@strypey that's the most retarded take i've ever heard. pseudo-science requires something to be unfalsifiable. game theory is literally a branch of mathematics with proofs. the mathematician's mental state is also completely irrelevant and i'm subtracting 100 points for the ad hominem (which you should know, considering you love quoting those labels.)

the flaw of game theory is that normal people don't always act maximally rationally (psychopaths tend to do, which elites often are, which is why it worked for cold war modelling.) but it always stipulated the actors *are rational*, which people setting policy backed by high caliber firearms *should* be.

post dodge v. ford businesses with shareholders are exactly trying to maximize the grift, and consumers are trying to minimize cost, which is exactly the kind of minimax scenario the math works for.

meadows would note that trying to prevent managers from having more money than you've decided they should be allowed is just trying to empty the stocks directly--a form of policy that routinely fails to work, and an approach i used to call "ham fisting" (like trying to solve poverty with direct cash infusions, which have been tried, and have the same meadows problem that its just filling stocks by fiat that are leaking all over the floor)

i don't know what "social scientists" you're talking about because you forgot to bother citing anyone while fumbling the bag all the way to hell on that one. behavioral psychiatry and cybernetics certainly don't have an issue with it, though they would say the same thing about models based on rational assumptions will obviously not hold if the actors are not rational or you miscalculate what they actually value (or you do the stupid behaviorism/freudism thing of presuming they don't have values or preferences, since scientific management seems to have skipped over seligman entirely somehow)