Aron 2 Blue

I had a strong moment of self-recognition with this chapter. In talking about rational approaches to voting, Harford described the person who is going to vote, but knows that they have hardly any chance of affecting the outcome (casting the winning vote). So they vote like that - like they can't affect the outcome. I do that. I think about voting, especially in local elections. I try to pay attention, and learn something about the candidates. But I can't motivate myself to spend time, search, and make in-depth comparisons. I rely on bumping in to information, and other people's analysis, if I'm lucky. If I'm not, I end up voting based on party. And in a non-swing state, that means my vote doesn't matter much. Interesting vicious circle, eh?

The second chapter is discussed . Fabio Rojas has a great discussion. From this, I'm realizing that I don't have an objection to people being mostly rational, most of the time. I object to equilibrium. Game theory was developed in the framework of equilibrium, and outside of ideal situations like a poker game, I don't see where it applies. It's like fluid dynamics. We can write down an exact equation for how fluids flow. (Lorentz or somebody, I should know this). But when we try to solve them, they are horrendously complicated, and exhibit chaotic behavior. So instead, for practical results, we using finite simulations, where we don't get the exact answer, but limit ourselves to some time and spatial resolution. That is often good enough, and gets better with every cycle of Moore's law. But how do we tell when it's "good enough"? With fluid dynamics, we can see some of the results in films - digital water has gotten better, from The Abyss to Titan

I'm going to at least follow along with the book forum over at Marginal Revolution . I've read just the intro and first chapter so far. I was sighing a bit at the emphasis on the rational actor, but heartened as Tim Hartford took pains to dismantle the 'Economic Man', who can perfectly respond to all new information with perfect solutions to partial differential equations. There is much more acknowledgment of partial information, human shortcuts, and even irrational behavior. So far totally missing is the interesting new work involving computer simulations, as in The Origin of Wealth , or as Adam says in Mandelbrot's book. The Logic of Life , by Tim Harford Update: First installment on Wed. The author, Tim Harford, is commenting on the main posts and replying to comments.