What are your motives for learning about it? If it’s to gain a bare-bones understanding sufficient for following discussion in Less Wrong, existing Less Wrong articles would probably equip you well enough.
It’s a little bit intuition and might turn out to be daft, but
a) I’ve read just enough about game theory in the past to know what the prisoner’s dilemma is
b) I was reading an argument/discussion on another blog about the men chatting up women, who may or may not be interested, scenario, and various discussions on irc with MixedNuts have given me the feeling that male/female interactions (which are obviously an area of central interest to feminism) are a similar class of thing and possibly game theory will help me understand said feminism and/or opposition to it.
A word of warning: you will probably draw all sorts of wacky conclusions about human interaction when first dabbling with game theory. There is huge potential for hatching beliefs that you may later regret expressing, especially on politically-charged subjects.
I also had the same intuition about male/female dynamics and the prisoner’s dilemma. It also seems like a lot of men’s behavior towards women is a result of a scarcity mentality. Surely there are some economic models that explain how people behave—especially their bad behavior—when they feel some product is scarce, and if these models were applied to male/female dynamics it might predict some behavior.
But since feminism is such a mind-killing topic, I wouldn’t feel too comfortable expressing alternative explanations (especially among non-rationalists) since people tend to feel that if you disagree with the explanation then you disagree with the normative goals.
It also seems like a lot of men’s behavior towards women is a result of a scarcity mentality. Surely there are some economic models that explain how people behave—especially their bad behavior—when they feel some product is scarce, and if these models were applied to male/female dynamics it might predict some behavior.
One model which I’ve seen come up repeatedly in the humanities is the “marriage market”. Unsurprisingly, economists seem to use this idea most often in the literature, but peeking through the Google Scholar hits I see demographers, sociologists, and historians too. (At least one political philosopher uses the idea too.)
I don’t know how predictive these models are. I haven’t done a systematic review or anything remotely close to one, but when I’ve seen the marriage market metaphor used it’s usually to explain an observation after the fact. Here is a specific example I spotted in Randall Collins’s book ″Violence: A Micro-sociological Theory″. On pages 149 & 150 Collins offers this gloss on an escalating case of domestic violence:
It appears that the husband’s occupational status is rising relative to his wife’s; in this social class, their socializing is likely to be with the man’s professional associates (Kanter 1977), and thus it is when she is in the presence of his professional peers that he belittles her, and it is in regard to what he perceives as her faulty self-presentation in these situations that he begins to engage in tirades at home. He is becoming relatively stronger socially, and she is coming to accept that relationship. Then he escalates his power advantage, as the momentum of verbal tirades flows into physical violence.
A sociological interpretation of the overall pattern is that within the first two years of their marriage, the man has discovered that he is in an improving position on the interactional market relative to his wife; since he apparently does not want to leave his wife, or seek additional partners, he uses his implicit market power to demand greater subservience from his wife in their own personal and sexual relationships. Blau’s (1964) principle applies here: the person with a weaker exchange position can compensate by subservience. [...] In effect, they are trying out how their bargaining resources will be turned into ongoing roles: he is learning techniques of building his emotional momentum as dominator, she is learning to be a victim.
(Digression: Collins calls this a sociological interpretation, but I usually associate this kind of bargaining power-based explanation with microeconomics or game theory, not sociology. Perhaps I should expand my idea of what constitutes sociology. After all, Collins is a sociologist, and he has partly melded the bargaining power-based explanation with his own micro-sociological theory of violence.)
Collins calls this a sociological interpretation, but I usually associate this kind of bargaining power-based explanation with microeconomics or game theory, not sociology. Perhaps I should expand my idea of what constitutes sociology.
All sciences are describing various aspects of the reality, but there is one reality, and all these aspects are connected. Asking whether some explanation belongs to science X or science Y is useful when we want to find the best tools to deal with it; but the more important question is whether the explanation is true or false; how well it predicts reality.
Some applied topics may be considered by various sciences to be in their (extended) territory. For example, I have seen game theory considered a part of a) mathematics, b) economy, and c) psychology. I guess the mechanism itself is mathematical, and it has important economical and psychological consequences, so it is usefull for all of them to know about it.
There may be the case that one outcome is influenced by many factors, and the different factors are best explained by different sciences. For example, some aspects of relationships in marriage can be explained by biology, psychology, economics, sociology, perhaps even theology when the people are religious. Then it is good to check across all sciences to see whether we didn’t miss some important factor. But the goal would be to create the best model, not to pick the favourite explanation. (The best model would include all relevant factors, but relatively to their strength.)
Trying to focus on one science only… I guess it is trying to influence the outcome; motivated thinking. For example if someone decides to ignore the biology and only focus on sociology, that already makes it obvious what kind of answer they want to get. And if someone decides to ignore the sociology and only focus on biology, that also makes it obvious. But the real question should be how specifically do both biological and sociological aspect influence the result.
Asking whether some explanation belongs to science X or science Y is useful when we want to find the best tools to deal with it; but the more important question is whether the explanation is true or false; how well it predicts reality.
Indeed. Still, I want my mental models/stereotypes of different sciences to roughly match what scientists in those different fields are actually doing.
What are your motives for learning about it? If it’s to gain a bare-bones understanding sufficient for following discussion in Less Wrong, existing Less Wrong articles would probably equip you well enough.
My possibly crazy theory is that game theory would be a good way to understand feminism.
OK, I’m interested. Can you explain a little more?
It’s a little bit intuition and might turn out to be daft, but
a) I’ve read just enough about game theory in the past to know what the prisoner’s dilemma is
b) I was reading an argument/discussion on another blog about the men chatting up women, who may or may not be interested, scenario, and various discussions on irc with MixedNuts have given me the feeling that male/female interactions (which are obviously an area of central interest to feminism) are a similar class of thing and possibly game theory will help me understand said feminism and/or opposition to it.
A word of warning: you will probably draw all sorts of wacky conclusions about human interaction when first dabbling with game theory. There is huge potential for hatching beliefs that you may later regret expressing, especially on politically-charged subjects.
I also had the same intuition about male/female dynamics and the prisoner’s dilemma. It also seems like a lot of men’s behavior towards women is a result of a scarcity mentality. Surely there are some economic models that explain how people behave—especially their bad behavior—when they feel some product is scarce, and if these models were applied to male/female dynamics it might predict some behavior.
But since feminism is such a mind-killing topic, I wouldn’t feel too comfortable expressing alternative explanations (especially among non-rationalists) since people tend to feel that if you disagree with the explanation then you disagree with the normative goals.
One model which I’ve seen come up repeatedly in the humanities is the “marriage market”. Unsurprisingly, economists seem to use this idea most often in the literature, but peeking through the Google Scholar hits I see demographers, sociologists, and historians too. (At least one political philosopher uses the idea too.)
I don’t know how predictive these models are. I haven’t done a systematic review or anything remotely close to one, but when I’ve seen the marriage market metaphor used it’s usually to explain an observation after the fact. Here is a specific example I spotted in Randall Collins’s book ″Violence: A Micro-sociological Theory″. On pages 149 & 150 Collins offers this gloss on an escalating case of domestic violence:
(Digression: Collins calls this a sociological interpretation, but I usually associate this kind of bargaining power-based explanation with microeconomics or game theory, not sociology. Perhaps I should expand my idea of what constitutes sociology. After all, Collins is a sociologist, and he has partly melded the bargaining power-based explanation with his own micro-sociological theory of violence.)
All sciences are describing various aspects of the reality, but there is one reality, and all these aspects are connected. Asking whether some explanation belongs to science X or science Y is useful when we want to find the best tools to deal with it; but the more important question is whether the explanation is true or false; how well it predicts reality.
Some applied topics may be considered by various sciences to be in their (extended) territory. For example, I have seen game theory considered a part of a) mathematics, b) economy, and c) psychology. I guess the mechanism itself is mathematical, and it has important economical and psychological consequences, so it is usefull for all of them to know about it.
There may be the case that one outcome is influenced by many factors, and the different factors are best explained by different sciences. For example, some aspects of relationships in marriage can be explained by biology, psychology, economics, sociology, perhaps even theology when the people are religious. Then it is good to check across all sciences to see whether we didn’t miss some important factor. But the goal would be to create the best model, not to pick the favourite explanation. (The best model would include all relevant factors, but relatively to their strength.)
Trying to focus on one science only… I guess it is trying to influence the outcome; motivated thinking. For example if someone decides to ignore the biology and only focus on sociology, that already makes it obvious what kind of answer they want to get. And if someone decides to ignore the sociology and only focus on biology, that also makes it obvious. But the real question should be how specifically do both biological and sociological aspect influence the result.
Indeed. Still, I want my mental models/stereotypes of different sciences to roughly match what scientists in those different fields are actually doing.