RE: John Nash/Gaming Theory/Politics

RE: John Nash/Gaming Theory/Politics (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

littlesarbonn -> RE: John Nash/Gaming Theory/Politics (3/22/2007 1:21:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: littlesarbonn It's the reason why one can argue that two hostile countries next door to each other may hate each other for generations, but if there's enough communication going on between them, subsequent generations may not feel the hostilities that the originals did. But if separation continues, hostility grows because there's not ability for continued similarity growth. You don't need mathmatics to work that one out! Actually, you do. Or you're just making what you hope are logical guesses. It's like being in a calculus class where the subject is areas. You look at the weird shape and can figure out the area in your head, using simple logic. So, you think you've solved calculus. So, you stop studying math because you solved calculus with your guess process. Then the next question is asked, and your guesses no longer work. For some reason you've got a hard on for social management. That's fine, but it is irrelevant to cultural adaptation theory. Cultural adaptation uses matrix functions to figure out higher level connections. Good luck figuring that out in your head because you're already aware of how to add two numbers together. I stand behind my argument that game theory is NOW mathematics and science. Your long winded example of managers making X dollars in a company only serve to allow you to keep blinding yourself from seeing how a higher level mathematics is useful. It's like arguing global identity with a frog stuck in a well who refuses to get out because the well tells him everything he needs to know. As it's pretty obvious that you aren't here for actually learning anything but to pretend that you come here pre-learned of everything you could possibly know, any further attempts to communicate with you are obviously a waste of time. You'd have a very interesting time in a graduate program with that sort of attitude, but it's your life. Whatever.

meatcleaver -> RE: John Nash/Gaming Theory/Politics (3/22/2007 3:06:22 AM)
Arrogant nonsense. You base your assumption on the fact that maths can predict rational behaviour in an irrational creature. It makes the assumption all humans are psychopaths. It makes the assumption that scientists know all human motivations. You make the assumption that the frog down the well has a limited intelligence and a smaller horizon than you. Take logic to its logical conclusion and it always disappears up its own arse. Now give me a prediction based on the theory. I've heard and read many claims that it works but it it is difficult to come across a sample of it working, ie. predicting how people behave to certain stimuli? (something that one couldn't predict without game theory) You say- Actually, you do (need game theory) . Or you're just making what you hope are logical guesses. No, one is not making logical guesses, one is using millions of years of evolutionary tools. People don't act in logical and predictable ways, particularly under stress. Not everyone is culturally conditioned to the same degree, not everyone is sane. How does cultural adaption which functions to figure out higher level connections factor in madness? Even subversion? From what I have read it makes the assumption that people will function rationally to certain stimuli and that they continually strategize. Your arrogance in making such claims for it without explaining and giving working provable examples is akin to a communist party apparatik telling a peasant that Marxism works and that is all they need to know, while the peasant can look in the field and see there are no crops this year. I've heard bullshit before. Actually Dawkins mentions game theory several times in his books and uses it to illustrate behaviour but warns that he is just illustrating and that behaviour and motivations are far too complex for mathmatical prediction. In a TV interview he said there are relatively simple creatures with a seemingly predictable behaviour pattern that still manage to baffle with unpredictable behaviour. My guess is the aloofness you display is just to hide the fact you know nothing and couldn't produce a working provable sample if you wanted to.

meatcleaver -> RE: John Nash/Gaming Theory/Politics (3/22/2007 4:07:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlesarbonn Actually, you do. Or you're just making what you hope are logical guesses. It's like being in a calculus class where the subject is areas. You look at the weird shape and can figure out the area in your head, using simple logic. So, you think you've solved calculus. So, you stop studying math because you solved calculus with your guess process. Then the next question is asked, and your guesses no longer work. LOL I was just thinking, did the scientists get their calculations wrong over Iraq? Now there is game theory in action! No, don't tell me, the defence establishment that used game theory throughout the cold war didn't use it in regard to Iraq? Of course we will never know. As the proverbial Marxist apparatik would say, the crops didn't grow this year because you aren't using Marxist theory correctly. No one needed game theory to predict the chaos in Iraq, people predicted it with a simple brain, a simple understanding of human nature and a knowledge of the history and culture of the region. However, the people who use game theory, the American military, fucked up big time.

meatcleaver -> RE: John Nash/Gaming Theory/Politics (3/22/2007 6:12:02 AM)
Having spent a couple of hours reading about cross-cultural adaption theory I can only say it is an example of people hiding behind jargon and obscurification. Having deciphered one web page I found what was said could have been said in a few sentences. Graphs and questionaires seem common place and conclusions seem to be arbitary (though one suspects weighted to the politics of the writer). I guess that is why Iraq got fucked up. I guess that is why the British education system is fucked, the health service struggles to function, the social services respond to the needs of the professionals and not the clients and generally why a bus takes more than twice as long to get from A to B as it did 20 years ago and why the railways are sporadic and unpredctable and why Britain is becoming more like America each year and less like France and Germany who have world class services. Actually I am aware of cross-cultural adaption theory. I was working for the Probation Service when it was introduced, though I remember it coming in under another title. It wasn't very successful in so far that there was more reliance on paperwork and studies and less face to face contact with offenders. Due to the pressure of filling out forms, reports, statistics etc. etc. and meeting targets, most of the best staff left because they never went into the job to fill forms. Rehabilitation has never improved and in fact stats got worse despite the claims made for the new working methods. In fact subversion was the first thing that occurred and with the nod and a wink from the management because everyone knew that policy was being formed with the reports and statistics going back to the home office. Anyway. I can't make a reply so its pointless answering this, I've been moderated so I'll be away for at least seven days.

FirmhandKY -> RE: John Nash/Gaming Theory/Politics (3/22/2007 8:56:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Anyway. I can't make a reply so its pointless answering this, I've been moderated so I'll be away for at least seven days. ahhhh ... who'll keep the forums popping while you are gone, meat? [:D] I'll be waiting for your return, my friend. FirmKY

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

1.953125E-02