Psychohistory redux

response to  Michael A.M. Lerner and Ethan Hill's post The New Nostradamus

author WillSea

Bueno de Mesquita's science of game theory or rational choice is too much like Isaac Asimov's psychohistory in the Foundation series for my liking. The line between prediction and mindfuck is too thin as it is in this "let me think for you" world. If the "thinkers" who can pay for his services intrude even more into our collective consciousness, then free will and the real chance to exercise it may be out the window forever.

Even the name "rational choice" seems to have been run through a machine to soften the harshness of this science. When we realize that gamesmanship is still such a great part of game theory, by whatever name, then such choices may not seem so rational.

We may be astounded at the accuracy, which only proves the math. It does not prove the ethics. It may actually be a great tool, but in the hands of corporations and governments, even the best tools can become weapons. So the question remains: who will guard the guardian's of rational choice?

Like this article? Tell the world  It's Good!