As one might suspect, "Games Theory" is thought of as a mathematical discipline that interprets objectives "Payoffs" as desirable outcomes. And yet in the realm of human interaction the truthfulness of a games oriented analysis of human behavior always ends up a devils bargain. We are not pigeons. These models are incredibly useful as models for understanding mutually beneficial actions on the part of individuals. But the famous "Prisoners Dilemma Problem" assumed "rational" people would snitch on each other for the lesser sentence. But there is a rational option of people trusting that the other prisoner being interrogated in the next room wont snitch either. Both of which would then escape punishment. Maybe the threat of getting killed for turning in your accomplice is worth the risk of not snitching first. And besides in a world of unjust laws, maybe principle comes into the equation. For all the neatness of a probability matrix humans can remain relatively unpredictable.
I saw on a program interviewing Alan Greenspan (previous head of U. S. national finance). He admitted to being a "Rational Positivist." Read my work on the defects of "Positivism," (Creativity and SYNTHETIC REASONING) 1st of July. You will recognize my distaste for "Scientific Censorship." Greenspan is one of those people who likes to believe that truth can be un"FALSIFIABLE." If you can see it, it's true. (Sounds like the pretense of manifest destiny to me.) What that has to do with economics, I'm not sure he was even able to explain. Problem is if we assume reason on the part of supposedly rational authorities, much less the investing public, we're putting a lot of faith in what someone else claims to be an absolute authority. That's the very definition of evil. (Rigged Game?)
Fortunately, as humans we must of necessity confront unknowns which in fact are often a jumble of falsehoods masked by the obvious. It's popular to beat up on the real speculators because we don't play the game of false authority. Same with falsifiable "Games theorists." They like to tell you, "You Know You Want It." (Tell me something else I already know.) It's much easier not to want to be enticed at all, ever! And I personally advise being a good sport. Knowing when not to play games is the hallmark of a real winner.
Truth is, if you want to read for people you must be prepared to abandon pretenses of authority. It's not gambling, where the house always wins. It's much more like Rocket Science where we have ever diminishing lines of error. And as I go back to check my earlier posts "I" can see the models outlined with acknowledgement to the mediums employed. Were I to cop to the "Games Theory" pretense of rational selfishness in Psychic Methodologies, I could sneak by the "Scientific Censors." But as this book is about applied intelligence, I'll have to tell the truth and say, "This is no game."
