I kind of like this: it tells how Michael Chwe, political scientist at UCLA, has discovered an early proponent of game theory in Jane Austen. Yes, you read that right. Thus:
[A] century and a half earlier [than von Neumann], Mr. Chwe argues, Austen was very deliberately trying to lay philosophical groundwork for a new theory of strategic action, sometimes charting territory that today's theoreticians have themselves failed to reach.
First among her as yet unequaled concepts is "cluelessness," which in Mr. Chwe's analysis isn't just tween-friendly slang but an analytic concept worthy of consideration alongside game-theoretic chestnuts like "zero-sum," "risk dominance" and "prisoner's dilemma."
Most game theory, he noted, treats players as equally "rational" parties sitting across a chessboard. But many situations, Mr. Chwe points out, involve parties with unequal levels of strategic thinking. Sometimes a party may simply lack ability. But sometimes a powerful party faced with a weaker one may not realize it even needs to think strategically.
Take the scene in "Pride and Prejudice" where Lady Catherine de Bourgh demands that Elizabeth Bennet promise not to marry Mr. Darcy. Elizabeth refuses to promise, and Lady Catherine repeats this to Mr. Darcy as an example of her insolence - not realizing that she is helping Elizabeth indirectly signal to Mr. Darcy that she is still interested.
It's a classic case of cluelessness, which is distinct from garden-variety stupidity, Mr. Chwe argues. "Lady Catherine doesn't even think that Elizabeth" - her social inferior - "could be manipulating her," he said.
I said I kind of like it, but I'm also not convinced. Is Chwe really on to anything other than what large numbers of Austen's readers could have told you yesterday or even last week: that she had a sharp intelligence and an astute grasp of the intricacies of human motive and interaction?