We here at Austenacious HQ sensed a certain dizziness in air resulting from Miss Ball’s post We’re in ur discipline, teaching ur colloquia. She mentioned that Michael Chwe was presenting a talk on Jane Austen and the Prehistory of Game Theory and proposed some other academic disciplines we might invade should the fancy strike us that way.
Actually, I think she little knows how right she is! We are representing! Or being poked, prodded, and analyzed, take your pick. See exhibit A: The New York Psychoanalytic Society & Institute’s course on Psychoanalytic Themes in the Work of Jane Austen, which aims to get at what sick fantasies attract us to Darcy, Elizabeth, Anne, Wentworth, et al. And over here, submitted by alert reader Stacy, exhibit B: A New York Times article on the Next Big Thing in English: Knowing They Know That You Know. This fascinating article talks about using evolutionary biology, cognitive theory, and literature to study each other, so questions like, why do we read fiction? Why do we care passionately about Darcy, Elizabeth, Anne, Wentworth, et al, and leave Freud out of it, please, this is about our ancestors. Did fiction help us evolve the way we did: do we learn values for the real world from stories? Etc.
This gets us back to game theory, which is used in economics, social science, and evolutionary biology, among other areas. Per Wikipedia: Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual’s success in making choices depends on the choices of others. So it is all about rational behavior, and what that means in any given situation. You all know how hot Jane Austen was on rationality—she describes someone (Marianne, post-illness?) as “warmly rational.” Just think about that phrase for a second. For her it was the highest of praises; today most people see it as an oxymoron.
Here’s a classic example from game theory called the Prisoner’s Dilemma. You (can I call you Emma?) and a friend (hi, Frank Churchill, good to see you) have been arrested for a crime. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated you, offer each of you the same deal. If one of you confesses and the other remains silent, the confessor goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If you both remain silent, you both receive a 6-month sentence. If each betrays the other, each receives a 5-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation.
The classic question is: How should the prisoners act? In Jane Austen terms, just throw any two characters into the Dilemma, and think how they would act and why. Who would sell you out: Sir Walter Elliot, Sir Thomas Bertram, Mrs. Bennet? Who wouldn’t sell you out: Mr. Bennet, Captain Wentworth, Emma? Or would they? How would each argue their case and justify their actions? You can see Austen explores a wide range of scenarios.
Well, I hope this cleared up some of your confusion on game theory without making the scientists among you cringe overly much. While the thought of math and science going toe-to-toe with Miss Austen may make some of you tired, I find it exciting. It is truly my goal to make science and art understand each other once more. That Jane Austen understood the combination so well is one reason I love her. As for your paper on Meteorology in Northanger Abbey, see me after class.
Photo credit: Dr Jonathan Clarke. Wellcome Images
images@wellcome.ac.uk
austenacious 