| This paper is funny if you actually understand game theory because you can see how the author either chose to withhold key applicable information for applied game theory or inadequately researched famous game theory principles and developments. This is a much easier and more realistic introduction to game theory principles: https://ncase.me/trust/ Game theory is often explained as a math problem involving humans and a specific scenario that requires a choice, from humans. The scenarios are fun thought experiments and about as useful as the famous trolley problem [1][2] In reality humans have many more variables affecting decisions than the pure rational equations can clearly define. Often the undefined variables are within the context of communication theory and reputation or auditing systems. In the case of the famous prisoners dilemma, the real solution is establishing a secret out of band communication channel prior to the dilemma, alongside a known reputation and retaliation penalty for abusing the mutual trust.[3] [4] The famous "tragedy of the commons" rational resource optimization game is often cited as justification for machiavellian exploitation, yet humans being social creatures are subject to reputations, and have sophisticated communication, cooperation, and retaliation abilities.
[4] Elinor Ostrom's "Rules, games, and common-pool resources" and Robert Axelrod's work "The Evolution of Cooperation" both explain game theory in the context of human scale realities. Of particular interest to the hacker community would be Ostrom's Common Pool Resource principles, which are applicable to adhoc decentralized communities. :) At the core of game theory, and human civilization is communication and trust. The abuse of mass media to manipulate populations knows the power of communication and cultural narratives, and we're witnessing what's often described in terms such as "hypernormalization" or "accelerationism" [6][7][8][9] For a better applicable human scale game theory primer, check out Bruce Schneier's (yes, the same legendary cryptographer Bruce), "Liars and Outliers" https://www.schneier.com/books/liars-and-outliers [1] https://medium.com/@sarabizarro/the-trolley-problem-now-903a... [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/trolleyproblem/top/?sort=top&t=all [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qjK3TWZE8 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom#Design_principle... [5] https://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/amusing-ourselves-to-dea... Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" [6] on Cybernetics and the 20th century "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace" by Adam Curtis https://thoughtmaybe.com/all-watched-over-by-machines-of-lov... [7] on propaganda and 20th century culture "The Century of the Self" by Adam Curtis https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-century-of-the-self/ [8] on the hyperreal news and the use of crisis to manipulate populations "Hypernormalization" by Adam Curtis https://thoughtmaybe.com/hypernormalisation/ [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism |
Anyway, to address your comment, just on a very basic level, Phillipa Foot's "Trolley Problem" is unequivocally not a game theoretic problem. It's in the family of ethical "no-win" puzzles a la "Sophie's Choice" and has little to do with the actual study of game theoretic strategies, outcomes, and equillibria. The "Tragedy of the Commons" is also not game theoretic. There have been some attempts at turning it into an iterated game (in the formal sense), but -- again -- it's not technically a game theoretic problem, and rather a question on social policy. Elinor Ostrom famously provided a non-game theoretic solution to the Tragedy, so bringing her up is just confusing.
> At the core of game theory, and human civilization is communication and trust. The abuse of mass media to manipulate populations knows the power of communication and cultural narratives, and we're witnessing what's often described in terms such as "hypernormalization" or "accelerationism"
And I have no idea what the hell this means. It looks like gibberish and has nothing to do with the (relatively narrow) scope of Game Theory as a field.