Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises

Posted by Nick Thompson on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Game-theorists-hope-to-solve-world-s-crises-tp4100321p4102546.html

So, I live in a pre keplerian village.  On a hill in the middle of the village is a monastery where lives a monk who rings a bell at sunrise every day.  A model explanation circulates around the village that the sun is attached to the Monk's bellrope and that it is his ringing the bell that raises the sun.  Many people in the village take this model to be "true" (wetftm) and conduct their lives in accordance with it.  Are they WACKO? 
 
Just asking. 
 
N
 
 
 
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Sent: 12/2/2009 2:19:49 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Game theorists hope to solve world's crises

Lots of strong words and sentiments.

Glen, do you distinguish between perceptions/[perspectives, models and scientific theories? Do you think of people who believe enough in quantum theory, general relativity, biological evolution, even Newtonian dynamics to act on it as certifiably WACKO? That's not to say that these theories won't ever be revised, overturned, etc. But to call people who act on what those theories predict WACKO seems extreme. 

What about the model you have in your head as you cross the street? That model included cars coming at you. Not acting on that model seems more WACKO than acting on it?

I think it would be useful to refine your statement a bit. Waiting for the light to change at a busy intersection (because of your model of how traffic lights, traffic, etc. work--which is not always the way it is but which works often enough and which may include drunk drivers and cases in which cars run red lights) seems more sane than following Jim Jones to Guyana.

-- Russ



On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
glen e. p. ropella wrote:
It's not that some models
are more wrong than others.  It's that models are rhetorical devices.
When you meet a person who really _believes_ her own rhetoric to the
extent that they are convicted, committed, and unwaveringly confident in
their own rhetoric ... well, then you KNOW you've got a certifiable
WACKO on your hands.  Following their consulting would be like following
Jim Jones to Guyana ...
I think that in these circles if game theory makes propaganda more compelling that is all that matters.
Why describe something when you can influence it?
Marcus


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org