail to be a genius, you have givien me an idea for my senior project too!

Remember inherent rights, virtue, and worth. Respect them. All else is details.

How about some old game theory that you may never have heard of?

Dr. Eric Berne, Psychiatrist and Creator of Transactional Analysis
Author of Games People Play
http://www.ericberne.com/

DT

How about some old game theory that you may never have heard of?


http://www.ericberne.com/

DT

Everybody's heard of Games People Play.

Everybody's heard of Games People Play.

I doubt that but hearing of it is not reading or understanding it. And it's a song. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5znh58WITU8

17,400 for +"games people play" +"transactional analysis"

5,110,000 for +psychoanalysis

290 to 1

A slight difference in statistics there.

DT

I doubt that but hearing of it is not reading or understanding it. And it's a song. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5znh58WITU8

17,400 for +"games people play" +"transactional analysis"

5,110,000 for +psychoanalysis

290 to 1

A slight difference in statistics there.

DT

That's because most people understand it as psychoanalysis, whereas "transactional analysis" is even further from being a science than psychoanalysis (and that's pretty damn far). Technically totse is a "bulletin board system", but "forum" turns up more hits. Why? People just recognize it as one more often. There's some psychoanalysis for ya :rolleyes:.

That's because most people understand it as psychoanalysis, whereas "transactional analysis" is even further from being a science than psychoanalysis (and that's pretty damn far).

And when were you appointed to set the standards for what is and isn't science and by whom? And your PhD is in what?

ROFL

There is no question that TA is a form of psychoanalysis since it deals with what is going on in people's heads. But it isn't the lie down on the couch and tell the old guy with a beard about your mommy kind of thing.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-14153566.html

DT

And when were you appointed to set the standards for what is and isn't science and by whom? And your PhD is in what?

ROFL

There is no question that TA is a form of psychoanalysis since it deals with what is going on in people's heads. But it isn't the lie down on the couch and tell the old guy with a beard about your mommy kind of thing.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-14153566.html

DT

Ah, I see. Fair enough. The fact that "transactional analysis" is a) newer, and b) rarer than psychoanalysis still remains. The book is about psychoanalysis regardless, your link only justifies this by claiming TA is a subset of psychoanalysis.

Ah, I see. Fair enough. The fact that "transactional analysis" is a) newer, and b) rarer than psychoanalysis still remains. The book is about psychoanalysis regardless, your link only justifies this by claiming TA is a subset of psychoanalysis.

Transactional analysis is about as old now as normal psychoanalysis was when TA was developed. But I have discussed TA with a psychiatrist. This one thought rather highly of it but said his profession wasn't interested in it. The whole point is that large numbers of people could learn this and apply it to their own lives. How would that serve the economic interests of the psychiatric profession?

It is like accounting not being difficult since it is 700 years old and everyone doesn't need to know it as well as professional accountants. But if everyone knew as much as they needed to would there be as much demand for professional accountants? But I have an $80 accounting book that is over 800 pages long that has a testimonial by an accountant who compares it to CALCULUS. WHAT A JOKE!

Sun Tzu was a famous game player.

All warfare is based on deception.

People are always trying to pretend stuff is more difficult than it really is. It is one of the most simple minded tactics in the book.

You hear a lot about "behavioral economics" these days. Economics involve people so it has always been behavioral. But people's behavior might be affected by how much they know about the game. When was the last time you heard an economist or an accountant suggest mandatory accounting in the schools?

"All warfare is based on deception." - Sun Tzu

In psychiatry too. The psychiatrist operates in parent mode and the patient is supposed to be in child mode. It is an ego trip for most of the psychiatrists. So you don't hear psychiatrists promoting transactional analysis. Surprise, Surprise.

DT

Transactional analysis is about as old now as normal psychoanalysis was when TA was developed. But I have discussed TA with a psychiatrist. This one thought rather highly of it but said his profession wasn't interested in it. The whole point is that large numbers of people could learn this and apply it to their own lives. How would that serve the economic interests of the psychiatric profession?

It is like accounting not being difficult since it is 700 years old and everyone doesn't need to know it as well as professional accountants. But if everyone knew as much as they needed to would there be as much demand for professional accountants? But I have an $80 accounting book that is over 800 pages long that has a testimonial by an accountant who compares it to CALCULUS. WHAT A JOKE!

Sun Tzu was a famous game player.

All warfare is based on deception.

People are always trying to pretend stuff is more difficult than it really is. It is one of the most simple minded tactics in the book.

You hear a lot about "behavioral economics" these days. Economics involve people so it has always been behavioral. But people's behavior might be affected by how much they know about the game. When was the last time you heard an economist or an accountant suggest mandatory accounting in the schools?

"All warfare is based on deception." - Sun Tzu

In psychiatry too. The psychiatrist operates in parent mode and the patient is supposed to be in child mode. It is an ego trip for most of the psychiatrists. So you don't hear psychiatrists promoting transactional analysis. Surprise, Surprise.

DT

Excellent, excellent, excellent point.

+1

Recently I was sitting around thinking about distributive justice, and comparing things like Communism and the Laissez Faire approach to economics and what they say about distribution. I, of course, quickly moved on to things like liberty, the idea of a social contract etc.....

I quickly came to the conclusion that at a level of philosophical abstraction, for me at least, communism seems to be the better of the two systems. However, we've seen that it isn't really practicable--and it isn't practicable, presumably, because the philosophical abstraction of the idea doesn't take into consideration the actions of the people.

Game theory is supposed to solve this problem. It's supposed to be able to predict human behaviors in virtually every sort of situation. The problem that I see with game theory though, is that it's a game. In the world of the game the incentives are minimal, sympathy is minimal or non-existent. The individual playing the game doesn't have to think about his opponent that he sent home with only a dollar for the week having to see his children starve, and on the other side of the coin--he doesn't actually get to USE his gain for personal satisfaction--he cannot bring smiles to the faces of his family... Things like this, it would seem to me, are a fundamental flaw of game theory. In order for something in the vein of game theory to work, it would need to be a virtual reality game wherein the players didn't know it was only a game.

In the meantime, do you think there's anything else that might work to discover the way humans will respond to things?

prisoner's delimna is a mockery of game theory.

view the actual mathematical derivations and maybe you might get it.

We must remember that lots of different games are going on simultaneously and not all people are equally interested in the same games.

What I like to call it S.P.E.R.M. Wars.

Sexual Power Games
Political Power Games
Economic Power Games
Religious Power Games
Military Power Games

These games can interact with each other of course.

The most famous Political, Sexual, Military and probably Economic game was Cleopatra with Julius and Antony.

Look how messy that got.

DT