Jane Austen and Game Theory

[Kressel]

This should be of interest to many people here:

http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/07/0...

[A.C.]

I didn't listen to the podcast but I did read the article and my first impression was - what a load of hooey! Being manipulative is simply human nature, and the more constrained the circumstances the great the need to achieve objectives by covert means. If that is game theory then women, in particular, have been game theorists since the days when we lived in caves.

[Kressel]

The podcast said more or less that - not about women specifically, but that game theory is just a way of understanding the common sense decisions people make every day.

[A.C.]

Kressel wrote: "The podcast said more or less that - not about women specifically, but that game theory is just a way of understanding the common sense decisions people make every day."

Aaah, that makes sense then. I guess re-labeling things is another human trait.

[Shruti]

I believe in the virtue of manipulation and selfishness.(if I may use these words) However it shouldn't be at the cost of others, but there is no shame in thinking for oneself or for one's loved ones.

Call it game-theory or survival instincts -- learning the tricks of the trade are necessary, Jane Austen or not.

[Kressel]

Emma thought her manipulations were in Harriet's best interests. She didn't see her own selfishness. And of course, it all blew up in her face anyway.

[Shruti]

Somewhere I think too much interference is damaging. Being nice is an art and one must know where to draw the line.