Game theory has always been a complex subject for many, including myself. Despite taking undergraduate courses in the field, I have struggled to fully grasp its concepts. I have always had a feeling of unease when it comes to game theory, but couldn’t quite pinpoint the reasons for my reservations.
One particular conversation with a fellow undergraduate stands out in my memory. She was a staunch supporter of game theory and argued passionately about its benefits. However, one criticism I had raised was the theory’s struggle to explain cooperation. How could a theory based on the assumption of selfishness and utility maximization account for cooperation?
Her response was that in iterated games, it becomes rational to cooperate. The idea that if interactions are expected to occur more than once, it is in one’s best interest to cooperate rather than defect seemed logical. Yet, a lingering uneasiness remained with me regarding this solution.
My perspective on game theory shifted after reading Joe Henrich’s book “The WEIRDest People in the World.” Henrich delves into prehistoric times and reflects on human interactions. He paints a vivid picture of a world where hostility was common, and trust was scarce. The idea of peaceful trade or cooperation seemed far-fetched in such an environment.
Henrich’s insights made me realize that assuming iterated games to demonstrate cooperation already presupposes a basic level of cooperation in the first place. The very fact that interactions continue beyond the initial encounter implies a certain degree of peaceful and cooperative behavior.
This revelation led me to question the foundational assumptions of game theory. By covertly assuming cooperation to explain cooperation, game theory may be overlooking the complexities of human interactions.
As someone without expertise in game theory, I offer these reflections as a critical outsider. I invite readers to engage with my thoughts and challenge my reasoning. Perhaps there is more to be explored in the realm of game theory, and a reevaluation of its fundamental principles is warranted.
In conclusion, game theory’s reliance on assumptions of cooperation raises intriguing questions about the nature of human interactions. It is essential to critically examine these assumptions and consider alternative perspectives to deepen our understanding of this complex field.
Max Molden, a PhD student at the University of Hamburg, shares his insights on game theory and invites further discussion on the topic.
