|
FirmhandKY -> RE: John Nash/Gaming Theory/Politics (3/21/2007 7:26:03 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
The links below are from a programme produced by the BBC. It is the first in a three part series (of which Meatcleaver's thread is number 2).
The opinion of the producers is that today's rush towards the free market is borne out of the suspicion of the Cold War years. Basically, John Nash's gaming theory suggesting humans are suspicious, selfish creatures all trying to get one over on each other is at the heart of this programme. He admits on camera he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia when he devised his theory. His views however were taken on board by right-wing economists and politicians in an attempt to lend weight to their wish to reduce government involvement in politics and pour scorn on the hitherto sense of public duty. The result is that large parts of British and US society believe that only the market can provide real freedom because, at our core, we only care about ourselves and have no wish to work for the greater good. The problem is, this is all based on gaming theory produced by a man suffering from paranoia and acting in an age of the Cold War and hyper-suspicion - it is little wonder he came up with a theory that we're all suspicious, paranoid, self-centred creatures who should seek individualism to understand who we really are and, consequently, gain real freedom. What's more, the tests he devised to prove his point didn't produce the results he anticipated.
Sadly, our politics and economic structure reflect the views of this man and the politicians who took his theory on board in order to promote their own agenda. The result being that we're slaves of the market and our politics is full of corruption and inequality.
The above is what I took from the programme. It is only an hour long in total and well worth anyone's time.
John Nash did not invent or discover game theory. Generally John von Neumann is credited with that:
While physics had found its language in the infinitesimal calculus, von Neumann proposed the language of game theory and a general equilibrium theory for economics.
...
Von Neumann eventually improved and extended the minimax theorem to include games involving imperfect information and games with more than two players. This work culminated in the 1944 classic Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (written with Oskar Morgenstern). This resulted in such public attention that The New York Times did a front page story, the likes of which only Einstein had previously earned.
While I've not seen the BBC show, I notice you mention it is "the producers' belief". I disagree with their interpretation. How you say that they are viewing game theory isn't how I view it at all. In truth, game theory says that cooperation is the best way for people and society to act.
The iterated Prisoner's Dilemma is an example of how Nash equilibrium (his contribution to game theory) doesn't pan out for game theory as applied to what's "best for society".
It turns out that a "tit for tat with forgiveness" is a better way to proceed in a game in which there isn't an end or it is a very long game (iterative game). Basically, this game is most successful for "players" when they both cooperate, and only defect when the other side does as a lesson and punishment.
Always defecting - as Nash's equilibrum suggests is the optimum strategy - is not the best strategy for success. Mathematical mysteries: Survival of the nicest?:
... discovered that selfish strategies tended to do very badly, as did foolishly generous strategies. Defecting encouraged others to defect; not punishing others for defecting only encouraged them to do so again. One of the most successful and stable (in other words, successful against many different strategies and in many different environments) was "Tit for Tat". This strategy involves cooperating the first time you meet another agent, and after that always repeating your opponent's last move. So if your opponent defaults on one turn, you punish them by defaulting on the next; if they cooperate on one turn, you reward them by cooperating on the next.
A slightly better strategy - because it avoids the possibility of getting trapped into long cycles of retaliation - is "Tit for Tat with forgiveness". This is Tit for Tat with a small randomised possibility of forgiving a defaulter by cooperating anyway. Forgiveness is particularly helpful if you introduce the possibility of misinformation into the game - that is, if moves are sometimes randomly misreported.
What I find intriguing about this program, and your perceptions of it is that it appears simply to be an attempt to undermine the both the capitalistic system, and the concept of freedom at the same time.
Considering the source (BBC), and the conclusions you have reached (as they apparently have as well) it appears to be an attack on something that they consider as the basis for free-markets.
Anti-capitalism, anyone?
FirmKY
|
|
|
|
