Bounds Reason Unification Behavioral Sciences
Game theory is central to understanding humane conduct and applicable to all of the behavioral sciences–from biology and economics, to anthropology and political science. However, as The Bounds of Reason demonstrates, game theory alone can not totally explain humane conduct and will have to rather supplement other key conceptions championed by the behavioral disciplines. Herbert Gintis shows that just as game theory without broader social theory is plainly technical bravado, so social theory without game theory is a handicapped enterprise.
Gintis illustrates, for instance, that game theory lacks explanations for when and how rational agents portion beliefs. Rather than construct a social epistemology or reasoning procedure that reflects the real world, game theorists make unwarranted assumptions which infer that rational agents receive pleasure from a commonality of beliefs. But, Gintis explains, humans possess distinguishable forms of noesis and understanding that move us beyond being merely rational creatures to being social creatures. For a better understanding of humane behavior, Gintis champions a united approach and in doing so shows that the dividing lines among the behavioral disciplines make no scientific sense. He asks, for example, why four distinguished fields–economics, sociology, anthropology, and social psychology–study social conduct and organization, yet their basic assumptions are wildly at variance. The author argues that we presently have the analytical tools to render the behavioral disciplines in exchange coherent.
Combining the amount of energy of the classical, evolutionary, and behavioral fields, The Bounds of Reason reinvigorates the utile tools of game theory and offers innovative thinking for the behavioral sciences.
ReviewThe Bounds of Reason appears as two books in one. One share gives rise to an epistemic theory of the rational actor as an substitute to what is provided by classical game theory, and the other share is a spirited plea to use behavioral game theory as a unifying tool in all behavioral sciences. Both goals intended to be attained are highly valuable, but combing them both produces friction. Friction produces heat, and Gintis, who thrives gleefully on disputable issues, may be enjoying the prospect of heated discussions. — Karl Sigmund, American Scientist
The book is a combining of an splendid textbook on game theory and an innovation treatise advocating the unification of the behavioural sciences and refounding of game theory on dissimilar epistemic foundations. . . . It is distinctly an crucial contribution to the current debate over the rational actor model that the rise of behaviourial economics has provoked. — Oxonomics
Gintis’ work reflects an aweinspiring breadth of cognition of the behavioural sciences. He is ever ready to pose strange questions and to defend unorthodox proposals. The Bounds of Reason is Gintis’ most ambitious project to date, one that draws upon all of his extraordinary originality and learning. — Peter Vanderschraaf, Journal of Economics and Philosophy
From the Inside Flap
“Gintis contributes significantly to a new clear or deep perception profiting ascendancy: economy is when it comes to the unintended aftermaths of humane sociality. This book is with resolute determination in the revolutionary tradition of David Hume (Convention) and Adam Smith (Sympathy).”–Vernon L. Smith, Nobel Prize-winning economist
“Herbert Gintis makes a strong case that game theory–by predicting social norms–provides an necessary tool for understanding humane social behavior. More provocatively, Gintis proposes that humans have a genetic tendency to follow social norms even when it is to their disadvantage. These claims will be controversial–but they make for arousing and attention holding reading.”–Eric S. Maskin, Nobel Laureate in Economics
“Recent conclusions in experimental economics have highlighted the need for a stringent analytical theory of choice and strategic fundamental interaction for the social sciences that captures the unexpectedly wide assortment of observed behaviors. In this stimulating book, Gintis convincingly argues that an empirically informed game-theoretic approach goes a long way toward achieving this beautiful goal.”–Ernst Fehr, University of Zurich
“This brave and sweeping book deserves to be widely and conservatively read.”–Adam Brandenburger, New York University
“The Bounds of Reason makes a compelling case for game theory but at the same time warns readers that there is life beyond game theory and that all social science can not be understood by this method alone. This splendid book makes skillful use of figures and algebra, and reads like a charm.”–Kaushik Basu, Cornell University
“Excellent and stimulating, The Bounds of Reason is wide sufficient to partly include a broader the central conceptions and results in game theory, but discerning sufficient to omit peripheral developments. The book illustrates deep theoretical results using simple and agreeably diverting examples, makes broad use of agent-based models and simulation methods, and discusses thorny methodological issues with strange clarity.”–Rajiv Sethi, Barnard College, Columbia University
About the AuthorHerbert Gintis holds faculty positions at the Santa Fe Institute, Central European University, and University of Siena. He is the author of “Game Theory Evolving” (Princeton) and the coeditor of a lot of books, including “Moral Sentiments and Material Interests, Unequal Chances” (Princeton), and “Foundations of Human Sociality”.
Bounds Reason Unification Behavioral Sciences Image
Bounds Reason Unification Behavioral Sciences Image
Bounds Reason Unification Behavioral Sciences Pic
Bounds Reason Unification Behavioral Sciences Image
Bounds Reason Unification Behavioral Sciences Image
Bounds Reason Unification Behavioral Sciences Picture
Most helpful customer reviews
32 of 33 people found the following review helpful.
 Great ideas for unification, that may fail to unify.
By JJ vd Weele
This book departs from a very good set of questions: How can it be that several different behavioral sciences – sociology, social psychology, economics, biology – all study human social behavior, yet have vastly different conceptual frameworks? And perhaps more importantly: is there a way to unify these frameworks?
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful.
 Both a great survey of an important field, and an important original work
By Aaron C. Brown
This book is an easy-to-understand survey of modern game theory with no more (and no less) mathematics than is necessary for that. It is not comprehensive. It covers only material that is logically consistent and grounded in observation. But it argues convincingly that that subset is all you should care about. Defining the boundary sometimes gets close to splitting hairs, an occupational hazard of game theory and any field trying to distill rigorous foundations from complex evidence and competing research traditions. Overall, however, the author lays down clear and sensible rules that exclude a lot of nonsense and organize the remaining material in simple and satisfying ways. Few specialists will agree exactly with the treatment, but I think almost everyone will find it reasonably good.
Therefore, if you want to learn modern game theory with a few days work, buy this book. Read it with pencil and paper to work out examples and exercises (it’s not a text with problems at the end of each chapter but the author does occasionally leave proofs to be supplied by the reader). Use the Internet for some key references. It does not demand any special training in mathematics, nothing beyond eighth grade techniques, but the logic and set arguments can be very intricate. It requires attention and a precise mind to follow, but not calculus or any other form of complex computation.
On top of this, the author offers his own thoughts on how central concepts in game theory drawn from biology, anthropology, sociology, psychology and economics can be combined in a consistent framework, that can serve as a foundation for all five fields. Each field studies emergent properties that cannot be derived from the foundation, so each will need its own applied game theory. But there is value in building each on a foundation that is both logically consistent and consistent with observation. The rigor from that will reduce errors and illuminate cross-disciplinary insights. I think he’s probably right here, but even if he isn’t, it’s a valuable way to compare insights across fields.
Any researcher concerned with behavior of living things who does not already know all the material in this book should read it.
See all 5 customer reviews…
|