Game Theory and a Hypothesis on Thinking
3:43:00 AM
There are many different ideas about how human beings
think. I spent the last few weeks writing papers and preparing for a behavioral
microeconomics exam. Part of that process involved reviewing concepts that
until a few months ago, were quite foreign to me. Behavioral science combines
concepts from psychology, economics, neuroscience, and other fields to explore
how human beings make decisions and it’s introduced me to a few different
concepts about how people think. Economics particularly has a concept of ‘noise’:
noise essentially is what happens when people change their decisions when
presented with the same choices multiple times (if you were asked to choose
between tofu and a steak, you might choose the steak four times and tofu once).
Economists believe that once a choice is made, we ought to stick to that choice,
behavioral economists and psychologists believe that’s not how humans actually
think.
I tend to approach new concepts with what I call a brick-layering
method. For example, when I’m introduced to a formula such as this: 
which is part of the
quantal response equilibrium that measures the amount of noise in strategies chosen
by players under game theory, I might start by thinking about the intuition
behind the formula. What aspects of the
topic does the formula cover? And then a while later I’ll come back to the
formula and add an extra layer of depth, how
would I apply the formula to certain problems, what do the answers mean?
And then later on, I’ll add another layer, how
does the formula accurately capture the real world. What would happen if I tweak certain aspects of the formula? How intuitive is it? How does it tie into my understanding of other
aspects of game theory so far? etc.,
which is part of the
quantal response equilibrium that measures the amount of noise in strategies chosen
by players under game theory, I might start by thinking about the intuition
behind the formula. What aspects of the
topic does the formula cover? And then a while later I’ll come back to the
formula and add an extra layer of depth, how
would I apply the formula to certain problems, what do the answers mean?
And then later on, I’ll add another layer, how
does the formula accurately capture the real world. What would happen if I tweak certain aspects of the formula? How intuitive is it? How does it tie into my understanding of other
aspects of game theory so far? etc.,
The brick layering method generally means I become more
familiar with a concept over time, but it also means I (try) to take my time in
developing a full and nuanced perspective on any issue. However, in the past
months I watched how people around me assimilate information and realized some
very smart people think in an entirely different way: they go deep immediately,
almost like a digger, they take onboard all the information (what is the formula, how is it applied, what
are its limits, to what extent is it a predictive model, will it only work in
certain circumstances, etc) and then they sift. Thinking through everything,
embracing aspects that are solid, discarding information that is not relevant,
and settling on a streamlined understanding that is more concise and accurate
than when they were first introduced to the concept. The ‘digging’ method of thinking
feels like a faster, messier, and yet somehow still efficient way to understand
a subject. Collating information first and then organizing it, as opposed to
organizing information as soon as it is encountered and then adding more
information to reinforce a framework as necessary.
How we approach thinking defines how we approach the world.
You, like me, might prefer to extend knowledge slowly and constantly, or you
might prefer to know as much as possible and then sift through everything. What’s
interesting about both ways of thought is that they ultimately allow
flexibility. Whether ruminating and expanding on an issue, or eliminating unnecessary
information, no form of understanding has to be stagnant or polarized. We might
make a decision now, yet reverse it in light of new information. Many great
leaders I respect have taken this approach to thinking. Knowing that their
opinions at one time only reflects their understanding up to that moment, and
that such an opinion might grow or become more developed as they grow and as
they develop. I think allowing ourselves the ability to change our minds is a
powerful and freeing thing, regardless of whether it is a rational/ optimal
thing to do.
This coming year, I hope we all get the chance to see the
world in different ways, whichever method of thinking we tend to follow, and
that we get to change our minds, have our ideas tested, our values reinforced,
and come out with a more nuanced understanding of each other and our world.
0 comments