I read the transcript and it is a very eloquent clarification of his views on game theory’s role and even the game theorist’s role. Worth checking out.
Advertisements
Top Posts
- Comey, the New York Times, Obama and the Lucas Critique: Ethical Leadership in the Presence of Political Constraints
- Who We Are
- Why Is It A Crime To Park Facing The Wrong Way?
- Why Does the Fastest Swimmer Anchor a Relay?
- Jeff's Intermediate Micro Course
- Behavioral Economics Reading List
- What is the Recommended Serving Temperature for Guinness?
- Left, Right, Then Left Again
- Pricing Bareback
- Balazs Szentes' Peacock Talk
Tags
art
art of office politics
banana seeds
blog
books
boston
california
chicago
coffee
computers
crime
current events
decision-making
economics
education
evolution
family
financial crisis
food and wine
friends
funny
game theory
incentives
iPhone
kludge
language
law
marriage
maths
movies
music
obama
politics
psychology
publishing
sandeep has bad taste
sanitation
sport
statistics
suicide
teaching
terrorism
the web
tomatoes
travel
TV
vapor mill
war
winter
writing
Subscribe via RSS
Jeff’s Twitter Feed
- DeMorgan's Law reminder courtesy of the current GOP-led congress: \neg [ Tax AND Spend ] = [\neg Tax] OR [\neg Spend] 5 months ago
- RT @Delfeayo: Headed to @Newtrier203 with the Uptown Jazz Orchestra tomorrow! Ticket info: dld.bz/g9Dzh #DelfeayoJazz #UJO 5 months ago
- #confessyourunpopularopinion among all of the things Trump really wants to do if you had to pick one for him not to… twitter.com/i/web/status/9… 7 months ago
- Wait, the dude from Girls is in Star Wars?? 7 months ago
- RT @worstamericngrl: fellas, if a girls wears a choker all that means is her head is not connected to her body. you will fall in love with… 7 months ago
Advertisements
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 1, 2011 at 10:01 am
Michael Webster
Very interesting talk. I would summarize part of it by the slogan: solutions can be either calculations or recommendations, but not both.
August 1, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Frank
Experimental economists reject research in which the subjects are not paid. Is that a barrier to entry they’ve erected, or part of the ethical guidelines of universities and the NSF? (I’m asking because I do not know.)
August 1, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Evan
Frank, it is simply to ensure that the subjects have an incentive to perform. Without financial incentives people often generate their own goals (i.e. I want to beat that guy over there, or I want to make sure he doesn’t win etc.) If you run the same experiment with and without payments, you will get different results, and economists figure that the results with payments are more reliable.
A good example is to compare share market games (where players invest pretend money in shares, and the player with the most money at the end of a given time period is the winner) with the actual share market. In the share market game, when there is a large number of players, the strategy that maximises your chance of winning is to dump all of your money in the most volatile stock you can find. In the real share market, this strategy would bankrupt you very quickly.
August 5, 2011 at 5:34 am
Daniel
Evidence that using incentives makes a big difference is weak and variable. Incentives should be an independent variable and not a constraint. It is useful to know when they matter and why. I think the main reason is that experimental economists want to differentiate themselves from other disciplines, mainly psychology, and these methodological demands are one way of doing so. Of course it also acts as a barrier to entry. All disciplines do this and EE is no exception.