Hi Prof. Hodgson! Thanks for this video. I have a question! At the end of the video, when you run through the Prisoner's Dilemma, and the "real-life" outcomes don't match the "rationality" people's theory, and the "false assumptions" people get really sneery towards that theory, it seems like the "rationality" people rebut all the sneering with "my framework still works, we just plugged the wrong numbers in." Is that right? I'm asking because that sits super uncomfortably with me; it reminds me of e.g. a priest saying "There is a kind and loving God, and I understand your criticism of this assertion, because obviously tragedies and injustices happen every day in huge amounts, but that doesn't mean there isn't a loving and kind God, it just means that God loves and spreads his kindness in mysterious ways." Like, the priest is assuming the God, and then arguing every way they can about how that God still exists in the face of evidence against their theory. I'd never swallow such a religious argument from a priest. But the "rationality" people's response seems to approach that kind of religiousness more than it appears as science. Am I misunderstanding? Thanks for your help! Your content has been super helpful for me
@@AshleyHodgson Maybe social psychology to the rescue,and i think we have some folk notions,for example i think if a husband insults his wife, his wife might get into a bad mood, i think we need a theory of emotions and moods. So i think the unpredictibility is due to the lack of a theory of emotions and moods.
![KRK - ชนิสรา Ft.WanMai , N/A [Official MV] Prod. By Sakarin](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C-WMwwYobcU/mqdefault.jpg)
Hi Prof. Hodgson! Thanks for this video. I have a question! At the end of the video, when you run through the Prisoner's Dilemma, and the "real-life" outcomes don't match the "rationality" people's theory, and the "false assumptions" people get really sneery towards that theory, it seems like the "rationality" people rebut all the sneering with "my framework still works, we just plugged the wrong numbers in." Is that right? I'm asking because that sits super uncomfortably with me; it reminds me of e.g. a priest saying "There is a kind and loving God, and I understand your criticism of this assertion, because obviously tragedies and injustices happen every day in huge amounts, but that doesn't mean there isn't a loving and kind God, it just means that God loves and spreads his kindness in mysterious ways." Like, the priest is assuming the God, and then arguing every way they can about how that God still exists in the face of evidence against their theory. I'd never swallow such a religious argument from a priest. But the "rationality" people's response seems to approach that kind of religiousness more than it appears as science. Am I misunderstanding? Thanks for your help! Your content has been super helpful for me
Why we can't model moods using game theory ?
I think we can,we just let moods feature in the marginal utilites of the game.
Yes, I generally have moods as an exogenous random variable in the utility function. But it is an unpredictable force.
@@AshleyHodgson
Maybe social psychology to the rescue,and i think we have some folk notions,for example i think if a husband insults his wife, his wife might get into a bad mood, i think we need a theory of emotions and moods.
So i think the unpredictibility is due to the lack of a theory of emotions and moods.