{"title":"进化博弈论能在社会学中进化吗","authors":"Yoshimichi Sato","doi":"10.11218/OJJAMS.18.185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although evolutionary game theory has been popular in social sciences, we have seldom checked its utility as a tool in sociology. In this paper I argue that evolutionary game theory is a good tool with which we study evolution of certain types of social order, but that it has a limitation when we apply it to the study of evolution of the division of labor. To prove the argument, I first adopt a working definition of social order as a self-enforcing relationship between action and expectation. Then I adopt the fictitious play and best reply assumptions rather than the hardwired strategy and replicator dynamics assumptions, because the former are fitter for analysis of the self-enforcing relationship. Third, I claim that the core of the division of labor is the creation of new roles and build an evolutionary game theoretic framework of evolution of the division of labor. Finally, I point out that a limitation of evolutionary game theory in the study of evolution of the division of labor as social order is that it assumes a finite set of possible actions, while evolution of the division of labor accompanies new actions. This limitation, however, shows us where to attack to make a breakthrough.","PeriodicalId":39496,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Theory and Methods","volume":"25 1","pages":"185-196"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can Evolutionary Game Theory Evolve in Sociology\",\"authors\":\"Yoshimichi Sato\",\"doi\":\"10.11218/OJJAMS.18.185\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although evolutionary game theory has been popular in social sciences, we have seldom checked its utility as a tool in sociology. In this paper I argue that evolutionary game theory is a good tool with which we study evolution of certain types of social order, but that it has a limitation when we apply it to the study of evolution of the division of labor. To prove the argument, I first adopt a working definition of social order as a self-enforcing relationship between action and expectation. Then I adopt the fictitious play and best reply assumptions rather than the hardwired strategy and replicator dynamics assumptions, because the former are fitter for analysis of the self-enforcing relationship. Third, I claim that the core of the division of labor is the creation of new roles and build an evolutionary game theoretic framework of evolution of the division of labor. Finally, I point out that a limitation of evolutionary game theory in the study of evolution of the division of labor as social order is that it assumes a finite set of possible actions, while evolution of the division of labor accompanies new actions. This limitation, however, shows us where to attack to make a breakthrough.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39496,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociological Theory and Methods\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"185-196\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociological Theory and Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11218/OJJAMS.18.185\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Theory and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11218/OJJAMS.18.185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Although evolutionary game theory has been popular in social sciences, we have seldom checked its utility as a tool in sociology. In this paper I argue that evolutionary game theory is a good tool with which we study evolution of certain types of social order, but that it has a limitation when we apply it to the study of evolution of the division of labor. To prove the argument, I first adopt a working definition of social order as a self-enforcing relationship between action and expectation. Then I adopt the fictitious play and best reply assumptions rather than the hardwired strategy and replicator dynamics assumptions, because the former are fitter for analysis of the self-enforcing relationship. Third, I claim that the core of the division of labor is the creation of new roles and build an evolutionary game theoretic framework of evolution of the division of labor. Finally, I point out that a limitation of evolutionary game theory in the study of evolution of the division of labor as social order is that it assumes a finite set of possible actions, while evolution of the division of labor accompanies new actions. This limitation, however, shows us where to attack to make a breakthrough.