Can game theory predict when Iran will get the bomb?
August 19, 2009 6:57 PM Subscribe
Can game theory predict when Iran will get the bomb? Bruce Bueno de Mesquita thinks yes. (Previously)
Yay for spam!
As for something actually, you know, related to the post, I don't think anyone can accurately predict when Iran will get the bomb. But it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
posted by DMan at 7:14 PM on August 19, 2009
As for something actually, you know, related to the post, I don't think anyone can accurately predict when Iran will get the bomb. But it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
posted by DMan at 7:14 PM on August 19, 2009
I recently read a comment over at gin&tacos characterizing game theory as more adequately describing the reasoning of paranoid schizophrenics than the reasoning of normal people, while noting that many game theorists suffered from mental illness or were, in fact, paranoid schizophrenics. The comment concluded that game theory is an excellent way of predicting the behavior of other game theorists all trying to solve a problem related to game theory.
So to the extent that Iran behaves like a paranoid schizophrenic, I'm willing to believe this.
posted by logicpunk at 7:18 PM on August 19, 2009 [6 favorites]
So to the extent that Iran behaves like a paranoid schizophrenic, I'm willing to believe this.
posted by logicpunk at 7:18 PM on August 19, 2009 [6 favorites]
now declassified, found that Bueno de Mesquita’s predictions “hit the bull’s-eye” twice as often as its [the C.I.A.'s] own analysts did.
Unfortunately, their analysts were all wrong, all the time.
posted by Lemurrhea at 7:22 PM on August 19, 2009
Unfortunately, their analysts were all wrong, all the time.
posted by Lemurrhea at 7:22 PM on August 19, 2009
Unfortunately, their analysts were all wrong, all the time.
Not quite, but I can imagine "twice as often as its [the C.I.A.'s] own analysts" could still be way short of 50% success.
posted by wendell at 7:32 PM on August 19, 2009
Not quite, but I can imagine "twice as often as its [the C.I.A.'s] own analysts" could still be way short of 50% success.
posted by wendell at 7:32 PM on August 19, 2009
Let me know when he can predict who will win the fifth race Tuesday at Santa Anita.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:41 PM on August 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:41 PM on August 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
Can he predict whether or not I will still get wifi signal from inside my lead-lined bomb shelter? I'll need my post-apocalypse MeFi fix.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:43 PM on August 19, 2009
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:43 PM on August 19, 2009
Meanwhile, Intrade has Iran getting the bomb in 2009 at 5 and in 2010 at 25. Those numbers square reasonably well with de Mesquita's prediction: some noise and movement toward a bomb but ultimately unlikely to come to fruition.
The article mentions a spreadsheet, but the data sets on de Mesquita's NYU page are for Stata, which makes a lot more sense.
posted by jedicus at 7:48 PM on August 19, 2009
The article mentions a spreadsheet, but the data sets on de Mesquita's NYU page are for Stata, which makes a lot more sense.
posted by jedicus at 7:48 PM on August 19, 2009
Can game theory predict when game theorists will realize that humans are fundamentally capricious, spiteful, ignorant, and unpredictable?
posted by Dr.Enormous at 7:49 PM on August 19, 2009
posted by Dr.Enormous at 7:49 PM on August 19, 2009
I recently read a comment over at gin&tacos characterizing game theory as more adequately describing the reasoning of paranoid schizophrenics than the reasoning of normal people, while noting that many game theorists suffered from mental illness or were, in fact, paranoid schizophrenics. The comment concluded that game theory is an excellent way of predicting the behavior of other game theorists all trying to solve a problem related to game theory.
The interesting thing about simulation is that entire worlds are created and destroyed, created and destroyed, until the simulator's criterion is met. It seems God-like, in a sense. If one takes a Gnostic view of the world, God might be a crazy game theorist, simulating whole universes for fun and profit. I wonder who his CIA would be.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:51 PM on August 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
The interesting thing about simulation is that entire worlds are created and destroyed, created and destroyed, until the simulator's criterion is met. It seems God-like, in a sense. If one takes a Gnostic view of the world, God might be a crazy game theorist, simulating whole universes for fun and profit. I wonder who his CIA would be.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:51 PM on August 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
"[H]e pulled out his beat-up I.B.M. laptop — so old that the lettering on the A, S, D and E keys was worn off"
Well, we already know we're not dealing with a straight shooter; anyone remapping WASD to EASD already has a screw loose...
posted by pwnguin at 7:54 PM on August 19, 2009 [4 favorites]
Well, we already know we're not dealing with a straight shooter; anyone remapping WASD to EASD already has a screw loose...
posted by pwnguin at 7:54 PM on August 19, 2009 [4 favorites]
Wow, that sounds surprisingly much like psychohistory to me.
Alas, but Mr. de Mesquita failed to take into account... The Mule!
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:07 PM on August 19, 2009
Alas, but Mr. de Mesquita failed to take into account... The Mule!
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:07 PM on August 19, 2009
He says that he doesn't predict the stock market - "but it isn't going up any time soon". If de Mesquita really knew which way the market would go he could buy options on that index which would pay off. The video is dated February 2009, close to the Dow Jones' index low of 6400. Now, six months later, that index is at 9200. De Mesquita was remarkably, embarrassingly wrong. He's lucky that he makes his money from lectures rather than investments.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:24 PM on August 19, 2009
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:24 PM on August 19, 2009
Can game theory predict when Iran will get the bomb?
No, but its credulous application can help predict who's most likely to fuck you over given half a chance. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita just made the list.
Game Theory's a childish tautology, but an insidious one. The more people within a system who actually believe it applies, the more it does apply. Which I guess makes sense, since it's basically just, as logicpunk said, an attempt to rationalize solipsistic paranoia.
posted by regicide is good for you at 8:33 PM on August 19, 2009
No, but its credulous application can help predict who's most likely to fuck you over given half a chance. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita just made the list.
Game Theory's a childish tautology, but an insidious one. The more people within a system who actually believe it applies, the more it does apply. Which I guess makes sense, since it's basically just, as logicpunk said, an attempt to rationalize solipsistic paranoia.
posted by regicide is good for you at 8:33 PM on August 19, 2009
Let me know when he can predict who will win the fifth race Tuesday at Santa Anita.
Look at the odds. The one with the best odds is the one predicted to win.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:16 PM on August 19, 2009
Look at the odds. The one with the best odds is the one predicted to win.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:16 PM on August 19, 2009
In my experience, "game theorist" is a fancy-pants term for "beanplater."
posted by rokusan at 9:41 PM on August 19, 2009
posted by rokusan at 9:41 PM on August 19, 2009
Game theory (and rational-choice theories more broadly) works quite well for situations where you can appeal to some force that, over the medium or long term, drives out actors who don't behave optimally and strategically.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:32 PM on August 19, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:32 PM on August 19, 2009 [3 favorites]
the way he gives numbered ratings to Ahmadinejad reminds me of the player ratings for madden football...
posted by John Presley at 11:28 PM on August 19, 2009
posted by John Presley at 11:28 PM on August 19, 2009
So I can safely throw away this ken binmore book I got without reading it, game theory is all hogwash, then?
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 12:39 AM on August 20, 2009
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 12:39 AM on August 20, 2009
So I can safely throw away this ken binmore book I got without reading it, game theory is all hogwash, then?
That depends. Will everyone else be throwing it away?
posted by srboisvert at 4:36 AM on August 20, 2009 [6 favorites]
That depends. Will everyone else be throwing it away?
posted by srboisvert at 4:36 AM on August 20, 2009 [6 favorites]
So to the extent that Iran behaves like a paranoid schizophrenic, I'm willing to believe this.
Well that's kind of the point, if you think of all the players involved in the outcome as a collective entity, isn't it?
posted by samsara at 4:41 AM on August 20, 2009
Well that's kind of the point, if you think of all the players involved in the outcome as a collective entity, isn't it?
posted by samsara at 4:41 AM on August 20, 2009
Can game theory predict when game theorists will realize that humans are fundamentally capricious, spiteful, ignorant, and unpredictable
Unfortunately, this seems to be all Game Theory does. (From my limited knowledge).
The Adam Curtis documentary The Trap discussed this, and to be honest, it not only tied Game Theory inextricably in my mind to the American Right, but it freaked me the fuck out.
posted by seanyboy at 4:52 AM on August 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
Unfortunately, this seems to be all Game Theory does. (From my limited knowledge).
The Adam Curtis documentary The Trap discussed this, and to be honest, it not only tied Game Theory inextricably in my mind to the American Right, but it freaked me the fuck out.
posted by seanyboy at 4:52 AM on August 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
The Wikipedia Article on The Trap may be a better place to go.
posted by seanyboy at 4:54 AM on August 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by seanyboy at 4:54 AM on August 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
The Adam Curtis documentary The Trap discussed this, and to be honest, it not only tied Game Theory inextricably in my mind to the American Right, but it freaked me the fuck out.
came here to post this. here's parts 2 & 3
posted by p3on at 6:31 AM on August 20, 2009
came here to post this. here's parts 2 & 3
posted by p3on at 6:31 AM on August 20, 2009
I don't think this is totally crazy. It seems like politicians with advisers would be more likely to act according to their best approximation of instrumental rationality than individuals with limited rationality, time and energy. Remember people may not be rational, but they genrally would like to be, and when their irrationality is pointed out to them they often change their behaviour.
Of course its a tool, it doesn't tell you the truth. It shows you the logical outcome of things you think you know. It won't work if the inputs are rubbish.
No causes in, No causes out.
posted by munchbunch at 6:39 AM on August 20, 2009
Of course its a tool, it doesn't tell you the truth. It shows you the logical outcome of things you think you know. It won't work if the inputs are rubbish.
No causes in, No causes out.
posted by munchbunch at 6:39 AM on August 20, 2009
The most horrific part of my undergraduate (and some postgraduate) seminars on international politics were when some poor student decided to start their point with "But if you use game theory....". It led to quite a few rants from me about it's unbelievably useless nature. Assigning a number from 0 to 200 based on their "desire" to build nuclear weapons is completely and utterly ridiculous.
It assumes an objective, Archimedean standpoint from which to judge people's desires, and then assumes that everyone follows rational choice models in decision making. Argh. Total idiocy.
posted by knapah at 6:49 AM on August 20, 2009
It assumes an objective, Archimedean standpoint from which to judge people's desires, and then assumes that everyone follows rational choice models in decision making. Argh. Total idiocy.
posted by knapah at 6:49 AM on August 20, 2009
String Theory : 1970s :: Game Theory : 1990s
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:33 AM on August 20, 2009
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:33 AM on August 20, 2009
Assigning a number from 0 to 200 based on their "desire" to build nuclear weapons is completely and utterly ridiculous.
You seem to be suggesting that desire is not something its possible to quantify. But it seems to me perfectly reasnoble to believe that we can make ordinal comparisons of levels of desire. As in x desires A more than y, but not as much z does- people make these sorts of judgements all the time. I agree it would be silly to attempt a cardinal ordering.
posted by munchbunch at 7:45 AM on August 20, 2009
You seem to be suggesting that desire is not something its possible to quantify. But it seems to me perfectly reasnoble to believe that we can make ordinal comparisons of levels of desire. As in x desires A more than y, but not as much z does- people make these sorts of judgements all the time. I agree it would be silly to attempt a cardinal ordering.
posted by munchbunch at 7:45 AM on August 20, 2009
You seem to be suggesting that desire is not something its possible to quantify. But it seems to me perfectly reasnoble to believe that we can make ordinal comparisons of levels of desire. As in x desires A more than y, but not as much z does- people make these sorts of judgements all the time. I agree it would be silly to attempt a cardinal ordering.
As you say, cardinal ordering is silly, however, my point is more that it is effectively impossible to ascertain these people's 'true' desires. What are they basing their rankings on? A public statement by Ahmadinejad? The rational-choice/security-dilemma logic of Iran potentially wanting to balance against Israeli nuclear weapons?
posted by knapah at 7:52 AM on August 20, 2009
As you say, cardinal ordering is silly, however, my point is more that it is effectively impossible to ascertain these people's 'true' desires. What are they basing their rankings on? A public statement by Ahmadinejad? The rational-choice/security-dilemma logic of Iran potentially wanting to balance against Israeli nuclear weapons?
posted by knapah at 7:52 AM on August 20, 2009
What are they basing their rankings on? A public statement by Ahmadinejad? The rational-choice/security-dilemma logic of Iran potentially wanting to balance against Israeli nuclear weapons?
I'm not saying this approach reveals people's true preferences. However, I would say that no form of analysis can. It seems legitimate to me to knowingly make subjective assessments of people's preferences. We do this all the time!
It would be foolish to claim that this kind of analysis reveals the 'truth' (in so far as some kind of truth about future events exists - and it would be a horrible kind of determinism which suggested their was). But it can be a useful tool if it helps you understand more completely what you're subjective assessment of a situation entails.
I am not saying game theory has descriptive power - it doesn't. Or that it even has a watertight normative pull for individual actors - Allais paradox shows that it doesn't. But these are theoretical issues which for the most part don't invalidate its use, if you are aware of the problems.
I love the Trap, but I think that it treats game theory rather unfairly. The problem isn't necessarily with game theory, but with how it was applied by ideologically motivated economists in the 70s and 80s. For example, the Trap suggests that Game theory tells us to default in the prisoners dilemma, but doesn't mention that in repeated games ( like say society) the equilibrium would be to co-operate.
posted by munchbunch at 9:58 AM on August 20, 2009
I'm not saying this approach reveals people's true preferences. However, I would say that no form of analysis can. It seems legitimate to me to knowingly make subjective assessments of people's preferences. We do this all the time!
It would be foolish to claim that this kind of analysis reveals the 'truth' (in so far as some kind of truth about future events exists - and it would be a horrible kind of determinism which suggested their was). But it can be a useful tool if it helps you understand more completely what you're subjective assessment of a situation entails.
I am not saying game theory has descriptive power - it doesn't. Or that it even has a watertight normative pull for individual actors - Allais paradox shows that it doesn't. But these are theoretical issues which for the most part don't invalidate its use, if you are aware of the problems.
I love the Trap, but I think that it treats game theory rather unfairly. The problem isn't necessarily with game theory, but with how it was applied by ideologically motivated economists in the 70s and 80s. For example, the Trap suggests that Game theory tells us to default in the prisoners dilemma, but doesn't mention that in repeated games ( like say society) the equilibrium would be to co-operate.
posted by munchbunch at 9:58 AM on August 20, 2009
« Older Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | twitter defines our world, in poetry Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 7:07 PM on August 19, 2009