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.
Top Posts
- How To Open A Bag of Charcoal
- Why Is It A Crime To Park Facing The Wrong Way?
- Why Does the Fastest Swimmer Anchor a Relay?
- Is It Just Your Imagination or Do All Radio Stations Play Ads at the Same Time?
- How to Shill on eBay
- What is the Recommended Serving Temperature for Guinness?
- Pricing Bareback
- The Trough
- Why Are Asian Desserts So Bad?
- Sherlock Holmes on the Optimal Use of Finite Memory
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 writingSubscribe via RSS
Join 2,151 other subscribers
Cheap Talk 
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.