{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014884979702300407, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.266949152542373, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Mental Models and Game Theory : Cognitive constructions of multiple Nash equilibria

The ubiquitous use of game theory modeling in economics and other social sciences has mislead many to regard it as a branch of social science rather than of applied mathematics. The fact is that when understood and applied appropriately game theory can be an indispensable tool for social scientists. When that tool is misused, or inappropriately applied in attempts to model social behavior, game theory actually becomes an intellectual liability in our quest to better understand how the world actually works. Nash solutions revealed through traditional game theory models, which are often based upon crude assumptions that rational preferences are universally axiomatic and logically predetermined for all actors possessing like material constraints and opportunities, are often useless in helping study critical issues, problems, and solutions in the real world. This is true for at least three reasons. First, actors who are faced with highly similar material circumstances nonetheless often make very different choices from one another. They do so based upon on their own beliefs of what they believe is rational and what is not. Second, cooperation among actors in the real world occurs far more often than traditional game theory models allow us to predict. Third, for most of the interesting issues in political and economic markets uncertainty, not risk, characterizes choice-making.