经典的内容

额。。真惭愧。其实我发完上面那一大堆就后悔了。。态度太不好了，主要是我对game还有那么点点偏好，所以就有了那样defensive的语气。。。见谅！
确实对game的批评也很多，而且真要说起来我的偏好很大程度上也只是基于觉得它还有点好玩，毕竟是玩个游戏嘛

多谢指教哈～你说的很对哈，我可能没有表达清楚哈。确实是有refinement，我说的下面这种情况：比如说在double aution中，它可能会简化说只看某种情形比如linear的情况。你提到evolutionary game确实比二十年前在入门教材中介绍的“基本内容”要靠谱，不过了解不多，你们学校这块应该很强吧，多多指教哈。
关于方法的观点我非常赞同哈，能从某一角度提供一定的洞见就是有价值的，要批评一种方法总是容易的，难的是改进它，所以我并没有贬低它的意思哈（我在写上面那个评论的时候有点太随意）。

1 when there are multiple eq, you can turn to refinement or study the issue of coordination, not simply "pick sth interesting" . Anyway, textbook is some standard and basic reference. You can also refer to some early papers concerning the philosophy behind equilibrium concept. In fact, under some conditions, evolutionary game converges to Nash eq.
You can relax the common knowledge assumption when you think it relevant

In my opinion, each method has its pros and cons. There are always trade-offs between, say, generality v.s, traceability. The crux is, to examine an object, each perspective gives a limited and biased image, and I am even unsure if the "object" does objectively exist, especially for social science