game theory never seemed that convincing (I'm a theoretical biologist). Most people just don't seem to be that mathematically inclined and they stop iterating through some decision problem well before where logic should take them. As such, it makes a lot of the points that the field is making m00t, as they try pin the results derived from Homo economicus / logicus onto Homo Sapiens.
see http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=1518&aid=-1 for an example of this. The result seems to be an outcome of people only thinking one step ahead, and those thinking superrational (i.e. estimating how much steps ahead people will be thinking, and chosing according to that).
Philosophy (reading transcript 23 now as well) might in general be more useful to a human mind then some theoretical system on how a non-existant optimal human would behave.
Just read it. It's nice I think, especially if you've never been exposed to the ideas in there and if you are willing to seriously consider the questions raised. I'd rate it as more useful than game theory by far.
The most interesting aspect of Game Theory I have encountered are the "Evolutionary Stable Strategies". Not sure if they are even officially considered Game Theory, as I read about them in a Dawkins book.
But I think the concept is extremely important when trying to understand the world around us. It makes the "people are just not rational" aspect irrelevant - evolution in the long run is rational, or rather mindlessly testing all the relevant strategies, so we still need Game Theory to figure out which strategies will be the most likely to prevail.
game theory wouldn't be interesting if it was the study of the actions of perfect bayesian reasoners. that's the whole point, studying where we DON'T make the purely rational choice and why. Exposing cognitive bias is very important for every field of science.
Then I might just have been unlucky with the game theory talks that I've heard. Most dealt with endless variants of the prisoners dilemma: in space, non-absolute, stochastic, with and without memory.
All seemed a bit too abstract for what we would actually encounter irl
see http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=1518&aid=-1 for an example of this. The result seems to be an outcome of people only thinking one step ahead, and those thinking superrational (i.e. estimating how much steps ahead people will be thinking, and chosing according to that).
Philosophy (reading transcript 23 now as well) might in general be more useful to a human mind then some theoretical system on how a non-existant optimal human would behave.
Just read it. It's nice I think, especially if you've never been exposed to the ideas in there and if you are willing to seriously consider the questions raised. I'd rate it as more useful than game theory by far.