Game theory

Geminex · 03-31-2010, 10:11 PM

Well, dad's got a few books on the subject, and I found some online lecture notes by a uni student in India, so I'm getting into the analysis of strategic conflicts. I've only done, like, 4-5 hours of reading so far, which means I'm still getting into the basics. Nash Equilibrium, at the moment.

I understand all the theory so far, though some of the mathematical representations seem unnecessarily complex. The lecture notes are highly academic, the books aren't really written for an academic audience, so I'm sorta lacking a middleground. But I'll wait and see.

Anyway, has anyone else done much on this topic? Possibly someone who could share their knowlege with me, should I have questions?

Professor Smarmiarty · 04-01-2010, 02:27 AM

I've done some game theory- basically it's good if you are playing tic tac toe otherwise it's just completely bullshit.

Geminex · 04-01-2010, 02:39 AM

Yeah.
I love how you make absolute statements about academic areas of study that you, by your own admission, know very little about and, in the process insult everybody who's ever devoted time to studying said field.

You seem quite intelligent, I do respect you, and you're probably one of the main reasons I no longer consider the Free Market to be a more efficient allocative force than government (at least as far as necessities goes), but do you even listen to yourself sometimes?

Professor Smarmiarty · 04-01-2010, 02:47 AM

The very principles of game theory are based on ideas of logic and rationality that were outdated in the 19th century, let alone now. It's really not my fault that they choose to ignore decades of progress in cognitive science. There is a reason they say game theory can only predict the actions of game theorists and psychopaths.
I will admit that game theory has some very powerful tools of analysis and it is a good starting point but every time I have ever heard someone use game theory to look at something they have been like "Game theory says this- so it must be right- if you don't agree with us you are wrong" so I feel no desire to stand up for them.
I could study the field in depth to present withering academic treatise against them but the bits I have done leave me completely unimpressed and in no desire to do more than I have to.
I will say, that with greater increase in computing power they could perhaps get away from some of the more ridiculous assumptions that are usually made in their simulationsat present but we'll see.

Edit: Also, I dislike the fact that actions are considered irrational if they don't start out with the value judgements of a serial killer.

Ecks · 04-01-2010, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geminex

You seem quite intelligent, I do respect you, but do you even listen to yourself sometimes?

Gem, he posts JUST to listen to himself. He is a narcissist of the HIGHEST caliber. It's like he's in... THE TOP FUCKING PERCENTAGE OF NARCISSISTS!

krogothwolf · 04-01-2010, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geminex

Yeah.
I love how you make absolute statements about academic areas of study that you, by your own admission, know very little about and, in the process insult everybody who's ever devoted time to studying said field.

You seem quite intelligent, I do respect you, and you're probably one of the main reasons I no longer consider the Free Market to be a more efficient allocative force than government (at least as far as necessities goes), but do you even listen to yourself sometimes?

Or he posts crap to get a reaction out of people. He's like the crazy drunk guy on the street corner shouting out about the end of the world.

Krylo · 04-01-2010, 07:00 PM

I don't know guys.

Everyone I've ever met who has used game theory to back things has basically done what Smarty said.

I even got into an argument with a guy who said WoW was a terrible game because Game Theory.

And, while I hate WoW, I have to seriously question the sanity of anyone who calls a game that can psychologically manipulate as many people as WoW psychologically manipulates into pushing the little button so the ~~food pellets~~ experience points come out for as long as WoW has a 'bad game' by any sort of theoretical/objective measurement.

I'll admit I haven't studied it either, but my experiences with those who have meshes well with Smarty's.

Though I'd also usually agree that Smarty's a blowhard.

Kim · 04-01-2010, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Though I'd also usually agree that Smarty's a blowhard.

A stopped clock is right twice a day and all that.

Possum Knight · 04-01-2010, 07:49 PM

We had to study the basics of game theory in my Micro Economics class in college. I wouldn't be the guy who is like "game theory is always right and if you disagree then you're wrong" guy but i certainly wouldn't say it's only good for tic tac toe and that's it.

From what I've seen of it, there's many thing we do that adhere to game theory and we just don't realize it. But I mean, it's a "theory" and it's not concrete.

It's just something to be wary of i suppose in business practices and other things. I'm interested in reading up more about it. What books do you have Geminex?

Professor Smarmiarty · 04-02-2010, 03:43 AM

Just to say I'm not the only one with this opinion. There is a significant number of academics who pretty much have made it their lifes works to crticise game theory. It is a well-supported position though my comment about tic-tac-toe was a bit extreme- if we ever develop robots we could totally use game theory on them hardcore. Game theory is very good at small, abstract scale scenarios and getting highly generalised predictions but the problem is it is never used in these situations. And that is really the crux of it- game theorists have provided some very useful mathematical tools that are used in other fields but that's the ke to their use.

Also checkers. And allowing maths nerds to live in a world where they can avoid their own crippling insecurities by running the maths beforehand.

And shit, 1000s of people research homeopathy- doesn't mean it isn't a load of bollocks.

03-31-2010, 10:11 PM	#1
Geminex SOM3WH3R3 Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,606	Game theory Well, dad's got a few books on the subject, and I found some online lecture notes by a uni student in India, so I'm getting into the analysis of strategic conflicts. I've only done, like, 4-5 hours of reading so far, which means I'm still getting into the basics. Nash Equilibrium, at the moment. I understand all the theory so far, though some of the mathematical representations seem unnecessarily complex. The lecture notes are highly academic, the books aren't really written for an academic audience, so I'm sorta lacking a middleground. But I'll wait and see. Anyway, has anyone else done much on this topic? Possibly someone who could share their knowlege with me, should I have questions?

04-01-2010, 02:47 AM	#4
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	The very principles of game theory are based on ideas of logic and rationality that were outdated in the 19th century, let alone now. It's really not my fault that they choose to ignore decades of progress in cognitive science. There is a reason they say game theory can only predict the actions of game theorists and psychopaths. I will admit that game theory has some very powerful tools of analysis and it is a good starting point but every time I have ever heard someone use game theory to look at something they have been like "Game theory says this- so it must be right- if you don't agree with us you are wrong" so I feel no desire to stand up for them. I could study the field in depth to present withering academic treatise against them but the bits I have done leave me completely unimpressed and in no desire to do more than I have to. I will say, that with greater increase in computing power they could perhaps get away from some of the more ridiculous assumptions that are usually made in their simulationsat present but we'll see. Edit: Also, I dislike the fact that actions are considered irrational if they don't start out with the value judgements of a serial killer. Last edited by Professor Smarmiarty; 04-01-2010 at 04:57 AM.

04-01-2010, 07:00 PM	#7
Krylo The Straightest Shota Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: It's a secret to everybody. Posts: 17,789	I don't know guys. Everyone I've ever met who has used game theory to back things has basically done what Smarty said. I even got into an argument with a guy who said WoW was a terrible game because Game Theory. And, while I hate WoW, I have to seriously question the sanity of anyone who calls a game that can psychologically manipulate as many people as WoW psychologically manipulates into pushing the little button so the ~~food pellets~~ experience points come out for as long as WoW has a 'bad game' by any sort of theoretical/objective measurement. I'll admit I haven't studied it either, but my experiences with those who have meshes well with Smarty's. Though I'd also usually agree that Smarty's a blowhard. __________________ I am very tired.

04-01-2010, 07:49 PM	#9
Possum Knight Using a mini brush for your demise. Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 201	We had to study the basics of game theory in my Micro Economics class in college. I wouldn't be the guy who is like "game theory is always right and if you disagree then you're wrong" guy but i certainly wouldn't say it's only good for tic tac toe and that's it. From what I've seen of it, there's many thing we do that adhere to game theory and we just don't realize it. But I mean, it's a "theory" and it's not concrete. It's just something to be wary of i suppose in business practices and other things. I'm interested in reading up more about it. What books do you have Geminex? __________________ Things you need to know about Possums:1)They have pouches and you should be jealous 2) they have thumbs like we do so they are available for thumbs wars 3) They have 50 or so teeth and love Crest toothpaste.

04-02-2010, 03:43 AM	#10
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	Just to say I'm not the only one with this opinion. There is a significant number of academics who pretty much have made it their lifes works to crticise game theory. It is a well-supported position though my comment about tic-tac-toe was a bit extreme- if we ever develop robots we could totally use game theory on them hardcore. Game theory is very good at small, abstract scale scenarios and getting highly generalised predictions but the problem is it is never used in these situations. And that is really the crux of it- game theorists have provided some very useful mathematical tools that are used in other fields but that's the ke to their use. Also checkers. And allowing maths nerds to live in a world where they can avoid their own crippling insecurities by running the maths beforehand. And shit, 1000s of people research homeopathy- doesn't mean it isn't a load of bollocks. Last edited by Professor Smarmiarty; 04-02-2010 at 04:07 AM.

04-01-2010, 02:27 AM	#2
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	I've done some game theory- basically it's good if you are playing tic tac toe otherwise it's just completely bullshit.

04-01-2010, 02:39 AM	#3
Geminex SOM3WH3R3 Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,606	Yeah. I love how you make absolute statements about academic areas of study that you, by your own admission, know very little about and, in the process insult everybody who's ever devoted time to studying said field. You seem quite intelligent, I do respect you, and you're probably one of the main reasons I no longer consider the Free Market to be a more efficient allocative force than government (at least as far as necessities goes), but do you even listen to yourself sometimes?