Re: Game theory pathologies

["Roger Koppl" <koppl@xxxxxxx>]

I think we should distinguish game theory and rational choice.  Morgenstern
was quite opposed to the view of rational choice as maximization.  With game
theory, he was after a richer notion.  More recently, experimental economics
has built up a literature on how people play games.  The old mathematical
theory was about how unerring payoff machines play games.  It turns out
people and machines differ.  A person, for instance, will cut off his nose
to spite his face, which matters in the ulitmatum game.  So if you're going
to criticize game theory, you've got a big problem in just finding a
suitable definition of your target.

My own feeling is that it's not wise to try to smash "game theory."  That's
the tool not the analysis as Stephen Block seems to recognize.  Some
applications of the tool are good; others are not.  It makes sense to define
certain types of applications, give examples, and criticize *them*.  I doubt
you could construct a persuasive attack on "game theory" or "applied applied
game theory" or any other similarly broad target.

Roger
-------------------------------------------
Roger Koppl
Professor of Economics and Finance
Fairleigh Dickinson University
Madison, NJ 07940
USA

World Wide Web: http://inside.fdu.edu/pt/koppl.html
Internet: koppl@xxxxxxx
Phone: (973) 443-8846
Fax: (973) 443-8804
-------------------------------------------