What do you think?
Rate this book
Jane Austen, Game Theorist
How the works of Jane Austen show that game theory is present in all human behavior
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.
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.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published April 21, 2013
78 people are currently reading
1369 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
May 19, 2013
Let it be widely known that I picked this up off the Seminary Coop's front table a whole day before this cutesy NYT review. As game theory normally makes me cry, I thought a Jane Austen approach would be gentler on my brain than the more classic books. Instead, what I got was a well written and admiring exploration of strategic thinking in human relationships as portrayed by Austen.
The NYT describes this as, "230 diagram-heavy pages," a gross exaggeration- there are only 14 graphics in the book, 13 of which are in the introductory chapters on game theory. Instead, this read as excellent Austen literary criticism that happened to draw on African American folklore and political science texts in addition to the more typical fare.
Chwe's exploration of cluelessness was well done, in particular the observation that high status individuals embrace cluelessness in order to maintain rank- obliviousness is a privilege of people who don't have to care what those "beneath" them think and can at times be a strategic advantage (a la Ender's Game and the dilemma of U.S. checkpoints in Iraq). I also liked Chwe's numerous pointed observations that pressure on the individual to conform to norms of selflessness and social behavior often fall harder on disadvantaged rather than privileged people: "For Mrs. Norris and Lady Catherine, calling a young woman independent or selfish is just another way to keep her from making her own choices (p. 134)," and, "Social norms are often considered a necessary corrective to unbridled selfishness, but it is easy to be in favor of social norms when they are not stacked against you. Shouldn't Fanny be able to make a 'selfish,' 'individualistic' choice about whether or whom to marry? (p. 128)."
However, my favorite observation was that strategic partnership is the height of true intimacy: "This post-game recap, in which a couple reviews the choices and motivations of others and themselves, is often the moment of greatest intimacy (p. 149)," and, "Captain Wentworth and Anne do not have Captain and Mrs. Harville's unspoken communication, and they do not have Emma and Mr. Knightley's history of strategic teamwork, but to his credit, Captain Wentworth creates that partnership on the spot by explicitly asking for help and following Anne's instructions; he is the kind of man who does not mind asking for directions (p. 145)."
There were parts that raised my eyebrows- while Chwe makes useful connections between theory of mind, our current understanding of the autism spectrum, and a certain brand of Austen's cluelessness, he is far too uncritical of Baron-Cohen's utterly whack "male brain" theory. His attempt to redeem quantification of human behavior through a throwaway comment on Mary's study of thorough bass was, while intriguing, a hopelessly weak point with which to conclude the book. However, overall this read like a delightful confection but prompted at several turns new understanding of both Austen's texts as well as the social dynamics of today.
The NYT describes this as, "230 diagram-heavy pages," a gross exaggeration- there are only 14 graphics in the book, 13 of which are in the introductory chapters on game theory. Instead, this read as excellent Austen literary criticism that happened to draw on African American folklore and political science texts in addition to the more typical fare.
Chwe's exploration of cluelessness was well done, in particular the observation that high status individuals embrace cluelessness in order to maintain rank- obliviousness is a privilege of people who don't have to care what those "beneath" them think and can at times be a strategic advantage (a la Ender's Game and the dilemma of U.S. checkpoints in Iraq). I also liked Chwe's numerous pointed observations that pressure on the individual to conform to norms of selflessness and social behavior often fall harder on disadvantaged rather than privileged people: "For Mrs. Norris and Lady Catherine, calling a young woman independent or selfish is just another way to keep her from making her own choices (p. 134)," and, "Social norms are often considered a necessary corrective to unbridled selfishness, but it is easy to be in favor of social norms when they are not stacked against you. Shouldn't Fanny be able to make a 'selfish,' 'individualistic' choice about whether or whom to marry? (p. 128)."
However, my favorite observation was that strategic partnership is the height of true intimacy: "This post-game recap, in which a couple reviews the choices and motivations of others and themselves, is often the moment of greatest intimacy (p. 149)," and, "Captain Wentworth and Anne do not have Captain and Mrs. Harville's unspoken communication, and they do not have Emma and Mr. Knightley's history of strategic teamwork, but to his credit, Captain Wentworth creates that partnership on the spot by explicitly asking for help and following Anne's instructions; he is the kind of man who does not mind asking for directions (p. 145)."
There were parts that raised my eyebrows- while Chwe makes useful connections between theory of mind, our current understanding of the autism spectrum, and a certain brand of Austen's cluelessness, he is far too uncritical of Baron-Cohen's utterly whack "male brain" theory. His attempt to redeem quantification of human behavior through a throwaway comment on Mary's study of thorough bass was, while intriguing, a hopelessly weak point with which to conclude the book. However, overall this read like a delightful confection but prompted at several turns new understanding of both Austen's texts as well as the social dynamics of today.
Want to read
January 14, 2016It's official: people have found a way to tie Jane Austen to ANYTHING. I still want to read it, though.
June 19, 2023
I've been wanting to read this book for ages! Good thing I remembered to borrow it while I was at the library. Jane Austen: Game Theorist is supposed to combine two of my favourite subjects - Literature and Economics (technically, I prefer Business Administration, but close enough!)
If you have no knowledge of Jane Austen or Game Theory, you can still read this book and understand what it's talking about (since there are introductions). Still, if you don't know/have no interest in either subject, why did you pick this book up?
Well, the book, making no presumption of prior knowledge of either Austen or Game Theory, first does a brief introduction. Then it veers into folktales and how they illustrate game theory (for about a chapter or two), before finally, it starts analysing game theory in the six novels of Austen (which are considered as one body of work).
Personally, I found the book to be really interesting. I've never thought of the motivations of the different characters in terms of economics (then again, I doubt many people have). It was interesting to read the analysis, and it does make quite a lot of sense to me.
But, I should warn you guys, the writing is dry. The writing style is academic, so if you're expecting a friendly, conversational tone of voice, you may be put to sleep by this book. If you're the sort that spends all day reading non-fiction/academic journals, you may be used to a more formal style, but since I've been reading nothing but novels lately, it was a bit of a shock.
Still, I highly recommend this book, especially for Jane Austen fans. It's definitely not your typical analysis on Jane Austen, and I hope that they're be more books melding Literature and Economics/Business in the future.
This review was first posted at Inside the mind of a Bibliophile
If you have no knowledge of Jane Austen or Game Theory, you can still read this book and understand what it's talking about (since there are introductions). Still, if you don't know/have no interest in either subject, why did you pick this book up?
Well, the book, making no presumption of prior knowledge of either Austen or Game Theory, first does a brief introduction. Then it veers into folktales and how they illustrate game theory (for about a chapter or two), before finally, it starts analysing game theory in the six novels of Austen (which are considered as one body of work).
Personally, I found the book to be really interesting. I've never thought of the motivations of the different characters in terms of economics (then again, I doubt many people have). It was interesting to read the analysis, and it does make quite a lot of sense to me.
But, I should warn you guys, the writing is dry. The writing style is academic, so if you're expecting a friendly, conversational tone of voice, you may be put to sleep by this book. If you're the sort that spends all day reading non-fiction/academic journals, you may be used to a more formal style, but since I've been reading nothing but novels lately, it was a bit of a shock.
Still, I highly recommend this book, especially for Jane Austen fans. It's definitely not your typical analysis on Jane Austen, and I hope that they're be more books melding Literature and Economics/Business in the future.
This review was first posted at Inside the mind of a Bibliophile
March 28, 2021
Fantastic! This book provides an explanation of game theory which starts with diagrams and a mathematical preferences/pay-out model (reminded me of my corporate finance class!) with examples from folk tales and then gets into more traditional literary analysis to build the argument that Austen can be considered an early game theorist. Chwe does not simply interpret Austen’s six novels using game theory; he argues that Austen contributes to the discourse, demonstrating that her writing shows an interest in strategic thinking and game theory (before it was labeled as such). Her novels act out different models for making choices and navigating through life’s complicated path of interacting with and settling down with people.
His book is fairly complete. He dedicates a chapter on Austen’s use of game theory foundations: choice, preferences, revealed preference to name a few. I particularly liked the chapter on interpreting what someone is thinking by reading someone’s eyes. He covers alternative frameworks for behaving (instinct, emotion, habit, ideology) to prove Austen’s preference for acting based on strategic thought. He even includes a section on card games to show how Austen’s real strategic thinkers are aware that strategy is not about winning a game, but is played out in real life. A game of cards, or a theatrical play, serve as a stage to reveal underlying intentions and motives that are going on between characters beyond the card table or curtain.
The chapter “What Strategic Thinking is Not” is also a useful address to his critics, those who have misunderstood game theory to think acting based on preference is selfish, economic, or moralistic. He even addresses the question that annoys all literary analysts: do you really think author x meant for all this to be there? He clearly explains Austen’s intentions do not matter. The text is open to analysis, merely by its existence. The narrative presents opportunities to its characters and they make choices to act or react, or remain clueless (Chwe 180). Like any good academic, Chwe is aware of what he is doing. He explains the limitations of game theory modeling and counters this premise with game theory’s usefulness – what more it can bring to the table. I appreciated the meaning it brought to the interpretation of Austen’s novels and learning about a new theoretical framework that can shed light across disciplines.
The last third of the book is dedicated to what Austen contributes to game theory. Two principles that impressed me were:
1. Strategy of Two People Working Together to Placate or Manipulate a Third Person:
Examples Chwe uses are when Emma and Mr. Knightly work together to calm Mr. Woodhouse and share that they are both in the know about what each other are thinking when they exchange glances over Mr. Woodhouse’s verbal chatter. Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth similarly work together covertly to change the subject or de-escalate a situation to avoid further embarrassment, whether it is to prevent Mrs. Bennet ranting on, or something more serious like a younger sister’s elopement. Chwe interpets Elinor and Colonel Brandon as the strategic thinkers in S&S, and although they are not a romantic pair, they work together to take care of Marianne.
2. Cluelessness by Either Natural Inability or Inexperience:
Chwe identifies Mr. Collins and Lady Bertram as clueless characters who are naturally inept at reading social situations and are very poor strategists. Cluelessness is also a weakness of social superiors who forget to think that inferiors are capable of strategic action and thought. Chwe supports this argument by identifying two decisive blunders: First, Lady Catherine’s blunder is when she lords over Elizabeth that she could not possibly be engaged to her nephew and request that she promise never to marry him. This move has the opposite desired effect, since it signals to Mr. Darcy that Elizabeth loves him since he knows her well enough to know she would have not been afraid to announce her dislike for him if it were true.
The second blunder of a superior is General Tilney who boots Catherine out of his house when he discovers she is not a wealthy heiress. This decision to eliminate Catherine from his family and estate backfires, as it provides an excuse for Henry to visit Catherine at her home to apologize for his father’s behaviour which leads to their engagement.
Cluelessness is also a characteristic of the inexperienced, and Chwe takes time to analyse Fanny Price, Catherine Morland, and Emma as young women who are “strategic sophomores” and learn strategic thinking as part of their novel’s arc. He astutely points out that Austen likes to include younger sisters who are waiting in the wings to step into the position to learn strategy and life lessons: Kitty no longer has silly Lydia to follow and improves herself by entering Elizabeth and Darcy’s social circle, Susan is invited to Mansfield to take Fanny’s place as the apprentice niece, and Margaret, the third Dashwood sister, is reaching the age to learn the innuendoes of society.
Do not let the following criticisms diminish the ingenuity of this book, but reading really good ideas inspires criticism for how they can be even better arguments.
Chwe often ends his paragraphs with a citation from the novel. The citation is left hanging and waiting for the so what? After successfully finding an example from the text to match his argument, Chwe could hammer it home with a concluding remark about what additional meaning that link brings - to either how we read the novel, or to game theory.
Chwe takes all six novels as one work of art, and so his analysis is often a stream of examples, mixed from all six novels. I long for a good close read of one scene. He interchanges example characters without always placing them in context. Austen’s narrator is critical in ranking characters in terms of how seriously we should consider them. Chwe treats all characters with the same merit and forgets sometimes to point out how they are treated differently by the narrator. In essence, he understands the characters correctly – for example, Mr. Collins is a fool; Mr. Bingley is overly good-mannered – but including consideration for the narrator would nuance his analysis.
Finally, a note about this book’s provenance: I first discovered a copy in a basement library of U of T, sandwiched on a full shelf of Austen criticism. When I pulled it out, I immediately wished I had the time to read books like this! – instead of the required reading for my class seminars, term essays, and book review assignments. I took note of the title, bought myself a copy through Better World Books, and kept it on my to-read shelf at home until I could have the luxury to read it. A nice treat to have!
His book is fairly complete. He dedicates a chapter on Austen’s use of game theory foundations: choice, preferences, revealed preference to name a few. I particularly liked the chapter on interpreting what someone is thinking by reading someone’s eyes. He covers alternative frameworks for behaving (instinct, emotion, habit, ideology) to prove Austen’s preference for acting based on strategic thought. He even includes a section on card games to show how Austen’s real strategic thinkers are aware that strategy is not about winning a game, but is played out in real life. A game of cards, or a theatrical play, serve as a stage to reveal underlying intentions and motives that are going on between characters beyond the card table or curtain.
The chapter “What Strategic Thinking is Not” is also a useful address to his critics, those who have misunderstood game theory to think acting based on preference is selfish, economic, or moralistic. He even addresses the question that annoys all literary analysts: do you really think author x meant for all this to be there? He clearly explains Austen’s intentions do not matter. The text is open to analysis, merely by its existence. The narrative presents opportunities to its characters and they make choices to act or react, or remain clueless (Chwe 180). Like any good academic, Chwe is aware of what he is doing. He explains the limitations of game theory modeling and counters this premise with game theory’s usefulness – what more it can bring to the table. I appreciated the meaning it brought to the interpretation of Austen’s novels and learning about a new theoretical framework that can shed light across disciplines.
The last third of the book is dedicated to what Austen contributes to game theory. Two principles that impressed me were:
1. Strategy of Two People Working Together to Placate or Manipulate a Third Person:
Examples Chwe uses are when Emma and Mr. Knightly work together to calm Mr. Woodhouse and share that they are both in the know about what each other are thinking when they exchange glances over Mr. Woodhouse’s verbal chatter. Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth similarly work together covertly to change the subject or de-escalate a situation to avoid further embarrassment, whether it is to prevent Mrs. Bennet ranting on, or something more serious like a younger sister’s elopement. Chwe interpets Elinor and Colonel Brandon as the strategic thinkers in S&S, and although they are not a romantic pair, they work together to take care of Marianne.
2. Cluelessness by Either Natural Inability or Inexperience:
Chwe identifies Mr. Collins and Lady Bertram as clueless characters who are naturally inept at reading social situations and are very poor strategists. Cluelessness is also a weakness of social superiors who forget to think that inferiors are capable of strategic action and thought. Chwe supports this argument by identifying two decisive blunders: First, Lady Catherine’s blunder is when she lords over Elizabeth that she could not possibly be engaged to her nephew and request that she promise never to marry him. This move has the opposite desired effect, since it signals to Mr. Darcy that Elizabeth loves him since he knows her well enough to know she would have not been afraid to announce her dislike for him if it were true.
The second blunder of a superior is General Tilney who boots Catherine out of his house when he discovers she is not a wealthy heiress. This decision to eliminate Catherine from his family and estate backfires, as it provides an excuse for Henry to visit Catherine at her home to apologize for his father’s behaviour which leads to their engagement.
Cluelessness is also a characteristic of the inexperienced, and Chwe takes time to analyse Fanny Price, Catherine Morland, and Emma as young women who are “strategic sophomores” and learn strategic thinking as part of their novel’s arc. He astutely points out that Austen likes to include younger sisters who are waiting in the wings to step into the position to learn strategy and life lessons: Kitty no longer has silly Lydia to follow and improves herself by entering Elizabeth and Darcy’s social circle, Susan is invited to Mansfield to take Fanny’s place as the apprentice niece, and Margaret, the third Dashwood sister, is reaching the age to learn the innuendoes of society.
Do not let the following criticisms diminish the ingenuity of this book, but reading really good ideas inspires criticism for how they can be even better arguments.
Chwe often ends his paragraphs with a citation from the novel. The citation is left hanging and waiting for the so what? After successfully finding an example from the text to match his argument, Chwe could hammer it home with a concluding remark about what additional meaning that link brings - to either how we read the novel, or to game theory.
Chwe takes all six novels as one work of art, and so his analysis is often a stream of examples, mixed from all six novels. I long for a good close read of one scene. He interchanges example characters without always placing them in context. Austen’s narrator is critical in ranking characters in terms of how seriously we should consider them. Chwe treats all characters with the same merit and forgets sometimes to point out how they are treated differently by the narrator. In essence, he understands the characters correctly – for example, Mr. Collins is a fool; Mr. Bingley is overly good-mannered – but including consideration for the narrator would nuance his analysis.
Finally, a note about this book’s provenance: I first discovered a copy in a basement library of U of T, sandwiched on a full shelf of Austen criticism. When I pulled it out, I immediately wished I had the time to read books like this! – instead of the required reading for my class seminars, term essays, and book review assignments. I took note of the title, bought myself a copy through Better World Books, and kept it on my to-read shelf at home until I could have the luxury to read it. A nice treat to have!
June 10, 2013
I wanted to like this more. The author makes a compelling case, but it's almost as if he had a quota to fill, and so he kept making his case over and over and over.
Not only that, but Chwe didn't stick to Jane Austen. He was all over the map with trickster stories, the Taliban, and whatever other random examples he could throw in.
I'm fairly certain this would've been a better magazine article.
Not only that, but Chwe didn't stick to Jane Austen. He was all over the map with trickster stories, the Taliban, and whatever other random examples he could throw in.
I'm fairly certain this would've been a better magazine article.
November 13, 2022
A lot of interesting ideas, but quite a few cases where I just didn’t agree with the interpretations of Austen’s work left me wondering if we read the same books. I gave up on the last chapter (and probably missed the more political stuff). Meh
October 18, 2016
How could the writer Chwe have known there would be an audience for this kind of thing? Jane Austen, Game Theorist is a quick and fun read, especially for Austen lovers who so happen to be looking to acquaint themselves with game theory.
Strategic decision making is not rocket science. Chwe says, and I agree, that anyone with advanced social skills need not fully understand game theory to succeed in it.
Strategic decision making is not rocket science. Chwe says, and I agree, that anyone with advanced social skills need not fully understand game theory to succeed in it.
November 22, 2020
An interesting read. When Austen was writing, I think her novels were geared more towards social commentary on women's position in society, and that the "strategy" involved was not so much "game theory" but women using the tools they had at that time period to pursue happiness (or marrying well, or any other goal). Is this a precursor to game theory? Maybe.
July 16, 2013
He lost me early on: isn't it blindingly obvious that people use their insight into what others want to help them get what they want? Yes, Jane Austen did that very well, but doesn't every writer? I got bored.
November 8, 2018
I've read all of Jane's novels two or three times and now, after reading Chwe's book, I must reread them again, with the insights from this book.
Game theory is all about how people make choices, given their knowledge or lack of knowledge of what other people think and want, in order to get what they want. Altho game theory was formally invented in the mid-20th century, Chwe argues that Jane intentionally laid the philosophical basis for game theory in the novels. Emma, for example, is a gamer...she manipulates Mr. Elton, Harriet Smith, her father, and others, with varying degrees of success. She fails sometimes because of her inability to see what others may want but other times succeeds because of her understanding and discernment.
Literary analysis sometimes seems (to me) to run out of gas, as the major thesis is exposed and the supporting evidence is laid out. This book does that, but still I found it compelling and fun. Plus, it just adds to the wealth of ways to read Jane Austen.
Game theory is all about how people make choices, given their knowledge or lack of knowledge of what other people think and want, in order to get what they want. Altho game theory was formally invented in the mid-20th century, Chwe argues that Jane intentionally laid the philosophical basis for game theory in the novels. Emma, for example, is a gamer...she manipulates Mr. Elton, Harriet Smith, her father, and others, with varying degrees of success. She fails sometimes because of her inability to see what others may want but other times succeeds because of her understanding and discernment.
Literary analysis sometimes seems (to me) to run out of gas, as the major thesis is exposed and the supporting evidence is laid out. This book does that, but still I found it compelling and fun. Plus, it just adds to the wealth of ways to read Jane Austen.
August 18, 2013
Too good to rush through, so good an immediate re-reading may be required.
P. 1 "Austen starts with the basic concepts of choice (a person does what she does because she chooses to) and preferences (a person chooses according to her preferences)."
P, 5 "Austen consistently delights in how completely different feelings, such as the pain of a broken heart and the pleasure of a warm fire, can compensate for each other. This commensurability, that feelings can be reduced into a single "net" feeling, is the essential assumption behind game theory's representation of preferences as numerical "payoffs," and indeed Austen sometimes jokes that feelings can be represented numerically. A person's preferences are best revealed by her choices, as in economic theory's "revealed preference"'; for example, Elizabeth Bennet estimates the strength of Mr. Darcy's love by the many disadvantages it has to overcome."
P. 25 "A wide variety of social situations can be represented by this same table. . . . GAme theory allows us to understand all of these related situations as parables for each other."
P. 53 "Together Elizabeth and Darcy work together to solve a problem, and their existing strategic skills are sufficient for this."
P. 67 "Austen encourages us to trace everyone's motivations and actions in detail, to exercise our own strategic thinking."
P. 128 "Social norms are often considered a necessary corrective to unbridled selfishness, but it is easy to be in favor of social norms when they are not stacked against you. Shouldn't Fanny be able to make a "selfish," "individualistic" choice about whether or whom to marry? The idea that social factors are a bulwark against corrosive self-interest might be considered an affection, even weapon, of the privileged. "
P. 197 Knightley provides carriage to convey the Bates, etc. home. "Mr. Knightley's thoughtfulness might be unusual for a man, but in this case, his ability to anticipate and provide for women's needs if anything makes him more, not less of a man."
P. 1 "Austen starts with the basic concepts of choice (a person does what she does because she chooses to) and preferences (a person chooses according to her preferences)."
P, 5 "Austen consistently delights in how completely different feelings, such as the pain of a broken heart and the pleasure of a warm fire, can compensate for each other. This commensurability, that feelings can be reduced into a single "net" feeling, is the essential assumption behind game theory's representation of preferences as numerical "payoffs," and indeed Austen sometimes jokes that feelings can be represented numerically. A person's preferences are best revealed by her choices, as in economic theory's "revealed preference"'; for example, Elizabeth Bennet estimates the strength of Mr. Darcy's love by the many disadvantages it has to overcome."
P. 25 "A wide variety of social situations can be represented by this same table. . . . GAme theory allows us to understand all of these related situations as parables for each other."
P. 53 "Together Elizabeth and Darcy work together to solve a problem, and their existing strategic skills are sufficient for this."
P. 67 "Austen encourages us to trace everyone's motivations and actions in detail, to exercise our own strategic thinking."
P. 128 "Social norms are often considered a necessary corrective to unbridled selfishness, but it is easy to be in favor of social norms when they are not stacked against you. Shouldn't Fanny be able to make a "selfish," "individualistic" choice about whether or whom to marry? The idea that social factors are a bulwark against corrosive self-interest might be considered an affection, even weapon, of the privileged. "
P. 197 Knightley provides carriage to convey the Bates, etc. home. "Mr. Knightley's thoughtfulness might be unusual for a man, but in this case, his ability to anticipate and provide for women's needs if anything makes him more, not less of a man."
June 29, 2013
This is no easily digestible work like Freakonomics or something from Gladwell. This thing is a treatise -- heavy with references and scholarship. It was reminiscent of reading a journal article more than a fluffy pop-sci page-turner.
There are some bold ideas here, but I'm a little bit too (hard) scientific to truly be pulled into stuff like this because they make a career out of drawing broad generalizations from six data points (namely, Austen's six novels). I had thought the author's claim that Austen effectively "invented" game theory was an exaggerated back-cover assertion (perhaps by the publisher) to pique interest, but he then does truly attempt to make the case as deadpan seriously as possible. Can some characters truly be considered "autistic" because they mention something about numbers at a single point in the novel? If you ascribe deep meaning to every word on the page, then perhaps so; however, this is generally the station at which I get off the train. I just can't believe that such premeditation follows every artistic work in this world, and this is why much of the scholarly humanities and I have never gotten along.
All of that said, I learned a tremendous amount about game theory from the book and now I definitely will remember the major plot threads of all of Austen's novels! In fact, many of the points raised with regard to decision making by the characters in her novels are well observed. Worthwhile if the thought of a grand unified Austen-o-verse appeals to you.
There are some bold ideas here, but I'm a little bit too (hard) scientific to truly be pulled into stuff like this because they make a career out of drawing broad generalizations from six data points (namely, Austen's six novels). I had thought the author's claim that Austen effectively "invented" game theory was an exaggerated back-cover assertion (perhaps by the publisher) to pique interest, but he then does truly attempt to make the case as deadpan seriously as possible. Can some characters truly be considered "autistic" because they mention something about numbers at a single point in the novel? If you ascribe deep meaning to every word on the page, then perhaps so; however, this is generally the station at which I get off the train. I just can't believe that such premeditation follows every artistic work in this world, and this is why much of the scholarly humanities and I have never gotten along.
All of that said, I learned a tremendous amount about game theory from the book and now I definitely will remember the major plot threads of all of Austen's novels! In fact, many of the points raised with regard to decision making by the characters in her novels are well observed. Worthwhile if the thought of a grand unified Austen-o-verse appeals to you.
Read
August 4, 2013Interesting enough-although it reminds be a bit of the Benjamin Hoff's books, which attempted to explain Taoism by using Milne's Characters as a back drop.
Dr. Suk-Young Chwe is a Political Scientist, not a student of Jane Austen-as such I assumed he was simply using Austen to make Game Theory easily understood. But that didnt seem to be his point really-he seemed equally interested in Austen.
Too bad really-while I enjoyed the discussion on Game Theory I felt he took the fun out of Austen-and really never explained why he felt Austen developed his exploration of game theory out of sequence. It would have made sense if each novel delved further into it, but the argument really only worked if they were taken out of sequence.
A fatal flaw in his argument for me.
Dr. Suk-Young Chwe is a Political Scientist, not a student of Jane Austen-as such I assumed he was simply using Austen to make Game Theory easily understood. But that didnt seem to be his point really-he seemed equally interested in Austen.
Too bad really-while I enjoyed the discussion on Game Theory I felt he took the fun out of Austen-and really never explained why he felt Austen developed his exploration of game theory out of sequence. It would have made sense if each novel delved further into it, but the argument really only worked if they were taken out of sequence.
A fatal flaw in his argument for me.
October 30, 2013
The mathematical portions of game theory still leave me puzzled. Where do the numbers come from? We'll assign an 8 to Betsy keeping Susan's knife (p.10) and a 9 to her giving it up in favor of a new one? Why those numbers and not, say, 4 and 5?
However, the analysis of Austen's novels makes fascinating reading. The concept of cluelessness is wonderfully complex. I love his explanations of how the status differences effect its functions, and why being clueless may sometimes be useful. I may have to go re read Mansfield Park, which I didn't really like all that much the first time, just to see if I can get more out of it now.
I got this out from the library and am considering getting my own copy. Just what my house needs, another book! But it's only a little one.
However, the analysis of Austen's novels makes fascinating reading. The concept of cluelessness is wonderfully complex. I love his explanations of how the status differences effect its functions, and why being clueless may sometimes be useful. I may have to go re read Mansfield Park, which I didn't really like all that much the first time, just to see if I can get more out of it now.
I got this out from the library and am considering getting my own copy. Just what my house needs, another book! But it's only a little one.
October 12, 2013
I can't say enough good things about this book. The author has chosen an engaging topic, and he addresses it with clarity, vigor, humor, and intelligence. He is an excellent writer, as well, imparting game theory concepts without "talking down" or obscurity. Several times I found myself wishing I could sign up for one of his classes, as he is an engaging theorist and teacher. Whether your expertise is the works of Jane Austen - or your background is game theory, this book shows the value of cross-disciplinary approaches to strategic thinking and literary criticism. I couldn't put it down!
December 5, 2018
Chwe argues that Jane Austen held insights into rational human behavior. He uses Austen's work to counter criticisms against economics and rational choice theory by others in the social sciences and humanities. If Austen also acknowledges and argues for rational choice in her heroines and heroes, and because Austen's novels certainly qualify as "the humanities", than game theory, with its mathematics and cold logic holds a prominent place in explaining human behavior.
The book is dry, dense, and long. Despite saying it does not need familiarity with Austen's work, I found watching the movies, or reading one of her novels to be indispensable.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed Chwe's response to critics of economic thinking. Against those who dislike modeling the world with math, Chwe notes that mathematics is simply a more formal language of logic. Another difficulty, commensurability, or the practice of adding up value across individuals, was very well discussed. How does one add up the happiness of one option vs the happiness of other. The problem is multi-dimensioned, complex, and completely subjective. Yet, because of our constraints (scarcity), actors have to make a choice. This choice requires an agent to reduce the multidimensionality down to the binary - yes or no. Like all good novelists, Austen's characters must make difficult decisions, that define their character. The heroines rationalize, ponder, and calculate to maximize their own well-being.
He also spends a considerable time responding to critics who point to the Cold War origin of game theory. Critics argue that game theory is a tool used by the powerful. Chwe responds by noting folk stories, and in Austen's day, powerless and choiceless women, often times used strategem better than those in power. They were more in tune with other's preferences. Those in power obsess over status. Status is easier to observe than trying to discern the motives of those you interact with. Yet, this hueristic is a form of mental laziness that blinds that status-consciuos to reality. This lack of information can by used by the actor without power to their advantage. Chwe cites the civil right's movement's exploitation of their oppressor's ignorance. Martin Luther King brought the movement to Birmingham because he knew the public safety comissioner, "Bull" Connor would react violently to a peaceful protest. King's efforts failed, earlier in Albany, Georgia because their chief of police Laurie Pritchett was rationally nonviolent and understood King's strategy. The movement took advantage of lack of strategic thinking and focus on status from Connor and Selma's officer Jim Clark.
The book is dry, dense, and long. Despite saying it does not need familiarity with Austen's work, I found watching the movies, or reading one of her novels to be indispensable.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed Chwe's response to critics of economic thinking. Against those who dislike modeling the world with math, Chwe notes that mathematics is simply a more formal language of logic. Another difficulty, commensurability, or the practice of adding up value across individuals, was very well discussed. How does one add up the happiness of one option vs the happiness of other. The problem is multi-dimensioned, complex, and completely subjective. Yet, because of our constraints (scarcity), actors have to make a choice. This choice requires an agent to reduce the multidimensionality down to the binary - yes or no. Like all good novelists, Austen's characters must make difficult decisions, that define their character. The heroines rationalize, ponder, and calculate to maximize their own well-being.
He also spends a considerable time responding to critics who point to the Cold War origin of game theory. Critics argue that game theory is a tool used by the powerful. Chwe responds by noting folk stories, and in Austen's day, powerless and choiceless women, often times used strategem better than those in power. They were more in tune with other's preferences. Those in power obsess over status. Status is easier to observe than trying to discern the motives of those you interact with. Yet, this hueristic is a form of mental laziness that blinds that status-consciuos to reality. This lack of information can by used by the actor without power to their advantage. Chwe cites the civil right's movement's exploitation of their oppressor's ignorance. Martin Luther King brought the movement to Birmingham because he knew the public safety comissioner, "Bull" Connor would react violently to a peaceful protest. King's efforts failed, earlier in Albany, Georgia because their chief of police Laurie Pritchett was rationally nonviolent and understood King's strategy. The movement took advantage of lack of strategic thinking and focus on status from Connor and Selma's officer Jim Clark.
March 29, 2022
Suk-Young Chwe, Michael. Jane Austen, Game Theorist. Princeton UP, 2013.
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.
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.
June 27, 2019
2.5 stars
I really wanted to like this book more, but it turned out to be quite disappointing to me. It might sound strange, but I was hoping for more rigorous logic and less blahblah. This book reads more like a mixture of a sociology journal paper and a high schooler’s essay they had to write to back up the hypothesis that Jane Austen was indeed a game theorist - one of the firsts!
Apart from not being mathematical enough (for my personal taste) it had some more serious issues. (By the way, I do NOT mean that I wanted more numbers, more that I was lacking a very rigorous description of game theory in mathematical terms. I’m clarifying this, because the author himself seems to equate mathematics with numbers) The book contradicts itself in some places and the author can’t stop to venture into areas clearly not his expertise (for example he quite freely hands out the diagnosis “autistic”, because some characters used numbers once in a small scene of the book - seriously?). He also tries to connect US military tactics to Jane Austen plot lines via game theory, which was quite exhausting to say the least.
One of his strangest claims was that mathematicians are bad at strategic thinking (where does he get that from?) which (apart from being a strange claim) has nothing to do with Austen’s books and is just stated as a “fact” without any proof.
Having said all that, I still quite liked the first few chapters and the parts that focus exclusively on Austen’s books without any strange excursions. Unfortunately, they can not make up for the annoying aspects of this book.
I really wanted to like this book more, but it turned out to be quite disappointing to me. It might sound strange, but I was hoping for more rigorous logic and less blahblah. This book reads more like a mixture of a sociology journal paper and a high schooler’s essay they had to write to back up the hypothesis that Jane Austen was indeed a game theorist - one of the firsts!
Apart from not being mathematical enough (for my personal taste) it had some more serious issues. (By the way, I do NOT mean that I wanted more numbers, more that I was lacking a very rigorous description of game theory in mathematical terms. I’m clarifying this, because the author himself seems to equate mathematics with numbers) The book contradicts itself in some places and the author can’t stop to venture into areas clearly not his expertise (for example he quite freely hands out the diagnosis “autistic”, because some characters used numbers once in a small scene of the book - seriously?). He also tries to connect US military tactics to Jane Austen plot lines via game theory, which was quite exhausting to say the least.
One of his strangest claims was that mathematicians are bad at strategic thinking (where does he get that from?) which (apart from being a strange claim) has nothing to do with Austen’s books and is just stated as a “fact” without any proof.
Having said all that, I still quite liked the first few chapters and the parts that focus exclusively on Austen’s books without any strange excursions. Unfortunately, they can not make up for the annoying aspects of this book.
May 16, 2022
I disagree with some of the author’s interpretations of parts of Austen’s works, but overall, Chwe’s thesis is interesting and a lot of fun to read about. I found the discussion of types of cluelessness to be particularly relevant to struggles for social justice.
No knowledge of game theory or mathematics is necessary to benefit from this book. Chwe summarizes the Austen novels he references, but my strategic thinking skills aren’t up to putting myself in the position of a person who hasn’t read them to know if the summaries would be sufficient.
No knowledge of game theory or mathematics is necessary to benefit from this book. Chwe summarizes the Austen novels he references, but my strategic thinking skills aren’t up to putting myself in the position of a person who hasn’t read them to know if the summaries would be sufficient.
January 24, 2022
Perhaps a 2.5... Interesting premise and opening. But the author seemed draw a long bow at times, and has perhaps chosen Austen as vehicle to communicate the concepts where his passion lay elsewhere (i.e. African American folk lore). His use of people with autism to illistrate various types of 'cluelessness' seemed somewhat random/misplaced.
April 26, 2020
I enjoyed his assessment of JA's work in light of game theory. I would have given him a higher star rating had he left out his political assessment chapters and his thrown in political comments in the JA chapters. I felt his politics should have been saved for a completely separate book.
March 19, 2017
I so wanted to love this book, I adore game theory and I love Austen, but this book was too dense and too hard to read that I had to force myself to finish it. The bits I liked the best were the sections where game theory was discussed in its real world applications, those parts were actually quite enjoyable.
The main problem with this book is that it reads like a rushed PhD thesis, it doesn't flow at all, and the author himself said that he made it really long to ensure that there was a lot of evidence on which to hang his argument, but I really feel he should have scaled back and made it more streamlined. If your the kind of person who picked up this book, you probably already bought into the premise. I didn't need to be hit over the head with a reference wall.
It's doubly difficult for me to enjoy this book as I read it so soon after Alex's adventures in numberland, a book with exactly the same academic rigour, but so different in tone and pace. I'm just a bit disappointed.
The main problem with this book is that it reads like a rushed PhD thesis, it doesn't flow at all, and the author himself said that he made it really long to ensure that there was a lot of evidence on which to hang his argument, but I really feel he should have scaled back and made it more streamlined. If your the kind of person who picked up this book, you probably already bought into the premise. I didn't need to be hit over the head with a reference wall.
It's doubly difficult for me to enjoy this book as I read it so soon after Alex's adventures in numberland, a book with exactly the same academic rigour, but so different in tone and pace. I'm just a bit disappointed.
Want to read
January 28, 2020recommendation: [Complexity group](https://www.facebook.com/groups/santa...)
August 1, 2020
A different perspective on looking at Jane Austen novels taking her time into consideration. Also, a good refresher on some books that you probably haven't read since high school.
October 21, 2022
Mildly interesting but a bit of a slog.
December 23, 2013
My goodreads review of Pride and Prejudice, which I wrote simply in a rush to say how I fell in love with Jane Austen and has become the piece of writing that I know will spark a conversation (at least with other nerdy Austen-philes or kids stuck in an AP English class). For this I'm extremely grateful, and more than a little surprised at my dumb luck.
I got lucky writing about Jane Austen. I got lucky studying Jane Austen when I did, where I did, with a teacher who knew how to challenge kids, classmates who shared my love of arguing and a mother who giddily shared all her knowledge of it with me.
Austen appeals to my own sensibilities, my own overly-romantic desire for happy endings and golden moments, but I think of her work even when I'm in the midst of teaching status obsessed teenagers (I mean, Mr. Dashwood is basically a forerunner of my self-googling, selfie-artists). Which is probably why (amateur scholar and pseudo-philosopher that I am) I rushed to request Jane Austen, Game Theorist from my local library when it was published this fall.
I love Austen. I love critical study. And I have a dilettante's interest in game theory, so I was predisposed to like it despite the skepticism of my wife and parents. I cannot allay their skeptical doubts of Michael Suk-Young Chwe's central argument (that Jane Austen uses Game Theory--the scientific exploration of decision making strategy--to explore life in her era), but I can defend the exercise.
Chwe introduces game theory as well as a freshman level philosophy prof can (which is great for those of us who still want to pay attention to freshman professors, and probably less great for those who don't care to). He offers a plethora of examples for all manner of decision making exercises in Austen's work, from youthful marriage proposals to aged property bequests. The more examples you see, the more apparent it is that Austen's character's aren't just silly girls or infatuated men; they are thinking, plotting human beings who study human behavior and make decisions based on both what they want, and what they think the next step in the game might be.
Chwe falters when making the case that Austen did all of this intentionally. Claiming that there are too many examples for it to be denied is a convenient case. There is no smoking gun, or letter in Jane's own hand that says "I must write about characters who strategize, because I am secretly an economist. Oh, and I'm a zombie hunter." But it does offer a view of Austen that will complicate any reader's mis-perception that her characters are just overly-romantic, sappy ladies of the past. His arguments are intriguing and his argumentation is clear, that's all that can reasonably be expected in a critical analysis: something to touch your senses if not your sensibilities.
I got lucky writing about Jane Austen. I got lucky studying Jane Austen when I did, where I did, with a teacher who knew how to challenge kids, classmates who shared my love of arguing and a mother who giddily shared all her knowledge of it with me.
Austen appeals to my own sensibilities, my own overly-romantic desire for happy endings and golden moments, but I think of her work even when I'm in the midst of teaching status obsessed teenagers (I mean, Mr. Dashwood is basically a forerunner of my self-googling, selfie-artists). Which is probably why (amateur scholar and pseudo-philosopher that I am) I rushed to request Jane Austen, Game Theorist from my local library when it was published this fall.
I love Austen. I love critical study. And I have a dilettante's interest in game theory, so I was predisposed to like it despite the skepticism of my wife and parents. I cannot allay their skeptical doubts of Michael Suk-Young Chwe's central argument (that Jane Austen uses Game Theory--the scientific exploration of decision making strategy--to explore life in her era), but I can defend the exercise.
Chwe introduces game theory as well as a freshman level philosophy prof can (which is great for those of us who still want to pay attention to freshman professors, and probably less great for those who don't care to). He offers a plethora of examples for all manner of decision making exercises in Austen's work, from youthful marriage proposals to aged property bequests. The more examples you see, the more apparent it is that Austen's character's aren't just silly girls or infatuated men; they are thinking, plotting human beings who study human behavior and make decisions based on both what they want, and what they think the next step in the game might be.
Chwe falters when making the case that Austen did all of this intentionally. Claiming that there are too many examples for it to be denied is a convenient case. There is no smoking gun, or letter in Jane's own hand that says "I must write about characters who strategize, because I am secretly an economist. Oh, and I'm a zombie hunter." But it does offer a view of Austen that will complicate any reader's mis-perception that her characters are just overly-romantic, sappy ladies of the past. His arguments are intriguing and his argumentation is clear, that's all that can reasonably be expected in a critical analysis: something to touch your senses if not your sensibilities.
March 12, 2014
Game Theory is very interesting, and undeniably useful in at least some situations, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that knowledge of Game Theory could be necessary to help one make better choices. When it comes down to personal choices, I still think the Core Virtues are the best thing to rely upon. But where Game Theory might prove somewhat useful is when we find ourselves in situations in which we are helping another make a choice. One of the first examples given in this book is when Fanny Price buys a knife for a younger sibling who has stolen another sibling's knife. Fanny acknowledges that she cannot make her sister's choice for her, but she makes her own choice based on what she thinks will help her sister make the right choice (giving back the stolen knife) by buying a new knife (thus each child has their own knife).
I could not agree with every example Chwe gave because there are often alternate motives of feeling or moral principle that he does not explore until halfway through the book. Not every choice in life is calculated in the way that one might calculate a chess move. Some definitely are, though...and this includes good choices as well as bad ones. Charlotte Lucas, for example, in marrying Mr. Collins, is a pretty straight-forward strategic move. But others are undertaken more to help another, such as Mr. John Knightley leaving Mr. Elton to ride in the carriage with Emma alone, knowing that Mr. Elton would likely say something to put proof to what John Knightley was trying to warn Emma of earlier, that Mr. Elton is in love in her.
I would recommend (though Chwe says otherwise) that the reader have a thorough knowledge of Austen's books before reading this one, because, as I said, his examples are not always very exemplary of his point. And he is discussing the finer points of decisions made by many different characters, and familiarity with those characters and decisions really is necessary. (Plus, I can't quite bring myself to forgive his opinion on Fanny Price...even the most hardened Lizzy Bennet fans would never go so far! I know classic literature often offers up much for discussion, but I think one should read the book before subscribing to another's opinions.) All that said, though...this book only made me question my interpretation of one character's motives out of all the different examples given. (This would be Mrs. Croft in Persuasion.)
Overall, Game Theory is interesting, but it really struck me as superfluous philosophy. There are more useful schools of thought out there on making choices.
I could not agree with every example Chwe gave because there are often alternate motives of feeling or moral principle that he does not explore until halfway through the book. Not every choice in life is calculated in the way that one might calculate a chess move. Some definitely are, though...and this includes good choices as well as bad ones. Charlotte Lucas, for example, in marrying Mr. Collins, is a pretty straight-forward strategic move. But others are undertaken more to help another, such as Mr. John Knightley leaving Mr. Elton to ride in the carriage with Emma alone, knowing that Mr. Elton would likely say something to put proof to what John Knightley was trying to warn Emma of earlier, that Mr. Elton is in love in her.
I would recommend (though Chwe says otherwise) that the reader have a thorough knowledge of Austen's books before reading this one, because, as I said, his examples are not always very exemplary of his point. And he is discussing the finer points of decisions made by many different characters, and familiarity with those characters and decisions really is necessary. (Plus, I can't quite bring myself to forgive his opinion on Fanny Price...even the most hardened Lizzy Bennet fans would never go so far! I know classic literature often offers up much for discussion, but I think one should read the book before subscribing to another's opinions.) All that said, though...this book only made me question my interpretation of one character's motives out of all the different examples given. (This would be Mrs. Croft in Persuasion.)
Overall, Game Theory is interesting, but it really struck me as superfluous philosophy. There are more useful schools of thought out there on making choices.
Read
March 23, 2014This is the second time I've come across the suggestion that Darcy was autistic. Good grief. He doesn't *like* to dance, a characteristic "shared by people on the autistic spectrum, who often find it difficult to coordinate their body movements, especially with others (193)." Come *on*: he doesn't like to be paired with the inferior but when he does dance he's good at it, like Mr. Knightley. Chwe offers the possibility for other characters as well: Mr. Collins knows how many trees are in the most distant copse and Mrs. Allen talks to herself. By this broad standard everyone's on the spectrum.
Sir Walter Eliot updates his own entry in the baronetcy "by hand to give his own words the same solidity as the printer's (195)." How was he going to write in it instead, with a typewriter?
Here I am on page 195 and so far only the first chapter deals with game theory: In Mansfield Park, Betsy is either going to give up Susan's knife or not, and Fanny can influence the outcome by offering a superior-because-new knife in the heirloom's place.
It's an academic book in tone and in formatting, with uncomfortably tight leading and a typeface called Sabon, whose readability is not its primary characteristic. It's funny how obvious this is, as obvious as the difference in lighting that distinguishes a drama from news from a sitcom from a soap opera, though more subtle.
Sir Walter Eliot updates his own entry in the baronetcy "by hand to give his own words the same solidity as the printer's (195)." How was he going to write in it instead, with a typewriter?
Here I am on page 195 and so far only the first chapter deals with game theory: In Mansfield Park, Betsy is either going to give up Susan's knife or not, and Fanny can influence the outcome by offering a superior-because-new knife in the heirloom's place.
It's an academic book in tone and in formatting, with uncomfortably tight leading and a typeface called Sabon, whose readability is not its primary characteristic. It's funny how obvious this is, as obvious as the difference in lighting that distinguishes a drama from news from a sitcom from a soap opera, though more subtle.
February 7, 2014
I rather liked studying game theory in grad school, so I thought I might enjoy this book. Alas, my fond memories have had a stake driven through their heart.
The author plausibly argues that Austen was an early game theorist and uses text reference to explain how game theory is developed by Austen's characters. That was OK, but he does many other things that just kill the book.
First off, in true academician form, every page is a game of connect the quotes. What more, he does not reference some of the more important thinkers in game theory and social choice theory such as Guahtier and Nozick. What I remembered most interesting about game theory, what are models of rationality and how do they apply to the teory and outcomes, he dismisses as not being relevent. He just posits a set of "neutral" assumptions that can be challenged on every level.
The author then argues that Austen characters show signs of autism?
In segues into folk tales he builds mountains out of molehills in his examples. Teh characters he refers are easy to be seen as "wise" when they are up against straw men.
Lasst, but not least, he veers out of Austen into an anti-Bush screed worthy of MSNBC. BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) at its best.
The author plausibly argues that Austen was an early game theorist and uses text reference to explain how game theory is developed by Austen's characters. That was OK, but he does many other things that just kill the book.
First off, in true academician form, every page is a game of connect the quotes. What more, he does not reference some of the more important thinkers in game theory and social choice theory such as Guahtier and Nozick. What I remembered most interesting about game theory, what are models of rationality and how do they apply to the teory and outcomes, he dismisses as not being relevent. He just posits a set of "neutral" assumptions that can be challenged on every level.
The author then argues that Austen characters show signs of autism?
In segues into folk tales he builds mountains out of molehills in his examples. Teh characters he refers are easy to be seen as "wise" when they are up against straw men.
Lasst, but not least, he veers out of Austen into an anti-Bush screed worthy of MSNBC. BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) at its best.
January 21, 2015
I've been looking forward to reading this book for two years, and I've finally gotten the chance. I was excited for something that combined my two worlds, english and math. While the math people of my life have informed me Chwe does not do game theory justice here, he does give a great analysis of strategy and power dynamics on Austen's works, which I would argue is the foundation for game theory. Chwe shows how class and gender influence a person's strategy, particularly in a time when such traits defined your future. I would definitely recommend this to readers of Austen who are looking for a different and complex analysis that's very different from literary criticism. He gives an argument for the intention and intelligence behind Austen--she is far from just a 19th century romance writer.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews