DISQUS

R. Light · 4 years ago

The criticism of game theory is nicely articulated by Ken Masugi to the following effect:

Schelling’s critique of traditional economics does not go far enough. What about the character of the other persons we interact with? What if they are willing to send children into combat? What if they are willing to be suicide bombers? Game theory may well clear a cluttered mind, but it is no substitute for prudent judgment that examines the souls of ourselves and our enemies and what boundaries we set on our actions, if any.

Michael Kinsley says that Schelling's "Games and Strategy" was his favorite undergraduate lecture course. "[T]he world suddenly looked completely different." Thucydides will do the same thing too, and leave you a wiser and not just a more clever man.

Will Wilkinson · 4 years ago

Why do you suppose that Schelling's course would not leave you wiser, as well as cleverer?

Schelling has brought a kind of lucid rigor to thinking about profound issues like nuclear deterrence, punishment, our relationships at the end of life, global warming, segregation, and more. If you actually read Schelling, it is awfully difficult to not admire his combination of analytic acuity and humane sensitivy as "wise."

R. Light · 4 years ago

Game theory is part-n-parcel of the movement of modernity in which the scientific language of "causes" (as in the "root causes of crime") gradually replaces the language of responsibility. Which is to say, it's no accident that people -- particularly contemporary politicians -- seek out, say, "causes" of crime as a way to avoid the sin of appearing "judgmental." The achilles heal of modernity: it wants to deliver people in power from the vexing discipline of giving moral justifications for their acts.

A wise person can (if he has a high endowment of intelligence) use game theory well; and put it to good use. He becomes proficient in a rigorous skill, techne. But it hardly strikes me that a person becomes wise from learning game theory.

Will Wilkinson · 4 years ago

Robert, There's just no conflict between game theory & the ascription of responsibility. The point is just that in social settings, what it is to prudent to do depends on what others will do, and vice versa It strikes me that the phronimos will be be highly refined in his ability to think through strategy in interdependent context.

R. Light · 4 years ago

Will: I agree with you -- I don't think there's a conflict between them; there certainly isn't a conflict that is necessary. Rather, I'm pointing out the basic, overall trend: the move to reliance on defining/rooting out problems (i.e. "social problems") at their "root causes"; doing this to the neglect of giving rigorous account of one's reason for moral ascriptions. But I don't see why they can't be mutually reinforcing-- and so, again, I agree with you.

However, there's a decided fall-off in modernity from making moral arguments ascribing real praise & blame (really, the latter). Morality becomes something utterly and thoroughly personal and private. Concomitant with such phenomenon -- as Tocqueville wisely foresaw -- is the utter aggrandizement of government. Moral questions cease to be political questions about which there is truly robust debate; instead everything becomes gradually about "process"; ends essentially collapse into being means. You end up with very unpolitical politics.

Granted, game theory doesn't have much to do with defining causes. But the method *itself* doesn't seem to tell us what *ends* are worthy--what noble, what base. Unless I'm mistaken. And I own that I possibly am in this regard.

Elf · 3 years ago

I liked the game theory in the Revolver. Of course it's just a fiction but it's rather simple for general understanding. And I'm sure they've worked on it a lot.