What does my game theory stand for?
The focus of my scholarship is highly specific: Is John Nash, who stands for a world premised on efficiency, and who is integral (though not a triple integral in spherical coordinates, but I can do those too) to a movement known as “law and economics,” right? Law and economics is primarily associated with the University of Chicago, though the Chicago School is diverse, and contains a younger, less punitive generation of scholars. In John Nash’s world view, which is used to rationalize the entire legal system (though the law has existed since the Magna Carta, and even before), efficiency is king, though definitely not Dr. King.
The world I stand for, in contrast, is dedicated to fairness, and vindicates the work of John von Neumann, who was in an earlier generation of game theorists at Princeton in the 1940s, where John Nash was a student, though von Neumann’s theory is incomplete and it couldn’t be solved until a man named Freeman Dyson along with his colleague Bill Press came around, and ultimately until I came around (if I’m right). In an apocryphal tale that I’ve been unable to substantiate, and was related to me anecdotally at a conference, John von Neumann did not think it was even worthwhile to prove John Nash’s theory because he’d already done so. (I highly doubt it, given the two world views are basically diametrically opposed, unless von Neumann was screwing with Nash’s head, or trying to tank Nash’s research, and this stuff happens in the academy, though I’ll hold my tongue. I’ve seen stuff like this, and it’s possible Nash himself tanked research that would have disproven him, or he at least refused to admit he was wrong when it later turned out he was about a specific experiment.)
(NB: Game theorists, many of them, enjoying “bluffing” and game theory originated, if you believe John von Neumann actually invented it, out of the game of poker, though definitely not the kind of poker I play not for money. That said, my personal view is that game theory is all around humans in nature and has always existed and well predates von Neumann’s “discovery,” and that game theory is reflected in the fundamental laws of mathematics and physics, but that’s a subject for another post. Please note that games themselves date back to ancient societies all over the world, and that basically all humans have engaged in games, sports, and other recreational behavior such as dancing, since humanity evolved. Hence, ancient French cave paintings that I've personally seen, because humans were too bored to merely hunt and gather.)
In any event, Nash stands for efficiency, and my scholarship stands for fairness and maximizing social utility for all members of society. This doesn’t mean I’d make everyone ungodly rich if I were ruler of the Universe, but my scholarship stands for a world in which the world’s eighty-five wealthiest persons, who could literally fit into a bus, give their money away (or most of it). (Yes, that’s right, you heard me, as of 2020 when I discovered this tidbit, half of the world’s wealth was consolidated among eighty-five people, who could fit into an actual bus, though the actual number is sixty-two because HuffPo, sorry, you messed up your citation to Oxfam, the original source.)
In the world I stand for, the government (or governments, because these people are located all over the world) would not effectuate a gigantic taking of wealth, which in the United States would violate the Fifth Amendment, but all high-value individuals would voluntarily sign the “billionaires’ pledge” or even a millionaires' pledge and give money to organizations like the one I’m currently employed at to make the world a better place through serving the vulnerable. (I guess many of them have, so that’s great, but in my view, folks you need to give your wealth away not eventually, but that’s right, immediately.)
My game theory goes beyond mere altruism, and wealth redistribution, and stands for forgiveness and being kind as well. In game theory, many smart game theorists believe in a world based on punishment, but these game theorists were categorically rebuked in the 1950s by a famous scholar named Robert Axelrod. Axelrod invented (or actually, popularized, just like my job talk paper popularizes Dyson and Press’s work, and the work of Joshua Plotkin at U Penn) the strategy called “Tit for Tat.”
Now, “Tit for Tat,” in which a player copies the move of the prior player (either cooperate, or defect, meaning being nice or being mean), may seem like an Old Testament world view, and that’s how I characterize it in my job talk paper, and I reject that aspect of Tit for Tat. But the crucial part of Tit for Tat is that it starts out by cooperating, or being nice, and only punishes when its co-player defects. And, actually, if you have two “Tit for Tats” playing against themselves, again where each strategy copies the move of the other player, the result is maximum cooperation, assuming they play synchronously. So this part of pure cooperation is already established, though in the real world, I’m sure other game theorists would argue lots of players don’t use the Tit for Tat strategy, even though as of the 1950s it was the most successful strategy a player could play, short of “generous Tit for Tat” (an even nicer version later game theorists vindicated). This means, in a sensible world, everyone should already be cooperating, even if this answer doesn’t go as far as my scholarship does.
How does my scholarship differ? I’m currently working on a new math and physics paper about the Prisoner’s Dilemma (and actively looking for a physicist co-author who is open to new ideas, ideally someone who is okay with the work of zany scientists like Dr. Kary Mullis, who I mentioned in a previous post and was a family connection). In my new paper, which I’m actively working on, it turns out that in a symmetric 2-player, 3-player, or even 4-player one-shot game, it pays to be forgiving, even if the co-player defects. If I’m right, this is a “game changing” conclusion, though it’s preliminary, and I need to thoroughly vet it, but I have solved all issues (that I can) that anyone has raised with me. (I’m still working on a boundary condition, and I invite hardcore mathematical physicists who have an interest in game theory and in Stephen Hawking, because the work also has implications for time, to reach out to me.)
And why does this matter? Assume it influences diplomacy, or the actions of the current Administration (not that Trump would ever take my advice, but I did say he should voluntarily move to the Bahamas, so it’s not like I’m suggesting that society should necessarily lock him up and throw away the key, especially if he learned to play nice). In this case, presume your symmetric co-player (who might be a nation or a peer) defects, this means you might turn the other cheek, and do not retaliate, or that like JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis with his Russian counterpart, you might try to deescalate, which prevented thermonuclear war. Turning the other cheek is basically what I’ve done my entire life when someone has been mean to me (I mean, like really mean to me) and it’s worked out, more or less. I speculate based on the behavior I’ve engaged in my entire life that a whole lot less war and violence, and presumably rebuilding damaged relationships that have been destroyed through the “startle response,” where one person freaks out, so another person freaks out, so another person freaks out, so an entire community freaks out, would result. We (society) see the “startle response” in complex systems and in how birds flock, and how fish swim.
In any event, next time you think about whether to be kind or forgiving versus being mean and punitive, think about the startle response, because actions have a ripple effect. (And that's one of the premises of physics, that actions ripple throughout spacetime, and is demonstrated by my favorite science fiction movie ever, Cloud Atlas.) Mark Jackson, I’m tagging you right now, because you helped me be less startled, at least at Cornell, and I want you to know that I respect your equanimity and for you to know what on earth compelled me to leave Cornell. Incidentally this ripple effect is why a person should not engage in self-harm because ancestral trauma has a ripple effect throughout spacetime, and wounds a human’s future descendants, a fact partially related to me by my former Israeli spiritual teacher when he discussed the Holocaust and what it had done to him via his family, and who taught me the most important lesson I’ve ever learned in my entire life of “both/and.” So, move over Jesus, in my view, this guy updated the Bible significantly, and he's a Jew, even if I'm nominally Episcopalian, exactly like Freeman Dyson was, though I also stand for Tibetan Buddhism and Zen Buddhism. (That's a whole other post, and in my view the Dalai Lama is one of the wisest spiritual teachers alive, though I also think the new Pope, a humble guy who calls himself “Bob,” is extremely promising.)
NB: This blog is also humorous while sincere at the exact same time in my favorite brand of humor inspired by comedian Jerry Seinfeld who I saw perform existential comedy live many years ago in a stand-up routine at the now-imperiled Kennedy Center (I do not endorse his TV shows). It also supports the work of certain Jewish scholars in the behavioral law and economics movement who’ve been unfairly attacked due to the replication crisis in psychology such as Cass Sunstein formerly of U Chicago (now of Harvard) and Christine Jolls of Yale (whose spiritual identity I do not know, but she’s amazing and she does hardcore game theory as a woman, and that’s rare), and who use similar methodologies to Brene Brown. My game theory work is mostly consistent with theirs, and with the conclusions and methodology of an inspiring mentor of mine at Cornell, an Indian game theorist trained by Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen himself named Kaushik Basu, who supports a “rational rejection of rationality” that I also stand for. One can be rational, irrational, loving, forgiving, spiritual, hilarious, mainstream, radical, progressive, sincere, a yeller, a creative writer, and a hardcore law professor-mathematician-scientist all at the exact same time while still defending critical theory. One can be American, and still recognize “todos somos Americanos.” That’s me, and “I contain multitudes” while my bottom line is simple: I stand for truth, fairness, and justice for all beings everywhere.
-Cortelyou C. Kenney (05/05/2025, 7:31 am PT)
Comments
Post a Comment