In short, I think I’ve entirely missed the point of why it’s useful to speculate about the behavior of hypothetical people whose behavior differs so significantly from what we see in actual people.
Note that I called Linda and Logan agents, not people. I’m not entirely confident that that no person would act like Linda and Logan, but surely no human person would.
I kinda feel like you’re asking “why is this branch of math useful at all?” and that’s fair enough, but I’m happy for this particular post not to try to answer it. (And I’m not going to try to answer it in the comments either, but maybe someone else will.)
Ah, thanks for clarifying. You’re writing for an audience who has their own reasons for wanting to speculate about agents instead of people, and I lack such reasons. That’s why I missed the point :)
Note that I called Linda and Logan agents, not people. I’m not entirely confident that that no person would act like Linda and Logan, but surely no human person would.
I kinda feel like you’re asking “why is this branch of math useful at all?” and that’s fair enough, but I’m happy for this particular post not to try to answer it. (And I’m not going to try to answer it in the comments either, but maybe someone else will.)
Ah, thanks for clarifying. You’re writing for an audience who has their own reasons for wanting to speculate about agents instead of people, and I lack such reasons. That’s why I missed the point :)