BdM is Da Bomb: The Times Discovers Bruce Bueno de Mesquita

by Lee Sigelman on August 17, 2009 · 11 comments

in Academia,Foreign Policy,General Politics,International Relations,Policy,Political science,Political Science News

The New York Times profiles the work of a prominent and controversial political scientist. Comments?

11 comments

{ 11 comments }

Kevin August 17, 2009 at 6:24 am: Mixing up Black and Downs?:

“One famous application of rational-choice theory that particularly intrigued Bueno de Mesquita was Duncan Black’s analysis of “committee voting,” which argues that if two rival candidates are trying to get elected on a single issue — say, taxes — they’ll inevitably shift their positions toward the median voter.”
Eric L August 17, 2009 at 8:02 am: No mix up here. See Duncan Black. 1958. _A Theory of Committees and Elections_
Lynn S August 17, 2009 at 11:21 am: Rose McDermott’s observation that the most important part of the methodology is BDM’s interviewing raises the question: why label this approach as game theory solely or even primarily. Besides interviewing, the other (very conventional, not game theoretic) analyses of players are obviously crucial to make the thing worth paying for.
Manoel Galdino August 17, 2009 at 11:57 am: I wonder if he uses bayesian analysis. I mean, did he use elicited priors?
KM August 17, 2009 at 1:34 pm: Watching BDM’s TED talk, I’m wondering if a study of the role of game theoreticians as consultants (akin to Mackenzie’s An Engine Not a Camera) is in order? Does strategic action conform (as BDM hopes it will “evolve”) to fit such models of behavior?
Matt Jarvis August 17, 2009 at 3:41 pm: There’s even a History channel thing that compares BDM to Nostradamus.
Eric L August 17, 2009 at 4:13 pm: In re BDM as Nostradamus:

http://www.good.is/post/the-new-nostradamus/
Eric L August 17, 2009 at 8:00 pm: On BDM and Nostradmus, see here:

http://www.good.is/post/the-new-nostradamus/

And note several of the anecdotes in that article are used in the NYTimes piece.
Jeff August 17, 2009 at 8:45 pm: This was actually a reasonable article, aside from its mischaracterization of the selectorate. I’ll probably assign it at the beginning of my political forecasting course, before we move to the substance of BdM’s model. (Also in the course: election forecasting and the International Futures simulation).
Jeff August 17, 2009 at 8:45 pm: The History Channel special was all but unwatchable. This was actually a reasonable article, aside from its mischaracterization of the selectorate. I’ll probably assign it at the beginning of my political forecasting course, before we move to the substance of BdM’s model. (Also in the course: election forecasting and the International Futures simulation).
paul g. August 17, 2009 at 9:49 pm: I wish reporters would not use this sort of language: “Generally, game theory assumes that people are always rational and selfish; they’re always angling to get what’s best for them, which means their behavior can often be predicted.”

Isn’t it more accurate to say that people are goal oriented, and choose the most efficient path to achieve their goals?

I don’t quite understand Don Green’s quote. I suspect it is incomplete. I’m not sure how BdM’s demeanor has much of an impact on the political science profession.