Quoting Sandy Sandfort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Faustine wrote:
>
> > Here's a gaming scenario from Susan
> > Strange's "States and Markets" (1988)
> > called "Desert Island"...
> >
> > Any takers? :)
>
> Count me out. The trouble with games theory is that the outcome is
> pretty
> much dictated by the rules established by the game designer. It's
> intuitively obvious that the given scenarios are artificial and
> unrealistic.
> Since I can't imagine any of them as being all that likely, I am,
> perforce, unable to imagine how they would evolve/interact/etc. As Johnny
> Carson used to say, "Buy the premise, buy the bit." Unfortunately, I can't
> buy this premise.
Yep, good points. But still, fake framework and all, it can be useful if it
gets you to clarify and articulate your own assumptions. You'd be surprised at
how vehement the discussion got(even without Group 4 to make it really
interesting, ha.) You wouldn't think a group of people could come to such
drastically different conclusions given the same basic material to work with,
but they did.
For me, it really brings out the basic conflict between realism and idealism on
the one hand, and pragmatism and dogmatism on the other. Working through this
myself, it was hard to find a very comfortable place no matter where you sit,
no easy answers. At least that part is realistic!
~Faustine.
****
'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and
reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
