Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:40:56 UTC No. 16068143

I'm not going to watch the video. Tell us what his argument is.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 03:55:17 UTC No. 16069462

>>16067621
>economist
probably not

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:04:41 UTC No. 16069470

>>16069462
Game theory is a subfield of economics. It's like most of the reason that real analysis courses for economists stress fixed-point theory, so it can be used to prove results about equilibria (see e.g. "Real Analysis with Economic Applications" by Efe Ok).

Oh it's a video? Yeah not going to watch one.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:19:12 UTC No. 16069488

>>16067621
>the prisoners dilemma is used by economists to argue that people are selfish
Completely incorrect and even retard-tier. Most econ undergrads have a better understanding of game theory than this dude.
The rest of the video is kind of correct in a general sense, but he gets a lot of the details and terminology wrong. He's basically saying game theory is empirically inaccurate in its assumptions that (1) players are rational and (2) they always seek to maximize utility. This is absolutely correct, and an important point that most game theorists and economists would agree with. Some of them take their criticisms of these assumptions further than others, but everyone recognizes that game theory does not accurately describe the full scope of of human behavior. Nevertheless, its still quite conceptually useful and illuminating, and applicable in some specific real world contexts.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:48:11 UTC No. 16069529

>>16069470
>Game theory is a subfield of economics
Game theory is a subfield of logic/set theory/probability. It was first applied in economics, but it is not a subfield of economics and has limited applicability in economics due to people not being perfectly rational actors among other reasons.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:54:42 UTC No. 16069538

>>16069470
It doesn't work in economics though, it only works in rigorous anonymous games with definite outcomes.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:00:12 UTC No. 16069545

>>16069529
Economics is the study of choice in full generality. Game theory is a particular kind of the study of strategic choice. Microeconomists who work in game theory don't care about people or whether people-as-economic-agents can be modeled well as rational actors. They study the behavior of choice-making actors in the abstract. Game theory is absolutely a subfield of economics, and the game-theoretic arguments in set theory were borrowed from the work done by economists, not the other way round.

>>16069538
Economics is the study of choice, not of people in particular. E.g. the "choice" of a large population as to which genotypes to "play" is also a choice, this is evolutionary game theory.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:02:04 UTC No. 16069550

>>16069488
>does not accurately describe the full scope of of human behavior
What full scope? If you have already assumed that humans are rational and hence selfish, what other behaviour do you need? His assumptions about people not always wanting to be selfish makes sense but only in the context of this oversimplified game. We can create constraints in the objective function to model this and any other additional behaviour you think it can't explain.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:38:41 UTC No. 16069583

>>16067621
Lol was this written by the notorious /his/ spammer?