What do you think?
Rate this book
The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences
Game theory is central to understanding human behavior and relevant 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 cannot fully explain human behavior and should instead complement other key concepts championed by the behavioral disciplines. Herbert Gintis shows that just as game theory without broader social theory is merely 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 share beliefs. Rather than construct a social epistemology or reasoning process that reflects the real world, game theorists make unwarranted assumptions which imply that rational agents enjoy a commonality of beliefs. But, Gintis explains, humans possess unique forms of knowledge and understanding that move us beyond being merely rational creatures to being social creatures. For a better understanding of human behavior, Gintis champions a unified approach and in doing so shows that the dividing lines between the behavioral disciplines make no scientific sense. He asks, for example, why four separate fields--economics, sociology, anthropology, and social psychology--study social behavior and organization, yet their basic assumptions are wildly at variance. The author argues that we currently have the analytical tools to render the behavioral disciplines mutually coherent.
Combining the strengths of the classical, evolutionary, and behavioral fields, The Bounds of Reason reinvigorates the useful tools of game theory and offers innovative thinking for the behavioral sciences.
Gintis illustrates, for instance, that game theory lacks explanations for when and how rational agents share beliefs. Rather than construct a social epistemology or reasoning process that reflects the real world, game theorists make unwarranted assumptions which imply that rational agents enjoy a commonality of beliefs. But, Gintis explains, humans possess unique forms of knowledge and understanding that move us beyond being merely rational creatures to being social creatures. For a better understanding of human behavior, Gintis champions a unified approach and in doing so shows that the dividing lines between the behavioral disciplines make no scientific sense. He asks, for example, why four separate fields--economics, sociology, anthropology, and social psychology--study social behavior and organization, yet their basic assumptions are wildly at variance. The author argues that we currently have the analytical tools to render the behavioral disciplines mutually coherent.
Combining the strengths of the classical, evolutionary, and behavioral fields, The Bounds of Reason reinvigorates the useful tools of game theory and offers innovative thinking for the behavioral sciences.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published March 16, 2009
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 21, 2014
A bit of typo here and there. The author successfully enticed the book readers to start working on the unification of the behavioural sciences. Will definitely read it again.
April 25, 2019
Technical read with a compelling thesis: the rational actor model must incorporate a normative predisposition -- humans prefer to follow social norms -- for game theory to explain human behavior. Gintis views this as a revolution. Nah. Just a good point.
"The bounds of reason are not forms of irrationality but rather forms of sociality."
"The bounds of reason are not forms of irrationality but rather forms of sociality."
September 19, 2016
Much of this book is a series of equations. Gintis seeks to unify (as his subtitle states) the behavioral sciences and he suggests to do this with a multitude of examples constrained within quantifiable matrices. He does note later on that these quantifiable matrices are difficult to extend into the social sciences because we are not certain what the quantifiable cut between them are. We can include multiple dimensions to compare, and that's where complexity arises endlessly; because we are not sure if there is a short-circuit between different dimensions or if they are mutually exclusive in their quantifiability. This is the "bounds" of reason, although Gintis is unable to show those limits, he is only able to speak of the mechanicisms within the bounds.
I find this exploration very interesting although Gintis seems unable to talk about the implications of these bounds except briefly. He understands the mathematical game-theory view very well, but he is unable to extend beyond it... although seems to intuitively understand some of it.
This book is written very well. It's hard for me to see more clearly how he wants to extend game theory into behavioral sciences especially after he acknowledges that not everything is quantifiable because not everything is rational -- rationality is not always in the same dimension. And different people see things differently so that we are not always on the same page. Signals are not perfect nor are they public simply because we don't read things the same way. What is missing, in my opinion, is a way of "quantifying" ideology. There is no way to account for ideological difference in a way that fits directly with game theory except as a measurement of relative presence.
In this sense, I would be very interested to read a book that is a combination of this book and Badiou's Logic and Event II. Badiou provides a mathematization of ideology in that book but he does not discuss game theory as a way of quantifying difference... which is what game theory does, given multiple permutations.
I find this exploration very interesting although Gintis seems unable to talk about the implications of these bounds except briefly. He understands the mathematical game-theory view very well, but he is unable to extend beyond it... although seems to intuitively understand some of it.
This book is written very well. It's hard for me to see more clearly how he wants to extend game theory into behavioral sciences especially after he acknowledges that not everything is quantifiable because not everything is rational -- rationality is not always in the same dimension. And different people see things differently so that we are not always on the same page. Signals are not perfect nor are they public simply because we don't read things the same way. What is missing, in my opinion, is a way of "quantifying" ideology. There is no way to account for ideological difference in a way that fits directly with game theory except as a measurement of relative presence.
In this sense, I would be very interested to read a book that is a combination of this book and Badiou's Logic and Event II. Badiou provides a mathematization of ideology in that book but he does not discuss game theory as a way of quantifying difference... which is what game theory does, given multiple permutations.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews