Game Theory Evolving

What Hacker News says

1. joe_the_userFeb 2019
   Society Of The Spectacle, Guy Debord

   One can't really summarize the argument. It essentially describes the structure of modern society as it's existed since, say 1960 or early. The text may seem opaque but if you read it closely, you actually need any explanatory texts, though they exist.

   Honorable mention: Game Theory Evolving, Herb Ginitus Biochemical Individuality, Roger J. William The Working Brain, Luria Using Your Brain For A Change, Bandler The User Illusion, Norretrander How The Beattles Destroyed Rock And Roll, Elijah Wald Mathematical Logic, Manin The Ascent Of Man, Bronowski The Book Of Secrets, Osho

   [1] https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.ht...

   Show morethread
2. joe_the_userApr 2018
   I struggle to understand why people who argue for rationality, i.e., people who I know are very very smart and extremely rational, turn around and expect rationality from populations.

   Oh, it's just another example of irrationality now isn't it?

   I mean, rationality as system certainly is something a fair number of people can master as a series of arguments that they can have down-pat and are able to recite at a moments notice. Actually applying these to subset of a person's behaviors is a harder trick, mastered by a smaller number of people. Applying the implications of irrational behavior of the population at large to one's own world is an even harder trick.

   The thing is that "rationality" isn't actually a coherent overall guide to anyone's behavior.

   Specifically, if everyone was "homo-economicus", the neoclassical concept of the risk-neutral actor, society itself would collapse in fairly short order.

   I'd recommend Herbert Gintis, Game Theory Evolving, for more background on this.

   Show morethread
3. madhadronDec 2017
   I really enjoyed Gintis's 'Game Theory Evolving', which focuses on evolutionary game theory. Mind you, I was a biologist when I was working with it, so that was much more relevant to what I was thinking about.
   thread
4. joe_the_userJul 2015
   It's fictional exploration of the intersection of everyday interactions and concepts of truth.

   When I read this kind of thing, I usually seems to me that it's bringing out how people generally stumble on a whole range of philosophical and moral assumptions inherited from the Western philosophical tradition when they start talking about "telling the truth".

   A simple "riposte" to the fictional "What you're saying is tantamount to saying that you want to fuck me. So why shouldn't I react with revulsion precisely as though you'd said the latter"

   - "Well, the niceties here might be called 'protocol' - I'm not definitely saying that X but rather beginning a 'handshaking' process that may let us do that if each of us are comfortable with. Protocols are what grease social interactions. Which is to be say that if a mature adult is disgusted by a guy saying 'I'd like to fuck you', it's because they are inherently disgusted by sex but rather they're disgusted by someone making an intimate demand with no protocol, IE making the demand at the wrong time"

   Which is to say our everyday interactions don't involve the rational constructs of true-false logic but rather are more like game-theoretic maneuvers.

   And for the last question, "You're saying you wouldn't fuck me right now", the answer would be "So you're saying you would like to know all of my reactions to a rather extreme hypothetical situations, without say, letting me know any of your reactions. Well, that's what protocol is for, letting two people demonstrate their range of range reactions equally, so one person's maneuvers aren't just available for the other to use without that first person getting compensation".

   But anyway, the thing that makes the hypothetical girl's actions compelling is that however out-of-line they might be, they are using the true-views coming from Plato - statement are either true or false, their truth or falsehood doesn't depend on circumstance, etc. Of course, if you view the "I'd like to take you to see a play" thing as protocol, then the game is just silly.

   -- And this is to say that the hypothetical solutions to the dilemma just dig the hole deeper by trying to modify mathematical logic for inappropriate purposes.

   Instead, I'd recommend an evolutionary-game theoretic approach to understanding everyday interactions.

   See: https://books.google.com/books/about/Game_Theory_Evolving.ht...

   Show morethread
5. mtalantikiteFeb 2010
   He's an interesting guy, he used to teach econ over at UMass Amherst when I was studying it there.

   One of his colleagues/research partners has a good evolutionary game theory book available for free on his website for anyone interested:

   http://people.umass.edu/gintis/

   It's called "Game Theory Evolving"

   thread
6. joe_the_userJan 2010
   Indeed,

   I would recommend Game Theory Evolving by Herb Ginitis. Human beings have a strong, repeat strong bias toward retaliating to maintain fairness. Varies culturally to only a small extent.

   Anything that raises the possibility that you'll just be taking off with their money is going to create a strong reaction.

   The mistake was taking pre-orders. Never take pre-orders if you're to delay shipping. You'll piss Max (and me, and everyone) off.

   I am not twenty-something, btw

   Show morethread