tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post4989107390815125720..comments2023-09-28T21:40:05.328+10:00Comments on Dr Clam's accidental blog: What was I thinking?Marco Parigihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00702055111711651319noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-59881040425151596752008-07-02T12:03:00.000+10:002008-07-02T12:03:00.000+10:00"I spend a lot of time trying to figure out what o..."I spend a lot of time trying to figure out what other people think about things and understand why they think the way they do. The first bit, trying to put myself in someone else’s shoes and see the world the world the way they do, is really hard."<BR/><BR/>It may be hard and sometimes perhaps impossible, but understanding the other side is really the crux of the matter.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Concerning the comment on Nash equilibria in politics: see my blog on this. I believe to look for Nash equilibria in situations which really are fairly chaotic, is futile.<BR/><BR/>Further comments will follow as comments in my latest post on Iran, possibly after my return from Brisbane in about two or three weeks.<BR/><BR/>KlausAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-31857546371019578822007-04-23T15:00:00.000+10:002007-04-23T15:00:00.000+10:00Yes, there is no going back with this kind of 'con...Yes, there is no going back with this kind of 'conversion' experience, because we have moved from unexamined explanations that made no sense to explanations that do make sense: we could be persuaded onwards to explanations that make even more sense, like Einsteinian physics encapsulates Newtonian physics, but we will never (metaphorically) relinquish F = ma...<BR/><BR/>--ClamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-54582989065163170842007-04-22T17:45:00.000+10:002007-04-22T17:45:00.000+10:00Yes, point taken. Before it got sorted out in my h...Yes, point taken. Before it got sorted out in my head a couple of years ago, I just believed the leaders were acting somewhat irrationally. Especially when there was powerful mediating influences and a spirit of compromise in the air. I used to think "If only leader X did this at this point" and then the problem would end up getting resolved. Once I realised that game theory described the situation well, it was a case of finding the simplest model that realised the current result. That pretty simple reference game gives pointers to what the "endgame" entails, and it is a long way off yet, and this nuclear Iran thing is definitely part of it. There is no going back to my (our) previous thinking, is there?Marco Parigihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00702055111711651319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-42317924160003661552007-04-22T10:01:00.000+10:002007-04-22T10:01:00.000+10:00My main point is not to do with 'which side' I am ...My main point is not to do with 'which side' I am on, but with the process of getting there... for instance, do you remember how you first decided that there was a Nash equilibrium? How did you think about these situations *before* you made that decision?Dr Clamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14985493422534275997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-9462261864185079342007-04-21T10:17:00.000+10:002007-04-21T10:17:00.000+10:00As you know, I am not one to dwell too much on who...As you know, I am not one to dwell too much on whose side I am on. Even more so when I put myself in "their" shoes. I find that whether it be a palestinian leader, Israeli leader, warlord, etc., my options are pretty limited and the best strategies are more or less the ones they are taking. Of course I believe that there is a Nash equilibrium and that pretty much extends from that.Marco Parigihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00702055111711651319noreply@blogger.com