The Curse of Game Theory: Why It’s in Your Self-Interest to Exit the Rules of the Game
The Curse of Game Theory: Why It’s in Your Self-Interest to Exit the Rules of the Game
Appears in this episode
For the written version of this article refer here.
Game theory, the mathematical theory of games of strategy, was developed by John von Neumann in several successive stages in 1928 and 1940-41, according to his book “Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour” which he co-authored with Oskar Morgenstern.
The crux of the theory is that an individuals’ behaviour will always be motivated towards achieving an optimal outcome, which is determined by self-interest. An assumption made is that the players in such a game are rational, which translates to, “will strive to maximize their payoffs in the game”. In other words, it is assumed they are motivated by selfish self-interests.
Over the years, other contributors such as John Nash (Nash equilibrium) and John Maynard Smith (evolutionary stable strategy) have added to the theory and we are now at a point where it is considered by many to be an essential tool when modelling economic, political, sociological or military behaviours and outcomes, and is taught as such in many prestigious universities as something pretty much set in stone.
But what if we have made a terrible mistake?
After all, it is acknowledged by the theorists themselves that the entire functioning of their model relies upon the assumption that we are governed by rational selfish behaviour, and that they feel confident about this assumption since reality has apparently confirmed this fact to them. But what if this game is not objectively mirroring a truthful depiction of us? What if this game has rather, been used as a conditioning tool, a self-fulfilling prophecy, a positive feedback loop?
How can we know what is true? How can we know what kind of a person we truly are and not what we have been conditioned to think of ourselves as?
Cynthia Chung is the President of the Rising Tide Foundation and a writer at Strategic Culture Foundation, consider supporting her work by making a donation and subscribing to her substack page.
The Curse of Game Theory: Why It’s in Your Self-Interest to Exit the Rules of the Game
Bravo! This was a concise and brilliant refutation of the kind of nonsense that is peddled in universities across the nation. I spent four years arguing these points in my undergrad anthro degree. They are based on Darwinian principles, applied without discernment to human endeavors. I found no professors willing to help me, since "group selection" was considered too complicated to form useful models. This is representative of the state of affairs in modern academia, where abstractions - often with zero grounding - are prioritized over reality. Your example of parrallel lines was right on.
And I love the info you provided on Nash. Apparently, he actually promoted cooperative game theory a great deal, as well as having many other fascinating ideas far outside of the mainstream. Wikipedia gave me some interesting avenues for further research about him: "Nash has suggested hypotheses on mental illness. He has compared not thinking in an acceptable manner, or being "insane" and not fitting into a usual social function, to being "on strike" from an economic point of view. He advanced views in evolutionary psychology about the potential benefits of apparently nonstandard behaviors or roles. Nash [also] developed work on the role of money in society. He criticized interest groups that promote quasi-doctrines based on Keynesian economics that permit manipulative short-term inflation and debt tactics that ultimately undermine currencies. He suggested a global "industrial consumption price index" system that would support the development of more "ideal money" that people could trust rather than more unstable "bad money." He noted that some of his thinking parallels that of economist and political philosopher Friedrich Hayek, regarding money and an atypical viewpoint of the function of authority."
I am grateful for your work, and look forward to reading your book which I just acquired.
Thank you Cynthia!
False ideas, as well as false ideological narratives that have been selected and promoted via so-called "scientific" theories and models - falsely compare, diminish, and level humans to an animal species. Such a narrow-minded depiction of us, humans, possesses a great danger; firstly for those who serve as an advocate and as well as to those that fall into a trap of believing in such false convictions and dogmas. Disregarding human goodness, selflessness, reason, and ability to create and a lot more is nothing more than stupidity, ignorance, and a self-destructive way of thinking - perhaps a symptom of "schizophrenia" as our medical scientists like to label things.