Skeptic Project

Appropriate applications are mostly in the realm of complete information games. I focus on IR so I'll give you some IR examples.

In cases of nuclear deterence, states know all the outcomes of possible choices and they also know what information is available to the other state. In these cases, game theory works well. Each state knows what the other state knows for this specific crises, and thus a good estimation of what will happen can be made. game theory, in this case, is a good tool for policy makers to put themself in position. Its almost like forcing the game to be played. By laying out the options, plainly, for the other player, you make them more predictable.

The Yom Kippur war, however, is an example of inappropriate application. Since Israel didn't have a total set of information of what Syrian and Egyptian forces were doing, they played the game wrongly. They assumed that the military movements of the other actors would follow the same pattern it had before. They assumed that Egypt and Syria understood that the cost of invasion was too high. This incomplete information game lead to war because Israel played the game wrongly.

There are a lot of micro-economic applications too, but I'm no econ major.

I hope this post is clear. I haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet. :/

Well, chance is definitely governed by variations of game theory. But this is what I mean by game theory being a good estimate, but not precise. The correct application is anytime an actor can be assumed to be reasonably rational and able to understand information. If they don't, we can't predict their behavior. And in IR, nothing is 100% certain, we're just trying to figure out where to play our cards. So would game theory work on a totally psycho-path dictator? Not perfectly, but if you can figure out how he processes information, you can maybe set up a game that will control a situation. The way that game theory works is when relevent information is processed normally. Now, how do you play with someone who has no idea what other actors are doing?

In IR anyway. I mean, the stakes are pretty high for sure. And again, in non-Realist IR game theory is only a first step. Most, if not all states, can be assumed to be partially rational. And we can figure out a great majority of what information is available to the relevent actors. But from there, it becomes much more difficult. Again, I don't think Game Theory should ever be the only tool. You're right,if you played the game and only used that, you'd get fucked 80% of the time. At least in the complex games. Things like the prisoner's dillema work a little nicer because 1) there is less relevent information necessary to play the game and 2) there are fewer actors and variables. I'm just tryin to get across (hopefully coherently) that Game Theory is applicable as a good rough sketch but not as a perfect model.

No, that makes sense. Perhaps the failures of relying only on Game Theory allows policy makers to treat it with more skepticism.

Clearly, Game Theory is not a zero-sum game like Curtis portrayed it as.

THANK U FOR THE EDUMACATION

This thread illustrates that no matter how free information becomes on the Internet, it will never trump academic rigour.

Interesting, I didn't know IR was such an in-depth field.