Sep 06 2007
Fun at Voxution
Voxpop : Evolution and game theory
In Vox’s post he criticizes evolutionary theorists use of game theory as a means to describe evolution. I do agree with Vox that many people who are enthusiastic of evolution do so in inappropriate (and I’m sure I’ve been a culprit) ways and game theory is most likely one of them. However, in Vox’s post the Christian blindness can be seen in that he unconsciously assumes evolutionary theorists assume an agent behind the process that produces complex organisms. He also assumes typical Human arrogance in declaring that other animals are incapable of thinking.
Voxpost states - “The fact that Darwinists are making this assumption of rational action in the case of plants and animals instead of humans only makes their theories look even more absurd”
Voxcomment - “…I am aware that no Darwinist believes intelligence drives evolution, they believe Natural Selection does.”
It’s safe to say that since we have reached a point were we can virtually eliminate the pressures nature presents, we’ve reached the end of a long evolutionary chain. The puzzling question is why the majority of Humans aren’t concerned with (hopefully) our future generations. I almost envy people who believe in heaven, what a burden it would remove from my mind.
Robert Sutton | 
| 08.31.07 - 2:51 pm |
“are making the same mistake as the macroeconomists and game theoreticians in assuming perfectly rational decision makers.” - Vox
What is the meaning of “perfectly rational” here? I mean, is it logical and assuming a great knowledge on the subject, that people or groups will tend to make the same or similar decisions in a given situation (or make the same/similar assumptions).
I can understand how the outcome might be different than expectations, as economics is just one of the disciplines, and relying solely on that is kind of expecting a mechanic that specializes solely on tune-ups to state the likely performance of a vehicle, failing to take into account the tread wear, bearing greasing, torque, gear ratios, etc..
I told a friend of mine who specializes in economics, and is pretty good with currency trading (and would be rich if he would keep to his formula instead of being overly aggressive), the problems that would likely be encountered if the Fed raised rates during the summer of last year. He looked at me like I was mad, the reality of which is beside the point, and when I went through the other reasons why (outside of economics), he said it was logical but that he would have to disagree because he would stick with the economics. Low and behold, we are very near the risk of stagflation, and while the housing market wasn’t itself the bulk of the economy, the areas of lending, selling, and buying were strongly attached and could (have) provided for a set of predictable repercussions that were not predictable outside of pure economics (the beginning of a dynamic shift outside the scope of most existing generalized models, but which could have easily been incorporated).
If you are speaking of “rational” in the economic definition, then I would agree. In the bigger picture though, people are simply not all that mysterious or cognizant. You would figure that a people that, for a large part, are programmed through their experiences, might be a little more aware that the equivalent of a virus, backdoor, or hole might be part and parcel with their brain, or that reprogramming, oh, maybe for passivity or for a kill switch on action, might be present. The higher the IQ, the faster it can be processed, though the more subtle it must be.
David Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 7:17 pm |
