What % of the forum could read this book?

[phk]

http://www.princeton.edu/~ameirowi/pol575/gtbookts.pdf


... in a meaningful fashion?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

1%.  At most.

[Holmes]

335 pages? Ugh... not me.

[War on Want]

Maybe 3 or 4 of the smartest people here.

[Free Palestine]

Currently looking at the Table of Contents.  I remember reading a book with a similar subject, which talked about the Hotelling Model and the Nash Equilibrium.  I only remember what the first one was.  Something to do with how politicians gravitate to the center, in order to attract the highest number of voters.  The book itself was about voting methods, and turned out to be an endorsement of range voting.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

10% or so.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

a high percentage. like 70%

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Currently looking at the Table of Contents.  I remember reading a book with a similar subject, which talked about the Hotelling Model and the Nash Equilibrium.  I only remember what the first one was.  Something to do with how politicians gravitate to the center, in order to attract the highest number of voters.  The book itself was about voting methods, and turned out to be an endorsement of range voting.

On page 128 of this book, they apply candidate preferences to avoid having such a trivial result.

[ilikeverin]

Ooh, game theory!

But... I found the game theory book that Steven Pinker recommended very boring.  And, if the one Steven Pinker recommended wasn't any good, this would be extremely painful to me

[Bo]

37.44%

[Torie]

It has a lot of tendentious equations with fancy font symbols, and I remember having to wade through this kind of sh**t in college in poly sci classes. I hated game theory, and in my third year, decided to bag it all and go into the graduate school of business. So I think I could understand the bulk of it with a lot of effort, but it would be like having a root canal without any anesthetic.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I remember reading books like that in college. Not quite at that level though, more comparable to some of Nate Silver's more complex stuff. Meh, what percentage have an advanced degree? That's probably the answer.

[phk]

It has a lot of tendentious equations with fancy font symbols, and I remember having to wade through this kind of sh**t in college in poly sci classes. I hated game theory, and in my third year, decided to bag it all and go into the graduate school of business. So I think I could understand the bulk of it with a lot of effort, but it would be like having a root canal without any anesthetic.

I actually  took a Mathematical Reasoning class just so I could actually figure out the notation in literature like this.

[tik 🪀✨]

http://www.princeton.edu/~ameirowi/pol575/gtbookts.pdf


... in a meaningful fashion?

Meaningful in that they could, well, apply it? Very few, of course. I can understand it at a very basic level and I currently have a small piss stain on my shorts. Take from that what you may.

[opebo]

One wonders what is the source of phnkrocket's insecurity.

[Gustaf]

I've taken courses in logic, game theory and math and I think (after having read the first page of the first chapter and the table of contents) that I wouldn't have much trouble understanding it.

But it is sort of an odd question to ask since it is purely educational. Obviously, pretty much anyone who hasn't studied game theory won't be able to get a fairly advanced text on game theory, just like I wouldn't get a text on anything beyond introductory level in physics or chemistry, etc.

The answer to the question would probably the % of people who have taken sufficient courses in economics (or possibly something else with enough math in it). I guess that might be interesting for someone to know.

[cannonia]

Most of the forum regulars aren't here for the illustrations, right?  Reading the first few pages, the book seems to begin at a basic level, so I assume most could read it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Game Theory is profoundly asinine and could ever be thought of as creditable by American University Professors and paranoid schizophrenics involved in American nuclear deterrant policy while being scared by men who wear red ties (Commies, see).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Generally specialist books can only be read by people with the right training. It's a craft issue not an intelligence one.

I wonder how many people here could read Metahistory in a meaningful fashion? Probably less. What would that prove? Very little.

[Gustaf]

Generally specialist books can only be read by people with the right training. It's a craft issue not an intelligence one.

I wonder how many people here could read Metahistory in a meaningful fashion? Probably less. What would that prove? Very little.

Yeah, that was my point exactly. Anything beyond introductory level in any science should, by definition, be incomprehensible for someone who hasn't studied at least upto that level.

Then, of course, there are things like management books who are incomprehensible to everyone at all levels, but that's another story.

[??????????]

Have they made the movie yet? (American)