Re: game theory

[andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- "Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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/
>
>
>





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/