I need to answer Swami who says
I find your statement about economists and their theories of rational behaviour so odd, that I don’t believe it.
If economists are so mathematical in their analysis of society, of what good could their theories be?
I also need to answer Shrikanth who says
Why don’t conservatives use a similar logic vis-a vis political issue?. Right Wingers keep asserting ad-nauseum that terrorism is indefensible. But they are almost always unwilling to investigate the psychology of the
terrorist or seriously reexamine foreign policies that might be sowing the seeds of terror.
Am I seeing a contradiction of views here?What’s your take?
(Read the post for the original context in both cases.)
I will do so sometime. But readers’ thoughts are welcome.
Awaiting your reply.
What’s intriguing is that there’s a contradiction in the views of both conservatives and liberals in this regard.
A liberal typically shows consideration for the other side’s POV on political issues, but is inconsiderate when it comes to appreciating the compulsions of a law-breaking businessman.
Likewise, a conservative takes a hard obdurate line on issues of politics , but is more than willing to lend a sympathetic ear to the hardships faced by entrepreneurs!
This contradiction did not exist in the nineteenth century.Way back then, the liberals,true to their apellation, championed freedom in both political and economic spheres. The conservatives were the ones who supported protectionism and were notorious war mongers.
If you play pirates puzzle by logic then the outcome will be that each person will get around 50% of the coins. That is a rational choice if you allow the players to maximise their take.
Economists have long moved away from ‘rational’ choices. It is only the ideological, fanatic types who stick to them even contrary to studies. In fact many ‘free market’ policies have turned out be harmful as evidenced from many studies. In most cases the policies are not backed by any good acdemic evidence. My guess is that swami already knew it and was just being rhetorical.
Shrikanthk you know the answer to your questions. If not, follow the money.
People, people! Getting ahead of ourselves aren’t we? One needs to make clearly understand the situation the puzzle is actually modeling. If Mukesh offers Anil one coin, then he can be sure that little brother is going to make life hell for him. For Mukesh, this is likely to be worse than giving his kid brother all the money.
So if you were trying to incorporate this aspect into the game, then you would probably have Mukesh dying by a thousand cuts if they were unable to settle. The outcomes change and you may have a model that’s a little closer to reality. Needless to point out, there are always more sophistications you could think of.
The point here is that
1. You need to be VERY careful when modeling reality with a simple game.
2. Beware the social scientist who tries to hold forth on reality. He’s either severely blinkered, deeply disingenuous or there’s a lot more (s)he isn’t telling you.