tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post3235773215101637337..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Real-life examplesLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-44676282336080846182008-03-29T08:10:00.000-06:002008-03-29T08:10:00.000-06:00Alonzo: Could clarify a point for me? I'm not sure...<B>Alonzo:</B> Could clarify a point for me? I'm not sure if you're maintaining that Game Theory to be too complicated or too simple.<BR/><BR/><B>John</B>: The idea that some strategies — any strategies — do indeed solve problems would seem to entail some form of game theory.<BR/><BR/>As a philosopher, I'm looking for essential examples that are paradigmatic examples of how to interpret an analytical schema. I certainly do <I>not</I> think that one must shoehorn every ethical issue into a perfect Prisoner's Dilemma game.<BR/><BR/>PD is interesting because of its interpretive characteristics, specifically that what we naively think a self-interested person would choose leads to what we naively believe to be the worst outcome, not the best.<BR/><BR/>Any time our naive concepts seem so confused, I think we're looking at some area where logical analysis can give us something really new.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-11165717511059036692008-03-29T04:50:00.000-06:002008-03-29T04:50:00.000-06:00I just want to clarify that I too don't mean to se...I just want to clarify that I too don't mean to seem wholly critical.<BR/><BR/>I find you an interesting writer but don't tend to post purely approbative comments. I think the blogosphere would be the poorer for your absence.<BR/><BR/>Impartially, I hazard to opine that Alonzo had no need to point out other strategies could solve your example; it is not in dispute that game theory addresses it and that was what was requested.<BR/>I guess he did so to emphasise his evaluation that, at best, this approach is of limited utility.John Moraleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16354725997954085678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-86782515621259023632008-03-28T20:28:00.000-06:002008-03-28T20:28:00.000-06:00Game theory assumes you can quantify benefit (or a...<I>Game theory assumes you can quantify benefit (or at least create a less-than ordering of benefits) before you start the analysis.</I><BR/><BR/>How do you quantify ethical merit, and make relative comparisons? Do you build absolutes into your model? (Is theft always wrong? Do the means justify the end?)<BR/>The difficulties in achieving such codification seem endless.<BR/><BR/>I define ethics as the set of axioms and rules on which you make choices about what is right and wrong. This is essentially prescriptive, so yes, when faced with a moral choice, I <I>ought</I> to do as my ethical system dictates.<BR/>I <I>ought</I> to behave so as to avoid future ethical problems.<BR/><BR/>I won't go as far as Alonzo, but I don't think you've supported that games theory can be generally applied to ethics.<BR/><BR/>I think your case would better be made for decision theory; it would certainly apply to many more situations.John Moraleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16354725997954085678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-34321307094369443512008-03-28T19:58:00.000-06:002008-03-28T19:58:00.000-06:00Perhaps I over-reacted.Bygones, ok?Perhaps I over-reacted.<BR/><BR/>Bygones, ok?Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-84665425209712480462008-03-28T19:40:00.000-06:002008-03-28T19:40:00.000-06:00barefoot bumYou know, I was worried about whether ...<B>barefoot bum</B><BR/><BR/>You know, I was worried about whether my comment might end up conveying an unintended attitude. When I wrote it, it sounded in my brain like light-hearted banter.<BR/><BR/>I guess my brain must be out of tune today.<BR/><BR/>Any snooty arrogance was unintended. You are, and for a long time have been, one of my favorite writers.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-43888711810516120382008-03-28T18:14:00.000-06:002008-03-28T18:14:00.000-06:00John: if the goal of the game is to maximise overa...John: <I>if the goal of the game is to maximise overall benefit to the player.</I><BR/><BR/>Game theory takes the notion of "overall benefit" as an input, as a parameter. Game theory assumes you can quantify benefit (or at least create a less-than ordering of benefits) before you start the analysis.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't matter what you call this "benefit".<BR/><BR/>One of the ways I suspect Alonzo and I fundamentally differ is that I consider ethics to be the study of how to maximize getting what we already want, whereas Alonzo seems (as best I can understand) to view ethics as how to determine what we <I>should</I> want. I don't think the latter view is tenable, because there's no neutral perspective from which we can consider desires.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-77269727968814487252008-03-28T17:56:00.000-06:002008-03-28T17:56:00.000-06:00However, this merely represents an instance of a b...<I>However, this merely represents an instance of a bandwagon fallacy. The question is whether they have good reason to do so.<BR/><BR/>They do not.</I><BR/><BR/>The snotty arrogance does not suit you. Don't move the goalposts like a theist.<BR/><BR/>And you and I have been talking for years (I was SingleDad at IIDB). You can call me Larry.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-8538866629558710312008-03-28T17:52:00.000-06:002008-03-28T17:52:00.000-06:00Thank you.A good example showing how choices can b...Thank you.<BR/><BR/>A good example showing how choices can be considered game-theoretically - if the goal of the game is to maximise overall benefit to the player.<BR/><BR/>But surely the goal of the game should be to maximise the ethical outcome, for which an existing ethical framework seems necessary.<BR/><BR/>I still don't see how you could apply game theory to <I>ethical</I> decisions in general (unless you're an Objectivist :) rather than cost-benefit.<BR/><BR/>Some ethical choices are not about self-benefit - for example, at what level of payoff would you risk your life for another's? Game-theoretically, I would suggest you wouldn't do it for no payoff.<BR/><BR/>I note <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory" REL="nofollow">decision theory</A> encompasses game theory.John Moraleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16354725997954085678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-34530496305053233762008-03-28T15:58:00.000-06:002008-03-28T15:58:00.000-06:00Mr. Bum.I am well aware that a lot of people think...Mr. Bum.<BR/><BR/>I am well aware that a lot of people think that game theory has interesting implications for ethics. However, this merely represents an instance of a bandwagon fallacy. The question is whether they have good reason to do so.<BR/><BR/>They do not.<BR/><BR/>As I mentioned in my previous post, PD situations are highly contrived and ignore many real-world facts that are morally relevant, such as variable pay-offs, the possibility of anonymous defection, the possibility of deception, and the possibility of affecting desires.<BR/><BR/>I can handle the restaurant scenario above far easier without involving game theory. What happens if we raise our children so that they simply acquire a desire for cooperation or an aversion to defection?<BR/><BR/>If we look at your original account from Wednesday's post, and raise children so they assign 2 units of value to cooperation itself, then the value of cooperation increases from 3.3 to 5.3,and exceeds the value of defection. We solve the same problem without any of the complexities of game theory.<BR/><BR/>You say that your restaurant visitor is 'better off' not paying for his meal. However, that depends on what he values. Give the restaurant person an aversion to defecting on a trade. Just as he might, for example, pay $100 to avoid a certain amount of pain, he is also willing to pay $1000 to avoid the psychological discomfort of theft. Now, he has a reason to pay - again, without bringing in any of the complexities of game theory.<BR/><BR/>If you approach the problems that game theory is supposed to handle in this way, you not only avoid the problems of game theory, but it avoids the problems of game theory. There is no problem with anonymous defection, because the agent gains nothing by defecting. There is no problem with varying payoffs, again, because (with a sufficiently strong moral motivation), cooperation will always have more value than defection. By instilling a sufficiently strong aversion to deception, we can avoid the problems that the possibility of deception has for game theory options.<BR/><BR/>Game theory is an interesting numbers game, and it even has real-world application in some extreme and highly unusual circumstances (where payoffs get extremely large). However, it is not a part of day-to-day morality.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.com