Ted Winslow writes:
I had understood you to be claiming that Nash's equilibrium
concept was
brilliant.
I had written:
Einstein's Gedanken (sp?) experiments and Nash's brilliant insight
come from non-neurotypical thinking.
I do think that Nash's equilibrium [NE] concept was
Jim wrote:
So Ted assumes that I thought it was brilliant in general rather than
in a very specific way.
Ted had asked:
What specifically from the summary of his ideas by Mirowski would you
select as demonstrating brilliant insight into human motives and
behaviour?
in response to Jim's claim that:
just because
Nash was crazy doesn't mean that he was always wrong. However, the popularity of
his concept of equilibrium may reflect the craziness of the economics
profession.
BTW,a
game matrix can be seen as a simplified picture of a social structure. The
motivations of the "players"
Jim D. wrote:
just because Nash was crazy doesn't mean that he was always wrong.
Who are you arguing with here?
What specifically from the summary of his ideas by Mirowski would you
select as demonstrating brilliant insight into human motives and
behaviour? He believed himself possessed of such
it's true that you didn't draw out the conclusions you had come to from all of the
quotes from Mirowski. As far as I could tell, you were saying that because Nash was
crazy, NE was wrong in some sense. I feel it's enough to think that NE is wrong due to
other reasons.
Jim
-Original
As usual, I screw up the title again.
The above should have been the title of my previous
post.
What was that thing with which I once embarrassed
myself: Alzheimer's or so?
I guess I am suffering form that at this not so late
age.
Best
Jim D. wrote:
it's true that you didn't draw out the conclusions you had come to
from all of the quotes from Mirowski. As far as I could tell, you were
saying that because Nash was crazy, NE was wrong in some sense. I feel
it's enough to think that NE is wrong due to other reasons.
I did say
