Currently, I’m immersed in two mechanism design projects, both intricately involving the integration of stochastic processes within their frameworks. This reminds me of a comic that resonates humorously with my work:
An economist’s playful daydream or a mathematician’s practical joke, it’s a scenario where certainty is the only casualty and the pursuit of fairness takes a probabilistic turn. Prepare for a world where the accountants are the gamblers, and the odds are your tax bracket.
It’s from SMBC, by the witty Zach Weinersmith. Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal never fails to deliver a chuckle.
I once had the conversation with my advisor, we delved into the sometimes contentious validity of models in algorithmic game theory, as perceived by mainstream economists. The crux lies in the name itself – algorithmic game theory – neatly nestled within the realm of theoretical computer science, rather than traditional economics. The literature in theoretical computer science is richly laden with mathematics, lending substantial credibility to its theoretical findings. Also, most of these economic models draw their lineage from established economic theories. Perhaps, this is a fine example of the division of labor in academia.
But still, theoretical computer scientists (and more generally, interdisciplinary people who work around economic) should be more sensitive to cultural and psychological factors to understand the incentives and constraints that people face. This insight, imparted by another esteemed colleague in the field, adds a valuable dimension to our work. A little interdisciplinary empathy goes a long way, doesn’t it?