Saturday, September 24, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The Economist reports on the latest in using game theoretic models in international affairs and economics.
Mr Bueno de Mesquita’s “game” is a computer model he developed that uses a branch of mathematics called game theory, which is often used by economists, to work out how events will unfold as people and organisations act in what they perceive to be their best interests. Numerical values are placed on the goals, motivations and influence of “players”—negotiators, business leaders, political parties and organisations of all stripes, and, in some cases, their officials and supporters. The computer model then considers the options open to the various players, determines their likely course of action, evaluates their ability to influence others and hence predicts the course of events.Looks like we might be one step closer to having game theory churning, androids with whom to share out grievances and weaknesses with as well.
Where is all this heading? Alongside the arms race of increasingly elaborate modelling software, there are also efforts to develop software that can assist in negotiation and mediation. Two decades ago Clara Ponsatí, a Spanish academic, came up with a clever idea while pondering the arduous Israeli-Palestinian peace process. As negotiators everywhere know, the first side to disclose all that it is willing to sacrifice (or pay) loses considerable bargaining power. Bereft of leverage, it can be pushed back to its bottom line by a clever opponent. But if neither side reveals the concessions it is prepared to make, negotiations can stall or collapse. In a paper published in 1992, Dr Ponsatí described how software could be designed to break the impasse. Difficult negotiations can often be nudged along by neutral mediators, especially if they are entrusted with the secret bottom lines of all parties. Dr Ponsatí’s idea was that if a human mediator was not trusted, affordable or available, a computer could do the job instead. Negotiating parties would give the software confidential information on their bargaining positions after each round of talks. Once positions on both sides were no longer mutually exclusive, the software would split the difference and propose an agreement. Dr Ponsatí, now head of the Institute of Economic Analysis at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, says such “mediation machines” could lubricate negotiations by unlocking information that would otherwise be withheld from an opponent or human mediator. Such software is now emerging. Barry O’Neill, a game theorist at the University of California, Los Angeles, describes how it can facilitate divorce settlements. A husband and wife are each given a number of points which they secretly allocate to household assets they desire. The wife may inform the software that her valuation of the family car is, say, 15 points. If the husband puts the car’s value at 10 points, he cannot later claim that he deserves more compensation for not getting the car than she would be entitled to.
at 11:22 PM
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
Philosophy Bro ..er, "reviews" David K. Lewis's book, On the Plurality of Worlds:
I happen to believe in a bunch of things. No, I can't prove their existence. But think of all the shit that you believe in without proof - 'redness'? 'Propositions'? Possible, imaginary worlds where, somehow as if by magic, Socrates isn't an ugly motherfucker? Even sets seem questionable - how could there be some universal object that contains all and only the odd numbers? But sets are useful as fuck, so we deal with them. Well, I say if you're going to make shit up, GO BIG OR GO HOME, bitches. If you think it's too crazy, whatever bro - not everyone is worthy. But don't come in my house, kick my dog, and tell me you have a simpler solution that you just made up where everything magically makes sense because your hand-waving said so. Mind tricks do not work on me, only ontologies.
at 11:39 PM