Evolutionary Psychology I

I recently completed The Modern Scholar © series Evolutionary Psychology I by Professor Allen D. MacNeill of Cornell University. MacNeill completed a B.S. in biology and an Master’s degree in science education at Cornell University in 1977. He currently teaches the support course for introductory biology at Cornell University where he has lectured since 1976 and is currently a senior lecturer in the Learning Strategies Center. Professor MacNeill also teaches evolution for the Cornell Summer Session and the introductory evolution course for non-science majors. He is also involved in drama as an off-Broadway actor.

Evolutionary Psychology I is very strong right out of the gate. The first five lectures are a revelation. The material in these lectures is a unique blend of biology and psychology with a strong history of science component weaved throughout the lectures. Unfortunately, the “wow” factor (excuse the terminology, I accidentally spent a few minutes on TMZ.com earlier this evening) tends to wane in the later lectures.

Like all Modern Scholar series, Evolutionary Psychology I is a 14 lecture series, with each lecture lasting approximately 30 minutes. The recording and production quality is excellent. Professor MacNeill is one of the best “public” speakers I’ve heard in recorded lectures—perhaps this ability is enhanced by his background in the dramatic arts. The pacing of the course is well done and material very well organized. It is the level of detail presented in this introductory course in the last half of the lecture series that seems to make the course “bog down” under its own weight.

Most of the lectures cover the evolution of the brain among various animals leading up to human beings and the corresponding capacity for complex behaviors that, according to evolutionary psychologists can tell us a lot about human nature. One of the more interesting facts is that these scientists use study of animals as well as humans to understand and try to explain human behavior under a variety of circumstances.

MacNeill explains that the field of evolutionary psychology, “the scientific study of how human nature has evolved” is a relatively new discipline. The early material sketches a brief historical study of the characteristics of both traditional human psychology and the more specialized and newer field of evolutionary psychology. The instructor also introduces and elaborates on the basic analytical methods and theoretical frameworks evolutionary psychologists use in their research.

From this beginning, Professor MacNeill follows the continued historical development of the field, from its nascent emergence to contemporary applications in fields such as genetic engineering and neuroscience. Evolutionary psychology has its roots in particular fields such as cognitive psychology and evolutionary biology and attempts to combine the methods and theories from these fields to understand human behavior and its purposes. As a brief aside, there is an interesting discussion of the early American preference for behavioral psychology over the cognitive model which positioned American study behind Europe. Evolutionary psychologists assert, as their name suggests, that the human brain is an organ similar to any other but with the unique emergent property we call “the mind.” The brain, they believe, evolved in relation to the environmental challenges human beings have faced throughout their history as a species.

Thus, the bulk of Evolutionary Psychology I examines the history of the field, its primary theories, and the unique research methods used in the field. These perspectives are applied to human behavior at the level of the individual, the family, and other groups. Professor MacNeill then explains how evolutionary psychology applies to the essentials of human life: food, shelter, clothing, and safety (or health). He discusses the ways in which groups of social animals, such as primates, are organized. Importantly, MacNeill examines the role of natural selection in social organization.

The latter part of the lecture series concerns the theoretical foundation for the evolution of cooperation among humans as well as their complex sexual behaviors. A considerable amount of time is spent evaluating the concepts of monogamy and polygamy. (A small warning here, as the professor pronounces these words “mono-gammy” and “polly-gammy” which sounds very unnatural to me). MacNeill also reconfigures the definition of monogamy and polygamy. According to him, any person who has sexual relations (or “mates”) with more than one partner at any time during the course of his or her life—whether by divorce, death of significant other, or any other reason, they are polygamous. Thus, according to this revised definition, Professor MacNeill declares that humans are largely polygamous. I must admit, I had a bit of a problem with the way in which he reached this conclusion. Finally, the course considers the implications of evolutionary psychology and its theories for child rearing and mate selection.

Overall, I think that the course material is interesting and exotic enough to recommend it for at least a cursory review. I studied psychology in quite a few courses for my initial undergraduate degree but most of this material was new to me. Likewise, my career in counseling and social service work exposed me to even more developments and subfields of psychology but I must admit that much of the material discussed in this course was foreign to me—one of the reasons that I found at least the first half of the course refreshing and fascinating. There is another 14-lecture course by The Modern Scholar Company appropriately titled Evolutionary Psychology II. I will more than likely listen to, read, and review its materials at some later date as well.

Until the next time, happy learning! By the way, if you have completed an interesting course, lecture series, TED talk, seminar, training, book, or any other learning experience and would like to share it, please e-mail me or leave a comment in the comments section. Criticisms and responses are always welcome to this and other postings as well.

S.I.P.

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

You first hear it in his voice. Then you notice the glimmer in his eyes. Then you see the way his hands awkwardly gesticulate with enthusiasm—and you know. Neil deGrasse Tyson is in love… with the cosmos. His enthusiasm as a science communicator matched with his brilliance as an astrophysicist, made him the logical successor to the unforgettable Carl Sagan—an astronomer from Cornell University who influenced a generation of young people, myself included, to dream that we could reach the stars—not merely as a civilization, but as individuals too.

That was done with his original role as host of the first Cosmos series. The updated and hyper-stylized new Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey is just as inspiring—its host, just as fascinating. That being said, I will certainly admit that there is no replacing Carl Sagan. On the other hand, since his passing there has been very little attempt to do so. The scientific illiteracy of the general public—at least in the United States—is quite appalling.

The current series consists of 13 episodes, each of which addresses a different scientific topic: spacetime, light, the greenhouse effect and so on. Tyson first explores the history of the issue at hand. He then proceeds to the present and then discusses the potential consequences and often dangers for the future of the universe, the earth, and humanity.

My favorite of all of the episodes was number 12 “The World Set Free,” which concerned the greenhouse effect. This episode explains the greenhouse effect and describes its discovery by Joseph Fourier and Svante Arrhenius. Dr. Tyson then explained how scientific investigation has provided ample evidence that the global average temperature is increasing, and this is causing earth’s climate to change. Furthermore, scientists’ studies have consistently demonstrated that much of this change is due to human activity, particularly carbon dioxide emissions. Almost as a warning, he explains how a runaway greenhouse effect engulfed the planet Venus making the surface of the planet so hot that the oceans permanently evaporated.

Much of the release of carbon dioxide is due to humanity’s increasing reliance on fossil fuels to generate energy to power our vehicles, homes, and essentially run our contemporary society. Tyson next discussed the history of solar power and how its use has been ignored in the past largely because of the cheapness and wide availability of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil. However, today’s circumstances indicate the need to increase our use of solar and wind energy and decrease or eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels.

One of the reasons that the 12^th episode is my favorite is the clear explanations given by Dr. Tyson: For example, he uses a pet dog’s path along the beach to explain the difference between the concepts of “weather” and “climate” Another reason that the episode excels, in my opinion, is that this topic seemed to be one in which Dr. Tyson’s enthusiasm for the subject matter shone through the brightest. Rather than discuss the politics of climate change (an erroneous perspective, in my opinion), he addresses the science behind climate change and keeps that as his focus. In citing this episode, however, I do not mean to say that Dr. Tyson's presentations in the other twelve are not equally strong--I simply mean to emphasize how this particular episode affected me and contributed to my assessment of the series. It is better that I present a representative sample than to rehash the entire series!

Throughout Cosmos, scientists—some household names, some obscure—are the heroes of the episodes. These are individuals who had the courage of their convictions. Some were ostracized from the scientific community, some from the public at large, and many did not live to see their work vindicated. In almost every instance, their work was inspired and intended to improve the world and its inhabitants. It’s rare to see scientists get their due in this manner. More often it is simply through a footnote in research papers. This unique platform will hopefully inspire young boys and girls to pursue science, technology, math, and engineering.

It took many years and the work, sweat, and money of many passionate individuals to bring this Cosmos “sequel” to the public. It aired on both the Fox Network and The National Geographic Channel. I found the production to be excellent. The special effects were “top-notch” and the animated segments were brilliant and inspired. I found that the series renewed my enthusiasm for scientific inquiry. My hope is that the millions of viewers that the show reached will inspired many, many others through its broadcast, repeat on cable, and current showing on Netflix. If you haven’t had the chance to explore the cosmos through Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey I would highly recommend it. All you need is an open mind—the series will give you plenty to contemplate!

As always, happy learning!

Games People Play: Game Theory in Life, Business, and Beyond

Recently, I completed Professor Scott P. Stevens’s 24-lecture course for The Great Courses © entitled Games People Play: Game Theory in Life, Business, and Beyond – Parts I & II. Though Professor Stevens is a Mathematician working at James Madison University, this course is taught under the Economics and Politics sections as these are the most frequent applications of game theory. Each of the 24 lectures is thirty minutes long for a total course time of 12 lecture hours. Professor Stevens presents this introduction to game theory as a survey course and often avoids complex mathematics (other than a few instances of basic calculus concepts) that is essential to the actual application of game theory to the problems discussed in the course.

Game theory has been a subject that crossed over into public fascination with the release of the Russell Crowe biopic film about Mathematician John Nash, a significant foundational game theorist. While Nash’s concepts were poorly described by the film’s writers, the significance of his contributions to the field was not. The beginnings of game theory start with another famous mathematician name John, this one the exceptional genius and polymath named von Neumann. He and an economist colleague, Oskar Morgenstern, wrote the modern masterpiece on the subject of games: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior published in 1944.

Professor Stevens defines game theory as “the study of strategic, interactive decision making among rational individuals.” “Any time,” he asserts, “people make decisions that affect others or in response to the actions—or even expected actions—of others, they’re playing a game.” Thus, ideas in game theory apply equally well to such mundane decisions as where to eat lunch as well as “earthshaking” decisions about the risk of nuclear war. Fundamentally, there are three components to any game: players, strategies, and payoffs. Throughout the first lecture, we learn that the concept of games applies to almost any facet of life. Professor Stevens presents various circumstances under which game theory can be applied in fields as diverse as the military, politics, biology, NASCAR, and business strategy.

To better understand games, the instructor presents a simple game. You are given $100 and a button that you can push. Another one hundred people are given the same and each of you is unknown to the other. If you or any of your competitors push your button every other player loses $2; if you lose money because others push their button, pushing your button will cut your losses in half. While it is rational for no one to press their button and take home the $100, studies show that most people will press the button. Another example of seemingly irrational behavior was demonstrated by Max Bazerman at Harvard Business School who taught Wall Street Investors to think ahead by auctioning off a $100 bill. The winning bid was $465.

Another classic example that applies to game theory is the Federal auction for licensing of the radio spectrum. Historically, the US tried many approaches to the sale of the radio spectrum that failed, in some cases miserably. Game theorists stepped in and created a multi-objective auction structure that successfully raised over $400 billion for the US Treasury in its first 5 years. This is one example of many, in which the application of game theory has shown to be advantageous in analyzing and approaching strategic decisions.

The basics of game theory are fairly simple to explain. Every game has three basic components: players, strategies, and payoffs. A player is a decision maker in the game. A strategy is a specification of a decision for each possible situation in which a player may find him or herself. A payoff is the reward or loss a player experiences when they follow their respective strategies.

Another distinction regards the type of game. For example, when all players may “move” simultaneously without knowing what the other player will do. Consider the simple childhood game, “Rock, Paper, Scissors”—this is a rather crude example of a simultaneous game. Sequential games are another variety. In a sequential game, one player moves first, giving other players some knowledge about their choice. A simple example of a sequential game is the familiar board game chess. A familiar term to many in the public is the “Zero Sum Game” which is also a type of game in game theory, although it is a bit different conceptually than what the common understanding might indicate. Zero sum games occur when all of the losses and all of the gains of all players are added up and equal zero. This is often evident before the game begins.

Other classes of games include: Constant Sum Games, Symmetric games, Perfect information games, Repeated games, Signaling games, Cheap talk games, Mechanism design, Bargaining problem games, Stochastic games, Large Poisson games, Nontransitive games, and Global games. Professor Stevens introduces many of these concepts (though not all of those listed) but only some are explored in-depth. To give my readers complete non-disclosure, these games can often be very complicated to understand but the instructor is very good at guiding one through the lecture. However, to truly understand these concepts, repeated listening and perhaps further reading might be necessary—they certainly would be for me!

The course expands upon these basics to examine more complex aspects of games such as strategies, threats, promises, brinkmanship, incomplete information, and chance. This array of factors in decision making, as presented in game theory, has applications in fields as diverse as climate change, voting, market entry, price setting, cooperative behavior and many more things that are beyond the scope of this review.

Without delving too deep into the topic, it might shed a little more light on the nature of the game theorist’s work by examining a few of the aforementioned complicating factors that inhabit even simple games. For example, strategies come in two varieties: pure and mixed. Pure strategies specify an action for every possible situation in the game. There is no random component to a pure strategy. Mixed strategies, however, does include some randomness as a probability is assigned to each pure strategy—and since probabilities are continuous there are an infinite number of mixed strategies available to the player. A variant of the mixed strategy is called the totally mixed strategy in which only positive values are assigned to every possible pure strategy.

The next concept we will examine is that of the threat. Professor Stevens explains that, in game theory, a threat is the equivalent of saying “Do what I want or I will make things worse for you than you would otherwise expect.” Promises, on the other hand, are the equivalent of saying, “If you make this choice, I will respond with a choice that you’ll like—something that you wouldn’t normally expect me to do.” Promises and threats are therefore, conditional.

Games of incomplete information are those in which not all of the players know the structure of the game—players might be uncertain about possible strategies or payoffs of other players. These require complex analysis and can have catastrophic consequences for some players. Finally, brinksmanship might best be illustrated by thinking about the Cold War—because this strategic element means to push dangerous events, such as the proliferation of nuclear arms, all the way to the “brink of disaster” (think about the Cuban Missile Crisis) in an attempt to achieve the most positive outcome in the game.

There are numerous topics in even a survey of game theory. A simple summary of such a survey is necessarily incomplete. However, I feel that I would be remiss if I did not include one of the most famous elements of game theory in my little muddled examination: the Nash Equilibrium. Professor Stevens explains that the way the movie A Beautiful Mind, starring Russell Crowe, explains the Nash Equilibrium is actually incorrect. The movie has Nash explain his equilibrium in terms of a dating conundrum among a bunch of competitive men. The solution the character in the movie comes up with is, unfortunately, not a Nash Equilibrium. So what is it? Well, first things first: what is an equilibrium in the game theoretic sense of the term?

An equilibrium implies some kind of balanced situation. In economics and other rational decision-making, equilibria are defined by their properties. British economist Huw Dixon as described three basic properties of equilibria: 1) Players’ behavior is consistent. 2) No player has any incentive to change their behavior. 3) Equilibrium is the stable outcome resulting within some dynamic process, i.e. the game under consideration.

The simplest explanation of a Nash Equilibrium is by example: John and Ted are in a Nash equilibrium if John is making the best decision he can, while also accounting for Ted's decision. At the same time, Ted is also making the best decision he can, while also accounting for John's decision. A definition of this concept is as follows: “[Nash’s] theory says that in non-cooperative games when there are two or more players, and each player knows what choices the other players face, there is a Nash Equilibrium if all players have chosen a strategy where they can't benefit by changing their strategy.” (from Nash Equilibrium in Economics)

One last important point is that Professor Steven’s lecture series is mostly conceptual and made for the intelligent layman. It ignores a lot of complicated mathematical proofs. To illustrate what I mean, here is an example of the mathematics involved in the proof of Nash’s Equilibrium. I tried to paste the mathematics, but the characters would not translate to the Blogger post, so please follow the link to the Wikipedia page just to see an example of how complicated the proof is for work like Nash's and why he deservedly received a Nobel for Economics for his work.

Likewise, there is a lot more complicated mathematics involved in computing the various probabilities in a decision matrix, finding the equilibria of various kinds in any non-cooperative game, and many other instances. This is fully disclosed by the instructor. Despite this, the Great Courses lecture series on Game Theory, Games People Play is fun, enlightening, and broadens the mind in the understanding of the complexity of decisions—particularly those facing our business and government leaders on a daily basis. While I was listening to it, I actually felt smarter! Then I began to try to summarize the material presented in the lecture series and felt the opposite effect! I will admit some might find it boring, but if you enjoy the topic of decision making or complex systems, or if you just enjoy an intellectual challenge, I can guarantee that you will benefit from at least a casual listen to this lecture series.
As always, happy learning! Work hard to get smarter every day. After all, that is what a learning life is all about!
I would love to hear any of your comments as always.

Chess Madness!

I remember the first time I ever played a game of chess. I remember it not because the game came naturally to me and I was quick to defeat my opponent; nor did I fumble incompetently only to be destroyed by a fellow chess novice. I remember the game because it was alien to me. No one in my family, on either side, had a chess set at home. No one played chess among my friends, even the most intelligent and cultured. At the time, that seemed quite natural to me. Since my teen years, however, I have always had a chess set, always been ready to play a game. Therefore, when I look back on my youth, that 9^th grade game of chess played carefully in a post-geometry classroom against another curious student stands out clearly; and, yes, I did lose.

Almost anyone will know to what I refer when I speak of chess, whether you play the game or not. However, should there be anyone who happens across my little blog that hasn’t a clue about what I mean; chess is a board game played on an eight by eight grid of squares. It pits two players against each other in challenge of strategy and tactics. Each side has sixteen pieces, half of which are “pawns.” All other pieces, with the exception of two, are pairs: the “bishops,” “knights,” and “rooks.” Finally, the last two pieces are the strongest, the “queen,” and the most vulnerable, the “king.”

This post is not very instructional about how to play chess. On the contrary, it is about how I have learned, and continue to learn to play chess. After my first, awkward game in the geometry room, I joined a school “chess club” for a couple of years. My enthusiasm was further boosted during my teen years by the 1993 film Searching for Bobby Fischer about a child chess prodigy whose life has some parallels to the great chess genius referenced in the title.

One of the main sources of information about playing chess is the tips and tricks about strategy and tactics that you get from fellow players from time to time. Another important source of information for me in learning to play chess has been books. The public library has always carried several volumes about chess. I have also bought several books about chess over the years. Some of my favorites include:

An Introduction to Chess: Book 1 by Leonard Barden (1972) as part of Drake Chess Handbooks.

Chess for Dummies by James Eade (1996) published by IDG Books.

Modern Ideas in the Chess Openings I by I.A. Horowitz (1953) published by Cornerstone Library.

Teach Yourself Chess by William R. Hartston (1985) published by Teach Yourself Books.

Of course there are many other books and each has its own appeal. Another important resource in developing my enthusiasm as well as my skill for chess was a game that came bundled with the Packard Bell PC my mother bought for me during my sophomore year of college: Chessmaster 3000.  This game had incredible graphics and allowed for two players or for human vs. computer. The game also had a chess tutor function that taught chess openings, strategy and tactics, and finishing moves.

These days, there are many diverse sites on the Web tailored to chess devotees. Here are just a few from my bookmarks:

http://chessteaching.x10.mx/1001-brilliant-checkmates/

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/chess/kostics.html

http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/immortalgame/games.php

Now, for the really fun part and how my chess habit relates to my learning life. The most recent Web site added to my list is http://www.chesscademy.com/. Each of the other three representative sites explores some aspect of chess—historical and/or tactical. The chesscademy.com Web site, on the other hand, is a comprehensive “classroom” experience. You can begin instruction at whatever level you feel comfortable with—beginner, intermediate, or advanced. From there, the student watches multi-media presentations and then completes brief quizzes for points.

The most attractive thing to me about the chesscademy.com Web site is its pedagogical style. Chess is a complex game and I think that to get to “the next level” at my age, requires some serious study. At the same time, I want to keep it a game—to keep it fun. Otherwise, what is the use in trying to be any good. Up for a game? Happy learning!

Political Theory: The Classic Texts and Their Continuing Relevance

I recently completed the course offered by the Modern Scholar on Political Theory. Like all offerings by Recorded Books, this course comprised seven CDs each with two approximately 30-minute lectures for a total of 7 hours of lecture time. Despite being a bit more formulaic than its rival The Great Courses, selections from the Modern Scholar bookshelf are always dense with information and efficient in its delivery. This course on political theory was no exception.

The instructor was Professor Joshua Kaplan, who earned his master’s in the subject at the University of Chicago and his doctorate at UC-Santa Cruz. He has taught political theory to students at the University of Notre Dame since 1987. Professor Kaplan is well spoken with an even diction and articulates in the way only an expert in the field could possibly be.

Dr. Kaplan describes political theory as “slow food in a fast food world.” We crave simple, easy answers but often analysis is highly complex. In general, political theory does not dictate a set of actions or behaviors that lead to statistically probable outcomes. Instead, it gives us perspective, helps us think about the issues, and gives us the ability “to act with purpose and vision.”

To enlighten the student with a survey of thought across the nations, kingdoms, and states and the times in which they held sway, the professor surveys a number of essential classical texts. The first text he recommends, highly recommends I might add, is an essay by George Orwell titled, “Politics and the English Language.” While he does refer to this text, I regrettably did not complete this reading during the course due to constraints imposed by other obligations. I am so fond of Orwell that after I do read the piece I might post an entry examining it by itself, or in retrospect to the completed course. Another recommendation, which I have previously read several times, is Oedipus the King by the Greek tragedian Sophocles.

An important early point that Dr. Kaplan makes is that “The first thing to understand about political theory is that it is not a collection of doctrines or assertions about politics, but rather a way of understanding the significance of political events.” This is important to keep in mind during the seven hour lecture series. There are as many ways of looking at politics as there are politicians—or at least it seems that way often times.

I found this course somewhat nostalgic as the bulk of texts and material was contained within my wide-ranging and near useless (only joking, folks!) undergraduate education in the liberal arts. After a brief recounting of how horrible was poor Oedipus’s life the professor moves on to less morbid Greeks. (Yes, according to my doctoral education that is the correct way to render the possessive of a singular proper noun ending in the letter “s.” I do believe it is a sad comment on the English language, myself, but pick up a copy of The Elements of Style by Strunk and White and please prove me wrong. I’ll enjoy it!)

Plato begins the discussion proper—and doesn’t he always? I must admit, I was very glad that I paid attention during my Introduction to Philosophy course way back in 1995. Those Greek gentlemen, particularly Plato and Aristotle, have oriented me time and again. You know, an annoying party trick just might be to wait until the discussion turns political (or philosophical, or scientific, artistic, etc.—just wait until you are in need of a refill) and then with a surreptitious interjection, and in your most refined voice proclaim, “Well you know, it all goes back to Plato’s Republic…” Coincidentally, that is the path of the course in Lectures 2 and 3; let us remember the lesson of that great text—that justice is within ourselves. Then, we move on—still in ancient Greece, however, we now consider the historian Thucydides who chronicled the Peloponnesian War. Rather than review the tangled web of that conflict, let us simply say that Thucydides considered himself a realist, espousing something along the lines of, “might makes right.”

Next, Dr. Kaplan reviews Aristotle’s Politics, which (I think rather naively) holds that the citizen is in partnership with all other citizens—kind of like a team—in which the good of the polis is superior to what’s good for any individual. Next, the course considers Machiavelli’s The Prince which essentially asserts that it is often beneficial to the ruler and the state to behave like Richard Nixon when necessary and when power is at stake. (For a good crash course in Machiavellian politics taken to the extreme for drama’s sake, check out the thrilling Netflix show House of Cards which is based on a British TV show of the same name but it suffers from the absence of Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright.

Now, we move on to the idea of a social contract theory, first espoused in Leviathan by essentially the father of modern political science, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes’s thinking was foundational in what we now know as Western political thought. He introduced such revolutionary and dangerous ideas such as the “equality of all men” (apologies to the better half of the species, as we now know that all men are created equal and all are equally inferior to women), and representative government.

Another seminal social contract theorist was Jean-Jacques Rousseau who had a pretty rough up-bringing. Rousseau was a truly revolutionary thinker whose concepts about the right to private property and the nature of human beings had a bit of influence in starting the French Revolution. He was also somehow influential on Cambodian madman Pol Pot, a genocidal maniac who surely must have severely misread some of Rousseau.

From social contract theory, Dr. Kaplan considers the revolutionary ideas espoused anonymously in The Federalist Papers. This is another area in which my undergraduate education provided a bit of background as I did my senior thesis on “The Political Philosophy of James Madison.” I won’t digress much at present but there is both an elitist as well as a careful protectiveness of the nascent republic throughout Madison’s thought. It might do many Americans much good to undertake a quick review of at least some of Madison’s careful thought.

Two of the most fascinating lectures in the entire series are given on the penultimate disc. Both concern Alexis de Tocqueville and his work Democracy in America. Despite its concern with American democracy, de Tocqueville’s audience was in France. His book was very generous toward the US and thus it became popular and made him something of a celebrity. Essentially, de Tocqueville described America in usually glowing terms in an attempt to reassure the French that a fading aristocracy and societal equality would not threaten utter ruin: Just look at the United States!

Next, Professor Kaplan turned his discussion to the always-controversial Karl Marx. Yet, he prefaced his lecture with one of the most brilliant caveats I have ever heard given regarding Marx. Kaplan said, “Karl Marx is one of the most difficult political theorists for us to read and

understand. One problem is that we feel compelled to take sides when we read Marx, to reject him or to convert to Marxist. We don’t run into this problem when we read Aristotle, for example, but it is hard for us to accept the idea that we can simply learn from Marx without signing up or rejecting him out of hand.” I could not agree more—and it makes me feel much better about the months-long experience of reading all 140 lbs of Das Kapital when I was studying macroeconomic theory for pre-dissertation research several years ago. (Don’t worry, I was a Keynesian from the start! But I still had to wade through the entirety of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations as well as John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. Well, back to Marx, while communism was a stark over-reach, Marx’s criticisms of exploitation by the owners of the means of production against laborers were spot-on.

Dr. Kaplan closes the lecture series with a discussion of game theory, the predominant mode of political analysis during the 20^th century. Classic examples of non-cooperation such as the “Problem of the Commons” or the “Prisoner’s dilemma” gave mathematic-minded analysts insight into rational choice behavior. It also might have contributed to the absurd levels of the nuclear arms race. However, all in all, game theory proved to be a very useful tool for providing insight into human decision making.

I would definitely recommend this course to anyone who has the opportunity to listen. It seems more like a history course than a theory course but that is primarily due to the survey nature. It does help if you, like me, have some familiarity with most of the theorists and their works prior to the discussion. I think you would enjoy it just as much if you lacked such knowledge but you would find yourself checking Wikipedia quite often to deepen your understanding of certain theoretical perspectives, timeframes, and personalities. A very enjoyable course from a knowledgeable professor! Happy learning!