Historical footnotes to game theory

August 21st, 2011 by Charles Cameron

It’s that there’s a subtle thread running from something akin to instinct that’s also close to unspoken common sense, surfacing for a moment in the writings of thoughtful individuals, leading on occasion to the formulation of exact mathematical principles — but also (i) available, (ii) in the human repertoire, (iii) to be acted upon, (iv) cooperatively, (v) as required, (vi) via the medium of human common interest, (vii) which provides the resultant trust.

Which may in turn offer some reason for hope — for a humanity in various forms of communal distress…

Page 2 of 2 | Previous page

Posted in analogy, analytic, Charles Cameron, cooperation, creativity, cultural intelligence, game theory, Hipbone Analysis, history, insight, literature, mathematics, Patterns, Perception, philosophy, psychology, Uncategorized | 7 comments

Previous post:
Next post:

  1. Lexington Green:

    August 22nd, 2011 at 2:46 am

    Charles:  I had this post on Flight 93, which may be on point and of interest.

  2. Charles Cameron:

    August 22nd, 2011 at 4:42 am

    For the sake of those readers who don’t click through and read Lex’s post, and for my own convenience in retrieving it, here’s what I take to be the money quote:

    The only part of the American national security establishment that successfully defended America on 9/11 was the portion of the reserve militia on board Flight 93, acting without orders, without hierarchy, without uniforms or weapons, by spontaneous organization and action.

    The general rule that Lex derives is instructive, too:

    Bottom-up, inductive, spontaneous self-organization is the essence of America.

    But do read the whole post.
    .
    Thanks, Lex.

  3. J.ScottShipman:

    August 23rd, 2011 at 12:59 am

    Hi Charles,
    .
    This is excellent. I’ve been grazing through von Neumann and Morgenstern’s book for the last several weeks. Found it as a result of Wylie’s book on strategy.
    .
    Also, while I have a William James volume on my shelves, I’ve not had time to read. I told a colleague at lunch today that I’ll not be reviewing any books in the coming weeks because everything I’m reading is old. I reread for a second time this year,  Powis Smith’s excellent treatment of The Origin and History of Hebrew Law (1931)—not sure what I was thinking the first time through—as I found a couple of quotes suitable for my book! I call these literary odds and ends:))

  4. Charles Cameron:

    August 23rd, 2011 at 3:41 am

    Hi Scott:
    .
    If you can graze through vonN & M — you’re a better man that I am, Gunda Din!   : )
    .
    The best I can do is consult the index, and then point at it.

  5. J.ScottShipman:

    August 23rd, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    Hi Charles,
    .
    Been thinking about your response…for me grazing is wandering into the midst of dense stuff I barely understand, and straining to make meaning. By no means did I intend to convey expertise or anything beyond novice familiarity…this is one of those books I handle, not able to make sense of most of it, but gathering enough to be rewarding—or more often, confounded:)))

  6. Charles Cameron:

    August 23rd, 2011 at 8:18 pm

    Ha! Scott:

    .

    Gotcha.
    .
    I wrote a piece about just this approach a while back — High Conceptual Thinkers. Yup, I’m that way with von Neumann too! [vbg]

  7. J.ScottShipman:

    August 23rd, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    Hi Charles,

    I remember that piece, but had forgotten my comment on Hayek—since adding that comment, I’ve returned to Hayek a couple of times. Everything I’m presently reading is old—although a new little book called Genius arrived today and I may have to make some room:))