Society & Culture - Posted by James Devitt-NYU on Wednesday, March 16, 2011 14:07 - 2 Comments 
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Is choice just a mind game?
Game theory models are common in the sciences and social sciences, but have been only sporadically applied to the humanities, with mathematical calculations of strategic choice seen as irrelevant to the worlds of literature, history, and philosophy. (Credit: NYU)
NYU (US) — By illuminating rational choice, game theory can expound on strategic questions in the humanities made by characters in a range of texts that include the Bible and Joseph Heller’s Catch-22.
Share this article
Email
Republish this article
The text of this article by Futurity is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License.
In Game Theory and the Humanities: Bridging Two Worlds, Steven Brams, professor of politics at New York University, helps the reader relate characters’ goals to their choices and the consequences of those choices.
Game theory models are common in the sciences and social sciences, Brams says, but have been only sporadically applied to the humanities, with mathematical calculations of strategic choice seen as irrelevant to the worlds of literature, history, law, and philosophy.
Much of his analysis is based on the gradual development and application of the theory of moves, which is grounded in game theory and highlights the dynamics of player choice, including misperceptions, deceptions, and uses of different kinds of power.
Brams examines such topics as the outcome and payoff matrix of Pascal’s wager on the existence of God; the strategic games played by presidents and Supreme Court justices; frustration games, as illustrated by the strategic use of sexual abstinence in Aristophanes’s Lysistrata; and how information is slowly uncovered in the game played by Hamlet and Claudius.
More news from NYU: www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/
Please wait
2 Comments
I really hope not.
The application of game theory to the humanities is interesting as far as it goes, but humans play games for evolutionary purposes, and as far as I can tell, the relationship between these purposes and game theory consequences is not adequately explained here, other than that consequence is seen as the intended purpose, when it’s not that simple. Game theory hasn’t recognized the extent to which games switch strategies when the short term consequences then tie into to those expected by our human programming for the longer term. In short most social and other scientists don’t believe in evolutionary purposes as fundamental to the functioning of our behavioral and cultural strategies.