Re: game theory

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

over the years, I've discovered that I have a hard time getting mad at someone because of their political opinions. If someone is a Malthusian (say), I tend to pity them for not thinking clearly. But when someone misinterprets what I say -- especially when I write it down in clear prose that I edit and re-edit (and I even spell-check) -- it somehow rubs one of my neuroses the wrong way. And then the critic makes many of the points I did! 
 
BTW, bringing up GT and Nash using a comic novel does not inherently imply a critique of either. Comic novels can be just as profound as tragic ones. I've seen the house-of-mirrors analogy in GT books. 
 
While we're on the subject, I think it's worth discussing the role of Nash's madness (paranoid schizophrenia and, according to a shrink I know, Asperger's Syndrome). One of the hats I wear is as the father of a kid with mental problems (Asperger's Syndrome, ADD, maybe bipolar (manic-depressive), maybe psychosis (not otherwise specified)). One of the things that comes out in the millieu that this role has thrust me into is that _being crazy ain't all bad and can actually be a good thing_ in some situations. 
 
Some of the most brilliant people in the world have been stark raving nuts. Einstein (maybe Asperger's Syndrome, though those with other disorders also claim him) was hardly a "normal" person. One's madness can give one insights that so-called "normal" people (neurotypicals) are _totally incapable_ of achieving. People who live well-adjusted lives in conjunction with others and have no inner turmoil have a hard time "thinking outside the box" the way Einstein or Nash did. Einstein's Gedanken (sp?) experiments and Nash's brilliant insight come from non-neurotypical thinking. 
 
I do think that Nash's equilibrium concept was brilliant. However, the concept has been reified, worshiped and worse. It's the reification that's the problem. That reflects a deeper problem, the corruption of the social sciences. But I said this before.
 
Jim Devine

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: andie nachgeborenen [mailto:andie_nachgeborenen@xxxxxxxxx] 
	Sent: Tue 5/18/2004 6:45 AM 
	To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: [PEN-L] game theory
	
	

	>
	> >  Nash went mad, but you can't
	> argue with his maths.<
	>
	> you can easily argue about the applicability of the
	> math. Math doesn't correspond to reality; it only
	> represents the abstract dimension.
	>
	> By the way, Nash is currently deemed sane. And his
	> sanity or insanity has nothing to do with the
	> validity of the Nash equilibrium concept or of game
	> theory.
	>
	
	I actually knew Nash a bit when he was mad. The math
	majors at Tigetown called him the Ghost of Fine Hall.
	He would scrawl brilliant and bitingly hilarious
	"formulae" on the blackboards -- not at all like the
	merely wacko stuff depicted in the movie, much
	funnier. Political too. And not right wing. Apparently
	he hated Nixon. That wasn't hard, of course. My friend
	(at the time, haven't been in touch in years) Dave
	Donoho, now a hotshot stat prof at Stanford, said that
	mathematically Nash's crazy "formulae" _almost_ made
	sense.
	
	Sorry I teed you off about your post on madness, but
	frankly I was surprised to read your remarks about GT
	in the context of the Westlake book and your
	substantive post -- reread them yourself and see if
	you can see how someone might understand the point the
	way I did. Of course I know it's easy to be
	misconstrued, having had it happy to me a lot. But as
	a lawyer I've learned to assume that it's not
	necessarily the other guy's fault -- something I for
	one at least didn't learn as an academic. Maybe you
	have, but if so, given that you know how hard it to be
	clear and how easy it is to me misunderstood, maybe it
	would be helpful to be less uptight about being
	misunderstood even if it is the other guy's fault.
	
	For instance, not that I am a shining examplar of
	anything, I said about eight times in my post that GT
	was an abstraction, an idealization, and based on
	false premises, and yet apparently I still wasn't
	clear enough. Still, it's not worth getting mad about
	. . . .
	
	jks
	
	
	
	
	__________________________________
	Do you Yahoo!?
	SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
	http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/