in my behavioral econ classes, game theory was presented as a universal model for understanding human behavior in social/political contexts now i’m wondering if it’s more like a historical description of how a specific type of strategic mind worked in the mid 20th century
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @aaronzlewis
interesting... where do you see it breaking down as a description of how things work in 2019?
2 replies 0 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @KevinSimler @aaronzlewis
the basic issue is something like, how do we draw the boundaries between game-theoretic agents? in the most traditional setups, if you draw them between individual people there's a sense in which you're disallowing communication, mutual care, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
it's a bias towards individualism that causes the boundaries to be drawn at the level of individual people rather than at the bigger level of, say, organizations (e.g. companies) or at the smaller level of, say, different psychological aspects of a single person (e.g. IFS parts)
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
i mean, i guess there's lots of other issues, like "bounded rationality"-type issues (nash equilibria are hard to compute even approximately)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.