Pulse en una miniatura para ir a Google Books.
|
Cargando... Jane Austen, Game Theorist (edición 2014)por Michael Suk-Young Chwe (Autor)
Información de la obraJane Austen, Game Theorist por Michael Suk-Young Chwe
   Books Read in 2018 (2,123) Actualmente no hay Conversaciones sobre este libro.  Tom-e | Mar 29, 2022 |    ) StephenCummins | Mar 31, 2020 |  ) Murphy-Jacobs | Jun 14, 2019 | sin reseñas | añadir una reseña
"Game theory--the study of how people make choices while interacting with others--is one of the most popular technical approaches in social science today. But as Michael Chwe reveals in his insightful new book, Jane Austen explored game theory's core ideas in her six novels roughly two hundred years ago. Jane Austen, Game Theorist shows how this beloved writer theorized choice and preferences, prized strategic thinking, argued that jointly strategizing with a partner is the surest foundation for intimacy, and analyzed why superiors are often strategically clueless about inferiors. With a diverse range of literature and folktales, this book illustrates the wide relevance of game theory and how, fundamentally, we are all strategic thinkers. Although game theory's mathematical development began in the Cold War 1950s, Chwe finds that game theory has earlier subversive historical roots in Austen's novels and in "folk game theory" traditions, including African American folktales. Chwe makes the case that these literary forebears are game theory's true scientific predecessors. He considers how Austen in particular analyzed "cluelessness"--the conspicuous absence of strategic thinking--and how her sharp observations apply to a variety of situations, including U.S. military blunders in Iraq and Vietnam. Jane Austen, Game Theorist brings together the study of literature and social science in an original and surprising way."--Publisher's website. No se han encontrado descripciones de biblioteca. |
Debates activosNingunoCubiertas populares
 Google Books — Cargando...GénerosSistema Decimal Melvil (DDC)823.7Literature English English fiction Early 19th century 1800-37Clasificación de la Biblioteca del CongresoValoraciónPromedio: (3.39)
¿Eres tú?Conviértete en un Autor de LibraryThing. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1
With this title, you might think you were in for a parody like Pride and Prejudice and Vampires. But no. In Jane Austen, Game Theorist, Michael Suk-Young, a political scientist from the University of California, offers a serious work of literary criticism applying game theory to the analysis of Austen’s novels. In Austen’s novels, the word “stratagem” usually describes the plans of less admirable characters, but as Suk-Young Chwe points out, her heroines tend to be those who pay clearest attention to the goals and strategies of others. They have a quality Austen calls “penetration,” which means the ability to see into the intentions and feelings of others. Emma is a heroine who overestimates her own abilities in this regard. Fanny Price of Mansfield Park improves her gaming skills as she grows up. The most fascinating analysis here deals with characters who are in one way or another “clueless,” with no insight into what others are up to. Most of the time, not understanding your opponent is a disadvantage in gaming, but not always. In Northanger Abbey, cluelessness works to the heroine’s advantage because her cluelessness makes her unpredictable and able to avoid traps into which more insightful women might fall. Suk-Young Chwe points out that many of Austen’s minor characters are amateurs at gamesmanship. Characters like Mr. Collins of Pride and Prejudice and John Dashwood think of themselves as shrewd social operatives, but they depend on social rules and rank to tell them how to act. The more expert gamers are more able to think autonomously and know when the rules can be bent. Suk-Young Chwe assumes his audience knows nothing about game theory (in my case a good assumption) and has never read Austen. Sometimes the argument gets lost in the plot summaries that follow from this assumption. 4 stars. (