Thanks for a great review. As a beginning doctoral student I did a study on the balance of power model of geopolitics contrasted with game theory as used for the nuclear confrontation between the Soviets and America. Your treatment of game theory is so much more nuanced and in depth. The win-win cooperative model embraces the consciousness or agency ability of the actors. It includes qualitative and self sacrificing impulses that may play a large part in the real world.
Years ago, at the Univ. of Michigan Mental Health Research Institute, Anatol Rapoport and his colleagues performed a series of experiments with student subjects on the Prisoner’s Dilemma game theory problem. Thus game theory indicates that only suboptimal solutions (for both parties) are present because they view themselves as antagonists. However, if both players cooperated they would get a better outcome. Rapoport enrolled many students to play this game, and found that most students did indeed reach the cooperative solution. It was only the economics students, who viewed the problem as a competitive problem, who obtained the suboptimal equilibrium solution. Maybe it is just the case we have to get policy makers to accept cooperation…. Keep economists as far away as possible from a policy making role!
I haven't studied von Neumann, but it appears that he missed the two greatest contributions to epistemology of his time: Kurt Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem, and Alfred Korzybski's 1933 book Science and Sanity, in which he establishes his theory of General Semantics.
Until I'd read Douglas Hofstadter's 1979 book Gödel, Escher, Bach I wasn't even aware of Gödel's theorem, or how it applied to epistemology, and apparently Gödel didn't perceive the connection either, since he framed it in purely mathematical terms. I would read Hofstadter first for an understanding of the theorem since unless you're a mathematician you probably won't gain much insight from reading Gödel.
To summarize, any internally consistent theory will be by definition incomplete, which is to say, fail to describe conditions at the margin. Newton's theory of gravity is one example. Quantum Theory is another. But read Hofstadter. He explains it better than I ever could.
As for Alfred Korzybski, I only discovered the guy's work a couple of years ago, and outside the realm of epistemology, his contribution seems to have gone completely unnoticed. This is probably owed to the fact that he worked independently and was an engineer not a philosopher. This problem come up constantly in epistemology, where a contribution from outside the recognized academic field is not taken seriously and tends to be discounted, even disparaged, until a later generation re-discovers it. Marshal McLuhan is the poster boy for this syndrome.
To summarize, Korzybski's main contribution were the ideas of 'Time Binding' and 'Belief Systems' as underlying all forms of human behaviour. Time Binding is relatively straightforward and describes the difference between man and the animals, in that we alone have the ability, via Language, to pass information down through the generations, thus as Newton described, standing on the shoulders of giants. Where Time Binding (in practice, not theory) runs into problems is in the selection of what is considered worthy of passing on, which is a function of the existing Belief System at the relevant historical moment.
In Korzybski's view, Belief Systems are the fundamental element in determining human behaviour, not Game Theory or other formulations which are themselves just Belief Systems. The basic idea is that we all have a Belief System, but only a few people take that into account when framing their own reality. It's a simple enough concept, and we recognize it in others easily enough, but we tend not to notice it in ourselves. One important characteristic of a Belief System is that it doesn't have to be consistent or "true" in order to be effective. If the goal is to construct an orderly society, for example, religion works fairly well even though it may have no basis whatsoever in reality. Basically, the desirable moral elements are wrapped in mythic form which constitutes a Belief System with regard to the consequences of breaking the rules thus defined. We fear God's wrath, and thus endeavour not to offend Him. I've found this a useful way of getting around what I regard as the false dichotomy of 'Faith vs Reason.' For instance, when working with people of Faith I try to frame my arguments in terms consistent with their beliefs. So when dealing with Muslims, I reference the Koran, when dealing with Christians, the Bible, and so forth. I always look for the Venn Diagram overlap between their beliefs and my own, and I almost always find it.
For fun, next time you debate someone whose beliefs are firmly established in what they regard as 'reason' try pointing out that they're simply operating inside a Belief System which is subject to Gödel's Uncertainty Principle. The response to that will tell you a lot about who you're dealing with, and if you need a comeback, you can hit them with an aphorism originally attributed to Korzybski: 'The map is not the territory.'
I can't stress this enough. If you haven't read Korzybski and taken his ideas on board, you're missing a fundamental aspect of epistemology. He's hard sledding though, so to open that door I suggest first reading Stuart Chase's "The Tyranny of Words."
Chase recognized the importance of Korzybski's work and did a good job of describing it in more accessible terms. His book went unnoticed as well, unfortunately, but it's just as important today as it was in 1936.
Another largely overlooked work of major significance is James Grier Miller's 1978 book "Living Systems.' Probably the most comprehensive work on systems theory you'll find, as it addresses the most complex of all systems, life itself.
So there you are. Plenty of reading to keep you busy, and I would get started right away because there'll be a test on Monday worth 25% of this year's grade.
Wow, that is quite the informative response ebear! Matt and myself were not aware of the work of Alfred Korzybski, and will definitely take a look at his book Science and Sanity. Thank you.
You're welcome! Sorry if it was a bit long-winded. I tend to get carried away when writing about things that inspire me, and AK was a definite inspiration. Wish I'd read him about the same time I came across McLuhan in the early 80s, another in my list of Key Authors, which includes Douglas Hofstadter, James Grier Miller, Robert Anton Wilson, Richard Feynman and Marvin Harris.
The paragraph: "There are many problems with this, but the most unforgivable one is the assumption of a set, limited and unchanging reserve of resources available to the individual. In other words, the Austrian school of economy and von Neumann with them, consider Crusoe’s deserted island as the perfect case study for a limited resource, zero-sum game scenario." also identifies the fallacy of the Malthusian Dilemma, which has been used repeatedly to justify globalism’s lethal campaign for depopulation and planetary governance.
How amazing it is for me to learn of your studies. Just beautiful to see and hear. Everything I dreamed of as a young student seems like it has come truth just in thing for a multipolar nuclear world.
I love your writing, Ms Cheung, and I think you would be interested in Graeber and Wingrove's 'The Dawn of Everything.' Similar ideas applied to the evolution of humanity and society; it's like your stuff but applied to anthropology. I do think you'd find it interesting.
This was a great and insightful article. Game theory utterly ignores synergy, puts a glass ceiling over its adherents, and ultimately enslaves. I think it is the kind of thinking that led Lucifer astray from the logos and took so many with him.
Cynthia, just as Malthus supposed theory was orchestrated by empirical eugenics that is false, so to was game theory, it is a fraud, but it was and has been a system based on manipulated supposed evidence. They use it in every situation in life to control the masses. It is a coincidence that Nach and I came from the same neighborhood in Bluefield West Virginia and both working class, mostly coal miners with no chance of any higher learning without the intellect for scholarship. My own awakening has taken decades of dead ends that the Ruller have put in place in case one of we throwaway people get any ideas of our own. Just in the last few years I have found people like yourself and Matt as well as others who see the matrix for what it is and have the ability to present it logically, so thank you so much for all you have presented to me as it has informed me in ways that I never dreamt possible. I do not know if we can defeat this global cabal, but I at least know the truth, and this is worth more than money or power, Jack Williams.
I enjoyed your clarity and coherence. I completed my PhD in behavioural strategy (a sub field of strategic management). One of the first things that attracted me to the topic was exactly the arguments made in your article - that human beings are not automatons; they are more interesting, they possess emotions, they have character weaknesses, they love, are pro-social, and sometimes lucky.... to name a few. A game theoretic perspective is based on cold positivistic rationalism. And assumes too much. Thanks again.
Fantastic article, thank you! I wish my younger self, student of economics, could have understood that, while being "indoctrinated" in these theories, which I instinctively rejected at the time, but without being remotely able to articulate the reasons in such a powerful way.
Why do you think putin and his party supported the pharma Covid bullshit? Also China, why? They don't give a shit about their people if they promote a lie. I give up on trusting any authority, fuck their chess games.
Sputnik is based on Zeneca tech, and yes it has harmed people. Anyway a new one to question russia's "smartness"
I don't have much knowledge of china's clotshots. But covid is bullshit and f Any leader that uses it against their people. Bulgaria/lukoshenko is one of the few honest leaders. Putin? NOPE
"Russia will never be able to successfully protected itself from the West as long as the Kremlin is constrained by the desire of elites to be part of the West." is pretty much mooted by events since it was written in April 2022.
Personally, in his shoes, I'd have held that article back since it was published two months after the game changed completely when Russia invaded Ukraine. Likewise, he seems to have missed the entire 8 years of preparation that went on behind the scenes, so I question how good his Russian sources are. This is evident in his belief that Western leaning Russians still have significant influence, which hasn't been the case since the 2007 purges, and is almost completely insignificant today. The Western press elevates these individuals beyond any significance they may have in present day Russia itself, and PCR appears to have bought that line.
Finally, like the man with the hammer, PCR wants to frame his analysis in monetary terms. He fails to recognize that Russian accumulation of gold has more to do with keeping domestic miners employed, plus keeping Western monetary authorities on their back heels. In short, it's a feint. Russia already possesses the 2nd largest reserves of the world's number one currency, oil. Also, they've been on a multi-decade campaign to source vital materials and technologies internally, and that program is nearly complete, as witnessed by their recent passenger jet which is produced entirely from domestic sources.
What Russia can't presently secure domestically is easily sourced from China and Kazakhstan (Rare Earth metals and Uranium for example) and Russia is far ahead of the West in terms of engineering and materials technology, and fast catching up in microchips.
Not to overstate things, but Western intransigence and hegemonic behaviour has driven Russian patriotism to the point the collective West is being left in the dust. They are ten years ahead in missile and anti-missile technology, and the hard fact is that any system the West can bring to bear against them is easily defeated. All I can say is we should thank our lucky stars that Russia has no desire to recreate the USSR or to invade the EU as per Western propaganda, because if they did, they'd have done so already. The truth is, they just want to be left alone to develop their own civilization, and have expressed that desire ad nauseam to a West that simply refuses to listen. China believes them though, as does Iran and a variety of smaller nations who take them at their word.
I don't think PCR is shilling for the New Word Order, but he does seem to be seriously out of touch on some fairly significant points.
The business model of the Game Theory might work 'logically' for a machine (AI) but it is absolutely ignorant in terms of evolution. Darwin wrote about the improved chances for survival for those societies that are blessed with enough altruistic individuals. Even prelinguistic babies show the understanding between "kind and mean" actions by puppets and prefer kind puppets.
The Game Theory rather fits the criteria for psychopathy, the latter is a dangerous abnormality for a society. See the well-pronounced features of psychopathic indoctrination in talmudic memes ("others" are not fully humans; it is OK to con and defraud the "others;" the "amaleks" must be killed while still babies, and similar 'gems' articulated by the Israeli government on a regular basis). Precisely this kind of indoctrination results in cases of large financial fraud (no regards and sympathy towards the victims) and in genocidal actions approved as "virtuous" by the indoctrination.
Nash openly admits he was in mental care but he was also involved in secret research so his paranoid schizophrenia could be a not uncommon consequence of knowing too much and for him having to be rendered partly unreliable in order to be approved by the system.
(That does not preclude that he simultaneously had some genuine mental problems. Such genuine problems dont necessarily make you delusional, having hallucinations of surveillance that isnt there.)
But about Nash, the movie 'A beautiful mind' came just at a time when there was a rather extensive debate about suggested ongoing mind control abuses, advanced real 'street theater' and absurd scenarious with performers to create a seemingly psychotic experience.
As if experiencing an LSD hallucination despite never having taken any drugs.
So the movie may have been a way of adverticing to the 'patricians' that you shouldnt believe even smart people.
This is a quote from an anonymous contributor to the blogger mileswmathis cocerning that movie
".. The movie was based on the 1998 book A Beautiful Mind by Sylvia Nasar, Professor of Business
Journalism at Columbia University.
She is the daughter of Ruzi Nazar, who worked for Archibald Roosevelt and the CIA conducting operations against the Soviets, Iranians and the Chinese by building proxy forces from minorities in Central Asia.
Ruzi Nazar was also pals with Zbigniew Brzezinski, and was involved in the Iranian hostage crisis mission which another CIA movie was made from—2012 best picture Argo.
In the Foreword of the book, Nasar meets Alicia Nash, John Nash's wife.
Alicia shows Nasar snapshots of herself and John with Felix Browder at the UC Berkeley swimming pool. Felix Browder is a UC Berkeley mathematician and alleged child genius.
Like Nash, he has a PhD from Princeton.
Browder has interesting familial connections.
His son Bill Browder is CEO of Hermitage Capital Management, an investment fund that deals mainly with Russia. It was later blacklisted for being a threat to Russian national security. ..."
This neither proves or refutes anything but for wellinformed people like Cynthia et al this does rise your curiosity doesnt it?
Among intel people that phenomenon is a recurrent theme. For example something happened to one british intel op whistle blowing about the 7/7 terrorist drama in London that was definitely a false flag engineered by the british elites.
If he hadnt accepted a temporary insanity label he might have been finished.
By 'showing his throat' like this he could be tolerated.
Everybody who has been under so serious suspicion from the authorities that they have been under secret surveillance or worse may find that there is no function of protection from law if they insist on it being officially corrected.
The way out is however sometimes to accept the humiliation of being labeled with temporary insanity.
So always be sceptical about various psychiatric diagnoses.
About the limits to growth.
Yes Larouche was of course right about the addition of creativity to the equation.
However I like to cite an american physicist from perhaps 1997.
He said:
Even if the earth was a sphere expanding (linearly) at the speed of light, exponential growth of its population like ~exp(kt) would still be catastrophic.
Logically the sphere radius would have had to expand exponentially like ~exp(½kt) for a match although there is nothing in known science that could make it possible in either case.
So there are limits to growth even in that extreme thought experiment.
But basically, I believe the problem today is overspecialisation.
For example those are correct who claim that CO2 does heat the climate and that climate science is right within the wide margins of calculated precision.
But this doesnt mean that the globalists particular directions are reasonable.
The pertinent time schedule for our wise response for what we need to do, all things considered, must be decided on after careful consideration of the consequences.
Therefore it isnt enough to be correct about judging the merits of climate science.
Those who are correct about that part are often much less willing to question the particular choises made by our rulers.
That is an example of overspecialisation or perhaps even of irresponsibility!
While those who are wrong about CO2 and go too far in denying its longtime effect on climate may paradoxically be more correct about what actual policies to use in the intermediate term.
Despite or even sometimes due to their ignorance about the underlying science, they are resisting a bad official policy motivated by ulterior motives not explained to the public.
And not inherent in the scientific findings.
Because what to do is a matter of logical debate considering all relevant criteria.
And pertinent in the article's context, game theory is known to give room for the paradox that sometimes even a superbeing like God, knowing everything, may lose in a game against an irrational opposition.
The explanation is that perfect information may sometimes be more limiting than a random action.
That may not be a fair representation of the context I just described about climate but it still reminds me of it.
The overspecialisation I mentioned is probably there on both opposing sides in the earlier example but since even God doesnt always win the game it ought to lead people to be less categorical.
"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."
It does not contain such words like "selfish" or "self-interest".
The discussion is about the payoffs or utilities of the players.
First, note that if someone has altruistic motives, these can be included in one's payoffs (utilities).
For example, if Aij are the utilities of the first player and Bij are the utilities of the second player, then the first player can be redefined as having the utilities
Cij = (Aij + Bij)/2
The linear combination of the utility functions is still a utility function.
Then, by maximizing one's utilities, one maximizes the summary payoffs of the players.
However, it is still a game theory.
The point of the game theory is not about everyone maxmizing one's own welfare.
The point of the game theory is, instead, the situations when the outcomes and payoffs of each player depend on the moves made by himself/herself and other players.
For example, in the case of static games, one has to maximize one's payoffs without knowing the moves of the other players.
We have got a typical game theoretical situation even if all the players are altruistic.
This is so because, in such a situation, they do not know the decisions of their partners.
Second.
It is true that von Neumann considered mainly the zero-sum games. In such games, the competition is maximal. One can achieve something only if the other one loses something.
However, von Neumann never claimed that the zero-sum games are the only possible games in life.
There are also so-called coordination games. In such games, everyone maximizes one's own payoffs, but it is possible to cooperate so that everyone's payoffs are greater. The only problem is about coordinating the actions of all players.
The classical text about such coordination games is
David Lewis, "Convention"
Thus, it seems to me that the author Cynthia Chung of the present article "The Curse of Game Theory: Why It’s in Your Self-Interest to Exit the Rules of the Game" has seriously misunderstood game theory.
However, I agree that game theory has been used as a tool to propagate individualism and egoism; also, that game theory does not explain everything.
Game theory is a useful tool, if you know how and when to use it.
Thanks for a great review. As a beginning doctoral student I did a study on the balance of power model of geopolitics contrasted with game theory as used for the nuclear confrontation between the Soviets and America. Your treatment of game theory is so much more nuanced and in depth. The win-win cooperative model embraces the consciousness or agency ability of the actors. It includes qualitative and self sacrificing impulses that may play a large part in the real world.
Years ago, at the Univ. of Michigan Mental Health Research Institute, Anatol Rapoport and his colleagues performed a series of experiments with student subjects on the Prisoner’s Dilemma game theory problem. Thus game theory indicates that only suboptimal solutions (for both parties) are present because they view themselves as antagonists. However, if both players cooperated they would get a better outcome. Rapoport enrolled many students to play this game, and found that most students did indeed reach the cooperative solution. It was only the economics students, who viewed the problem as a competitive problem, who obtained the suboptimal equilibrium solution. Maybe it is just the case we have to get policy makers to accept cooperation…. Keep economists as far away as possible from a policy making role!
Here is one more example of this:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v24/n21/donald-mackenzie/the-imagined-market
I haven't studied von Neumann, but it appears that he missed the two greatest contributions to epistemology of his time: Kurt Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem, and Alfred Korzybski's 1933 book Science and Sanity, in which he establishes his theory of General Semantics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski
Until I'd read Douglas Hofstadter's 1979 book Gödel, Escher, Bach I wasn't even aware of Gödel's theorem, or how it applied to epistemology, and apparently Gödel didn't perceive the connection either, since he framed it in purely mathematical terms. I would read Hofstadter first for an understanding of the theorem since unless you're a mathematician you probably won't gain much insight from reading Gödel.
https://oceanofpdf.com/category/authors/douglas-r-hofstadter/
To summarize, any internally consistent theory will be by definition incomplete, which is to say, fail to describe conditions at the margin. Newton's theory of gravity is one example. Quantum Theory is another. But read Hofstadter. He explains it better than I ever could.
As for Alfred Korzybski, I only discovered the guy's work a couple of years ago, and outside the realm of epistemology, his contribution seems to have gone completely unnoticed. This is probably owed to the fact that he worked independently and was an engineer not a philosopher. This problem come up constantly in epistemology, where a contribution from outside the recognized academic field is not taken seriously and tends to be discounted, even disparaged, until a later generation re-discovers it. Marshal McLuhan is the poster boy for this syndrome.
https://oceanofpdf.com/?s=Alfred+Korzybski
To summarize, Korzybski's main contribution were the ideas of 'Time Binding' and 'Belief Systems' as underlying all forms of human behaviour. Time Binding is relatively straightforward and describes the difference between man and the animals, in that we alone have the ability, via Language, to pass information down through the generations, thus as Newton described, standing on the shoulders of giants. Where Time Binding (in practice, not theory) runs into problems is in the selection of what is considered worthy of passing on, which is a function of the existing Belief System at the relevant historical moment.
In Korzybski's view, Belief Systems are the fundamental element in determining human behaviour, not Game Theory or other formulations which are themselves just Belief Systems. The basic idea is that we all have a Belief System, but only a few people take that into account when framing their own reality. It's a simple enough concept, and we recognize it in others easily enough, but we tend not to notice it in ourselves. One important characteristic of a Belief System is that it doesn't have to be consistent or "true" in order to be effective. If the goal is to construct an orderly society, for example, religion works fairly well even though it may have no basis whatsoever in reality. Basically, the desirable moral elements are wrapped in mythic form which constitutes a Belief System with regard to the consequences of breaking the rules thus defined. We fear God's wrath, and thus endeavour not to offend Him. I've found this a useful way of getting around what I regard as the false dichotomy of 'Faith vs Reason.' For instance, when working with people of Faith I try to frame my arguments in terms consistent with their beliefs. So when dealing with Muslims, I reference the Koran, when dealing with Christians, the Bible, and so forth. I always look for the Venn Diagram overlap between their beliefs and my own, and I almost always find it.
For fun, next time you debate someone whose beliefs are firmly established in what they regard as 'reason' try pointing out that they're simply operating inside a Belief System which is subject to Gödel's Uncertainty Principle. The response to that will tell you a lot about who you're dealing with, and if you need a comeback, you can hit them with an aphorism originally attributed to Korzybski: 'The map is not the territory.'
I can't stress this enough. If you haven't read Korzybski and taken his ideas on board, you're missing a fundamental aspect of epistemology. He's hard sledding though, so to open that door I suggest first reading Stuart Chase's "The Tyranny of Words."
https://oceanofpdf.com/?s=stuart+chase
Chase recognized the importance of Korzybski's work and did a good job of describing it in more accessible terms. His book went unnoticed as well, unfortunately, but it's just as important today as it was in 1936.
Another largely overlooked work of major significance is James Grier Miller's 1978 book "Living Systems.' Probably the most comprehensive work on systems theory you'll find, as it addresses the most complex of all systems, life itself.
https://annas-archive.org/md5/19142e57a3843cb7c7324f7f188e37cb
So there you are. Plenty of reading to keep you busy, and I would get started right away because there'll be a test on Monday worth 25% of this year's grade.
Wow, that is quite the informative response ebear! Matt and myself were not aware of the work of Alfred Korzybski, and will definitely take a look at his book Science and Sanity. Thank you.
You're welcome! Sorry if it was a bit long-winded. I tend to get carried away when writing about things that inspire me, and AK was a definite inspiration. Wish I'd read him about the same time I came across McLuhan in the early 80s, another in my list of Key Authors, which includes Douglas Hofstadter, James Grier Miller, Robert Anton Wilson, Richard Feynman and Marvin Harris.
The paragraph: "There are many problems with this, but the most unforgivable one is the assumption of a set, limited and unchanging reserve of resources available to the individual. In other words, the Austrian school of economy and von Neumann with them, consider Crusoe’s deserted island as the perfect case study for a limited resource, zero-sum game scenario." also identifies the fallacy of the Malthusian Dilemma, which has been used repeatedly to justify globalism’s lethal campaign for depopulation and planetary governance.
How amazing it is for me to learn of your studies. Just beautiful to see and hear. Everything I dreamed of as a young student seems like it has come truth just in thing for a multipolar nuclear world.
I love your writing, Ms Cheung, and I think you would be interested in Graeber and Wingrove's 'The Dawn of Everything.' Similar ideas applied to the evolution of humanity and society; it's like your stuff but applied to anthropology. I do think you'd find it interesting.
This was a great and insightful article. Game theory utterly ignores synergy, puts a glass ceiling over its adherents, and ultimately enslaves. I think it is the kind of thinking that led Lucifer astray from the logos and took so many with him.
In reference to the movie about Nash----a Beautiful article! God Bless!!!
Cynthia, just as Malthus supposed theory was orchestrated by empirical eugenics that is false, so to was game theory, it is a fraud, but it was and has been a system based on manipulated supposed evidence. They use it in every situation in life to control the masses. It is a coincidence that Nach and I came from the same neighborhood in Bluefield West Virginia and both working class, mostly coal miners with no chance of any higher learning without the intellect for scholarship. My own awakening has taken decades of dead ends that the Ruller have put in place in case one of we throwaway people get any ideas of our own. Just in the last few years I have found people like yourself and Matt as well as others who see the matrix for what it is and have the ability to present it logically, so thank you so much for all you have presented to me as it has informed me in ways that I never dreamt possible. I do not know if we can defeat this global cabal, but I at least know the truth, and this is worth more than money or power, Jack Williams.
What a great piece again Cynthia! A true intellectual treat towards humanism and hope.
Thank you!
I enjoyed your clarity and coherence. I completed my PhD in behavioural strategy (a sub field of strategic management). One of the first things that attracted me to the topic was exactly the arguments made in your article - that human beings are not automatons; they are more interesting, they possess emotions, they have character weaknesses, they love, are pro-social, and sometimes lucky.... to name a few. A game theoretic perspective is based on cold positivistic rationalism. And assumes too much. Thanks again.
Fantastic article, thank you! I wish my younger self, student of economics, could have understood that, while being "indoctrinated" in these theories, which I instinctively rejected at the time, but without being remotely able to articulate the reasons in such a powerful way.
Math gave us tons of bullshit dreamt up by the new "prophets" still lies just like major religion.
Virus theory and genetics https://drsambailey.com/2022/01/05/why-nobody-can-find-a-virus/
Quantum theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm9tUVI6Ehk&list=PLkdAkAC4ItcHNLDIK9ORydQl_Ik6GJ0bD
Even the big bang is a handy to creationism.
Why do you think putin and his party supported the pharma Covid bullshit? Also China, why? They don't give a shit about their people if they promote a lie. I give up on trusting any authority, fuck their chess games.
Sputnik is based on Zeneca tech, and yes it has harmed people. Anyway a new one to question russia's "smartness"
I don't have much knowledge of china's clotshots. But covid is bullshit and f Any leader that uses it against their people. Bulgaria/lukoshenko is one of the few honest leaders. Putin? NOPE
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2022/03/29/does-the-kremlin-know-what-it-is-doing/
PCR's analysis in which he states:
"Russia will never be able to successfully protected itself from the West as long as the Kremlin is constrained by the desire of elites to be part of the West." is pretty much mooted by events since it was written in April 2022.
Personally, in his shoes, I'd have held that article back since it was published two months after the game changed completely when Russia invaded Ukraine. Likewise, he seems to have missed the entire 8 years of preparation that went on behind the scenes, so I question how good his Russian sources are. This is evident in his belief that Western leaning Russians still have significant influence, which hasn't been the case since the 2007 purges, and is almost completely insignificant today. The Western press elevates these individuals beyond any significance they may have in present day Russia itself, and PCR appears to have bought that line.
Finally, like the man with the hammer, PCR wants to frame his analysis in monetary terms. He fails to recognize that Russian accumulation of gold has more to do with keeping domestic miners employed, plus keeping Western monetary authorities on their back heels. In short, it's a feint. Russia already possesses the 2nd largest reserves of the world's number one currency, oil. Also, they've been on a multi-decade campaign to source vital materials and technologies internally, and that program is nearly complete, as witnessed by their recent passenger jet which is produced entirely from domestic sources.
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/the-irkut-mc-21-an-introduction-to-russias-latest-jetliner/
What Russia can't presently secure domestically is easily sourced from China and Kazakhstan (Rare Earth metals and Uranium for example) and Russia is far ahead of the West in terms of engineering and materials technology, and fast catching up in microchips.
Not to overstate things, but Western intransigence and hegemonic behaviour has driven Russian patriotism to the point the collective West is being left in the dust. They are ten years ahead in missile and anti-missile technology, and the hard fact is that any system the West can bring to bear against them is easily defeated. All I can say is we should thank our lucky stars that Russia has no desire to recreate the USSR or to invade the EU as per Western propaganda, because if they did, they'd have done so already. The truth is, they just want to be left alone to develop their own civilization, and have expressed that desire ad nauseam to a West that simply refuses to listen. China believes them though, as does Iran and a variety of smaller nations who take them at their word.
I don't think PCR is shilling for the New Word Order, but he does seem to be seriously out of touch on some fairly significant points.
The business model of the Game Theory might work 'logically' for a machine (AI) but it is absolutely ignorant in terms of evolution. Darwin wrote about the improved chances for survival for those societies that are blessed with enough altruistic individuals. Even prelinguistic babies show the understanding between "kind and mean" actions by puppets and prefer kind puppets.
The Game Theory rather fits the criteria for psychopathy, the latter is a dangerous abnormality for a society. See the well-pronounced features of psychopathic indoctrination in talmudic memes ("others" are not fully humans; it is OK to con and defraud the "others;" the "amaleks" must be killed while still babies, and similar 'gems' articulated by the Israeli government on a regular basis). Precisely this kind of indoctrination results in cases of large financial fraud (no regards and sympathy towards the victims) and in genocidal actions approved as "virtuous" by the indoctrination.
Nash openly admits he was in mental care but he was also involved in secret research so his paranoid schizophrenia could be a not uncommon consequence of knowing too much and for him having to be rendered partly unreliable in order to be approved by the system.
(That does not preclude that he simultaneously had some genuine mental problems. Such genuine problems dont necessarily make you delusional, having hallucinations of surveillance that isnt there.)
But about Nash, the movie 'A beautiful mind' came just at a time when there was a rather extensive debate about suggested ongoing mind control abuses, advanced real 'street theater' and absurd scenarious with performers to create a seemingly psychotic experience.
As if experiencing an LSD hallucination despite never having taken any drugs.
So the movie may have been a way of adverticing to the 'patricians' that you shouldnt believe even smart people.
This is a quote from an anonymous contributor to the blogger mileswmathis cocerning that movie
".. The movie was based on the 1998 book A Beautiful Mind by Sylvia Nasar, Professor of Business
Journalism at Columbia University.
She is the daughter of Ruzi Nazar, who worked for Archibald Roosevelt and the CIA conducting operations against the Soviets, Iranians and the Chinese by building proxy forces from minorities in Central Asia.
Ruzi Nazar was also pals with Zbigniew Brzezinski, and was involved in the Iranian hostage crisis mission which another CIA movie was made from—2012 best picture Argo.
In the Foreword of the book, Nasar meets Alicia Nash, John Nash's wife.
Alicia shows Nasar snapshots of herself and John with Felix Browder at the UC Berkeley swimming pool. Felix Browder is a UC Berkeley mathematician and alleged child genius.
Like Nash, he has a PhD from Princeton.
Browder has interesting familial connections.
His son Bill Browder is CEO of Hermitage Capital Management, an investment fund that deals mainly with Russia. It was later blacklisted for being a threat to Russian national security. ..."
http://mileswmathis.com/nash.pdf
This neither proves or refutes anything but for wellinformed people like Cynthia et al this does rise your curiosity doesnt it?
Among intel people that phenomenon is a recurrent theme. For example something happened to one british intel op whistle blowing about the 7/7 terrorist drama in London that was definitely a false flag engineered by the british elites.
If he hadnt accepted a temporary insanity label he might have been finished.
By 'showing his throat' like this he could be tolerated.
Everybody who has been under so serious suspicion from the authorities that they have been under secret surveillance or worse may find that there is no function of protection from law if they insist on it being officially corrected.
The way out is however sometimes to accept the humiliation of being labeled with temporary insanity.
So always be sceptical about various psychiatric diagnoses.
About the limits to growth.
Yes Larouche was of course right about the addition of creativity to the equation.
However I like to cite an american physicist from perhaps 1997.
He said:
Even if the earth was a sphere expanding (linearly) at the speed of light, exponential growth of its population like ~exp(kt) would still be catastrophic.
Logically the sphere radius would have had to expand exponentially like ~exp(½kt) for a match although there is nothing in known science that could make it possible in either case.
So there are limits to growth even in that extreme thought experiment.
But basically, I believe the problem today is overspecialisation.
For example those are correct who claim that CO2 does heat the climate and that climate science is right within the wide margins of calculated precision.
But this doesnt mean that the globalists particular directions are reasonable.
The pertinent time schedule for our wise response for what we need to do, all things considered, must be decided on after careful consideration of the consequences.
Therefore it isnt enough to be correct about judging the merits of climate science.
Those who are correct about that part are often much less willing to question the particular choises made by our rulers.
That is an example of overspecialisation or perhaps even of irresponsibility!
While those who are wrong about CO2 and go too far in denying its longtime effect on climate may paradoxically be more correct about what actual policies to use in the intermediate term.
Despite or even sometimes due to their ignorance about the underlying science, they are resisting a bad official policy motivated by ulterior motives not explained to the public.
And not inherent in the scientific findings.
Because what to do is a matter of logical debate considering all relevant criteria.
And pertinent in the article's context, game theory is known to give room for the paradox that sometimes even a superbeing like God, knowing everything, may lose in a game against an irrational opposition.
The explanation is that perfect information may sometimes be more limiting than a random action.
That may not be a fair representation of the context I just described about climate but it still reminds me of it.
The overspecialisation I mentioned is probably there on both opposing sides in the earlier example but since even God doesnt always win the game it ought to lead people to be less categorical.
On both sides of the fence.
GAME THEORY IS NOT ABOUT THE COMMUNITY OF EGOISTS
"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."
Really?
"Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour"
ise here:
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.215284/mode/2up
It does not contain such words like "selfish" or "self-interest".
The discussion is about the payoffs or utilities of the players.
First, note that if someone has altruistic motives, these can be included in one's payoffs (utilities).
For example, if Aij are the utilities of the first player and Bij are the utilities of the second player, then the first player can be redefined as having the utilities
Cij = (Aij + Bij)/2
The linear combination of the utility functions is still a utility function.
Then, by maximizing one's utilities, one maximizes the summary payoffs of the players.
However, it is still a game theory.
The point of the game theory is not about everyone maxmizing one's own welfare.
The point of the game theory is, instead, the situations when the outcomes and payoffs of each player depend on the moves made by himself/herself and other players.
For example, in the case of static games, one has to maximize one's payoffs without knowing the moves of the other players.
We have got a typical game theoretical situation even if all the players are altruistic.
This is so because, in such a situation, they do not know the decisions of their partners.
Second.
It is true that von Neumann considered mainly the zero-sum games. In such games, the competition is maximal. One can achieve something only if the other one loses something.
However, von Neumann never claimed that the zero-sum games are the only possible games in life.
There are also so-called coordination games. In such games, everyone maximizes one's own payoffs, but it is possible to cooperate so that everyone's payoffs are greater. The only problem is about coordinating the actions of all players.
The classical text about such coordination games is
David Lewis, "Convention"
Thus, it seems to me that the author Cynthia Chung of the present article "The Curse of Game Theory: Why It’s in Your Self-Interest to Exit the Rules of the Game" has seriously misunderstood game theory.
However, I agree that game theory has been used as a tool to propagate individualism and egoism; also, that game theory does not explain everything.
Game theory is a useful tool, if you know how and when to use it.