Human acts within these games are means to
achieving ends but the ends are improbable in their finality. The means
are segments of "strategies": prescient and omniscient renditions of
the possible moves of all the players. Aside from the fact that it
involves mnemic causation (direct and deterministic influence by past
events) and a similar influence by the utility function (which really
pertains to the future) - it is highly implausible.
Additionally, Game Theory is mired in an internal contradiction: on the
one hand it solemnly teaches us that the psychology of the players is
absolutely of no consequence. On the other, it hastens to explicitly
and axiomatically postulate their rationality and implicitly (and no
less axiomatically) their benefit-seeking behaviour (though this aspect
is much more muted). This leads to absolutely outlandish results:
irrational behaviour leads to total cooperation, bounded rationality
leads to more realistic patterns of cooperation and competition
(coopetition) and an unmitigated rational behaviour leads to disaster
(also known as Paretto dominated outcomes).
Moreover, Game Theory refuses to acknowledge that real games are
dynamic, not static.
Pages:
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198