Absolutely everything you do @cnn is pathetic virtue signaling. Thank Godnyiirndays are nimbered. https://t.co/tePqW015FL— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) March 12, 2023
oh, y'all fuckers think he's stupid. jbp is just learning some combinatorial game theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimber
nimbers and combinatorial game theory are actually both very neat, would highly recommend skimming the conway treatise on the subject if you're math-inclined. numbers get really weird really quick when you're playing certain games. :conway::erdos: when?
I get that game theory might be mathematically interesting, but the entire Chicago school RAND funded emphasis is suspect to me. I get the sense that they are making a descriptive-normative shift assuming that because game theory models adversarial decision making, that all decision making should be made according to game theory. This strikes me as measurability bias for one, but worse, intentionally minimalizing or ignoring the possibility for cooperation. I remember doing a bunch of decision trees for a course on game theory, and it felt so stupid following them down to equilibrium points that were sub-optimal. Get the two or however many parties there are in a room, show them the superior/optimal point, and let them work together. Jesus, how hard is it to coordinate instead of compete? But noooooooo, that's not realistic apparently, and it's rude of me to keep bringing it up.
oh, y'all fuckers think he's stupid. jbp is just learning some combinatorial game theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimber
nimbers and combinatorial game theory are actually both very neat, would highly recommend skimming the conway treatise on the subject if you're math-inclined. numbers get really weird really quick when you're playing certain games. :conway::erdos: when?
:comfy: me reading the introductory paragraph, understanding absolutely none of it.
Never have I been so tempted to post an absurdist 'they've been playing us for fools' meme.
I understand it, just, but no one should be subjected to math at that level of abstraction.
I get that game theory might be mathematically interesting, but the entire Chicago school RAND funded emphasis is suspect to me. I get the sense that they are making a descriptive-normative shift assuming that because game theory models adversarial decision making, that all decision making should be made according to game theory. This strikes me as measurability bias for one, but worse, intentionally minimalizing or ignoring the possibility for cooperation. I remember doing a bunch of decision trees for a course on game theory, and it felt so stupid following them down to equilibrium points that were sub-optimal. Get the two or however many parties there are in a room, show them the superior/optimal point, and let them work together. Jesus, how hard is it to coordinate instead of compete? But noooooooo, that's not realistic apparently, and it's rude of me to keep bringing it up.
So anyway, now I'm a communist.
luckily, combinatorial game theory is about analyzing actual games and not fake market bullshit
:only-good-gamer: good gamers, one might say?
and that's just red/blue hackenbush. green hackenbush is where it really starts popping off
:blob-stop: Now you're just making words up.