الفهرس | Only 14 pages are availabe for public view |
Abstract For decades, people have defiled the rationality of human choices for social and sentimental considerations. It is the argument of this dissertation that people are sentimental players and that there are axioms behind humanity’s continual failure to choose rationally since Adam’s time up to the present. The study, therefore, is to discuss the sentimental variables that people tolerate to control their choices instead of depending on rational or strategic ones. To achieve this purpose, two methodological approaches: game theory and behavioral economics are to be applied to selected novels (1995 – 2007) by a number of writers whose fiction can be interpreted from these angles. By adopting some game theory principles, the study is to refute the assumption of game theorists who declared the rationality of players. The rationality of the protagonists is to be questioned by applying game theorists’ tenets such as prisoner’s dilemma games, cooperative games, non- cooperative games, stag hunt games, along with John Nash’s equilibrium and Richard Thaler’s theory of decision-making to: David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas (2004), Ben Elton’s Blind Faith (2007), José Saramago’s Blindness (1995), and Elizabeth Moon’s The Speed of Dark (2002). By selecting these texts and concepts, the study is to wed game theory and behavioral economics to fiction, such a genre, in which the characters prefer common choices (axioms) rather than rational ones, hence presenting a literary view that attempts to offer a better analysis of human choices. The study’s conclusion is to emphasize the importance of rational literature and the development it can add to the field of game theory and behavioral economics. Key Words: Game theory, behavioral economics, rationality, bounded rationality, choice, social norms, social axioms, prisoner’s dilemma, contemporary fiction, climate change, ableism, ignorance |