The Futility of Evolutionary Game Theory
Evolutionists try to explain human associations by “evolutionary game theory,” a form of natural selection. It leads to hopelessness.
Ever since the materialists took ahold of all science after Darwin, they have attempted to account for human society by models of natural selection acting on populations of organisms, including humans. In Darwinian thinking, everything must be a consequence of selection. But how could natural selection account for things like political parties, that include debates among intelligent people making arguments about truth and ideals? Leave it to Darwinians to find a way.
One of the evolutionists’ clever tools to explain human behavior is “evolutionary game theory.” It sounds like it involves choice and reason, like when people play Monopoly using strategy and planning as they react to moment-by-moment actions of others. What Darwinians mean, though, is that there are natural outcomes to the positions people take when there are limited choices, and these outcomes are predictable. Game theory has been used to try to explain biofilms in bacteria, worker ants in ant colonies, and mate choice in birds. Even the behavior of cancerous tumor cells has succumbed to proponents of evolutionary game theory.
This month, evolutionists at Goethe University tried to explain human class systems by game theory. The press release, “Envy divides society,” introduces the concept:
Can class differences come about endogenously, i.e. independent of birth and education? Professor Claudius Gros from the Institute for Theoretical Physics at Goethe University pursued this issue in a game theoretical study. He was able to show that the basic human need to compare oneself with others may be the root cause of the formation of social classes.
It’s important to note that Dr. Gros—a physicist—is not thinking of “envy” as a deadly sin or vice. No; in his model, envy simply means an individual organism comparing itself with another organism, just like a bird or monkey might do.
It’s generally recognized that differences in background and education cement class differences. It is less clear when and under what circumstances individual psychological forces can drive an initially homogenous social group apart and ultimately divide it. Claudius Gros, professor for theoretical physics at Goethe University, investigated this question in a mathematical precise way using game theory methods. “In the study, societies of agents – acting individuals – are simulated within game theory, which means that everybody optimises her/his success according to predetermined rules. I wanted to find out whether social differences can emerge on their own if no one starts off with advantages – that is, when all actors have the same skills and opportunity,” the physicist explains.
This makes it clear that Dr. Gros is treating his fellow human beings like particles. Perhaps such an approach could be useful in predicting traffic pile-ups on the freeway, but he totally overlooks the mental choices of people, and treats everyone like mindless objects involved in a “game” where some physical “predetermined rules” govern what happens.
The study is based on the assumption that there are things in every society that are coveted but limited – such as jobs, social contacts and positions of power. An inequality is created if the top position is already occupied and someone must therefore accept the second-best job – but not, however, a societal division. With the help of mathematical calculations Gros was able to demonstrate that envy, which arises from the need to compare oneself with others, alters individual behaviour and consequently the agents’ strategies in characteristic ways. As a result of this changed behaviour, two strictly separate social classes arise.
Does mind have nothing to do with this? Are not some humans able to overcome envy? What does this model do with teachings of Jesus about overcoming envy and learning self-sacrifice? Is every people group doomed to repeat the class struggle that Dr. Gros assumes arises from his model? Is he a Marxist? He claims that building a classless society is futile, because classes arise naturally, but his model appears just as materialistic as dialectical materialism.
For his study, Gros developed a new game theoretical model, the “shopping trouble model” and worked out a precise analytical solution. From it, he derives that an envy-induced class society possesses characteristics that are deemed universal in the theory of complex systems. The result is that the class society is beyond political control to a certain degree. Political decision-makers lose a portion of their options for control when society spontaneously splits into social classes. In addition, Gros’ model demonstrates that envy has a stronger effect when the competition for limited resources is stronger. “This game theoretical insight could be of central significance. Even an ‘ideal society’ cannot be stably maintained in the long term – which ultimately makes the striving for a communistic society seem unrealistic,” the scientist remarks.
The “Nash Equilibrium” economic model of John Nash (1950), featured in the movie A Beautiful Mind, at least allowed for the potential of individual choice in their strategizing. Dr. Gros refers to Nash, but goes further with his mindless model. Here’s where the Darwinism comes in.
Since this causal chain also applies to evolutionary processes, the evolutionary and behavioural sciences regularly fall back on game theoretical models, for example when researching animal behaviours such as the migratory flight routes of birds, or their competition for nesting sites.
His theory is for the birds, and also for the humans. What’s the difference? As always, deterministic theories diminish humans and rob them of free will:
In Claudius Gros’ model, whether an agent lands in the upper or lower class is ultimately a matter of coincidence. It is decided by the dynamics of competition, and not by origin.
In short, game-theoretic models like this one end up diminishing human thought, values and choices. It’s all coincidence. There’s nothing you can do about it. Why even vote? You end up where the game of chance puts you. Despair, and die.
There’s hope when you realize that this model is self-refuting. Game theory must have determined the strategy of Dr. Gros as well. He is a particle in his own game of chance! He cannot appeal to his Yoda Complex. He has no free will. He wrote this model because evolution made him do it. It has nothing to do with truth. It’s his game strategy. He tried to cheat on you because of envy. LOL! What fools smart people can be.
Now that you caught him at his own game, you can toss out his model and embrace the nuanced complexity of dealing with your fellow humans on the grounds of logic, evidence, philosophy, values and righteousness. Those are real. Game theory is a self-refuting myth. You have a soul. Use it wisely, and vote!
For comparison to the article by Gros, read one on Medical Xpress about psychologist Professor Kaarin Anstey who studies aging. While CEH does not generally recommend secular psychology, notice one good aspect about Anstey’s approach: she treats people as people. Knowing that aging seniors with dementia are losing mental capacity, she nevertheless treats them with respect as human beings, and collaborates with other specialists about the best ways to help them. Watch the short video and see her interact positively with others, not as evolved monkeys but as human beings worthy of love and respect.