Re: Mirowski on Nash's "brilliant insight"

[Ted Winslow <egwinslow@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim D. wrote:

> it's true that you didn't draw out the conclusions you had come to
> from all of the quotes from Mirowski. As far as I could tell, you were
> saying that because Nash was crazy, NE was wrong in some sense. I feel
> it's enough to think that NE is wrong due to other reasons.

I did say earlier, having attempted to demonstrate with argument what I
take to be mistaken aspects of game theory, that:

> Game theory is based on a mistaken understanding of "rationality,"
> ignores the fact that social relations are internal relations, and
> ignores the role of irrationality in human thought and behaviour.
>
> The psychology doesn't demonstrate these mistakes; it explains them.
> It explains, for instance, why a particular kind of mentality is
> largely immune to rational arguments demonstrating these mistakes.

I had understood you to be claiming that Nash's equilibrium concept was
brilliant.

> 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.

Ted