I honestly do. Sure, generalizing from understanding vision by inquiring about organisms' internal representation to modeling both the vision problem and the organism by adding a layer of evolutionary game theory is "novel", but the core argument of his paper, like most other white academic dudes' papers attempting to understand How The World Really Really Works™, relies on zero-sum games, competition only, middle-management optimality, survival-of-the-fittess triteness. Rarely anything about cooperation, 2nd order effects, altruism, mutualism, care, eusociality, and how they shape the core of human experiences, cognition, survival, and ultimately how human can or can't thrive individually and as a whole. It's the khakis, tweed and tenured version of every rationalist's tired clichés. Exhibit 1 > In a typical game, two organisms employing different strategies compete for available territories, each with a certain number of resources. The first player observes the available territories, chooses what it estimates to be its optimal one, and receives the fitness payoff for that territory. The second player then chooses its optimal territory from the remaining available ones. The two organisms thus take turns in picking territories, seeking to maximize their fitness payoffs. If this doesn't raise red flags, reach for your reading glasses. Exhibit 2 >The “Truth” strategy: For each of the n sensory states, the organism estimates the world state or territory - the Bayesian MAP estimate - that has the highest probability of being the “true” one, given that sensory state. It then compares the fitness values for these n “true” world states. Finally, it makes its choice of territory based on the sensory state xi that yields the highest fitness. Its choice is thus mediated through the MAP estimate of the world state: it cannot choose a territory that does not qualify as “true.” The "Truth" strategy ignores any fitness information about possible states of the world other than the one selected as being the "true" state. > The “Fitness-only” strategy: In this strategy, the organism makes no attempt to estimate the “true” world state corresponding to each sensory state. Rather it directly computes the expected fitness payoff that would result from each possible choice of xi. For a given sensory state xi, there is a posterior probability distribution (given, as with the Truth strategy, by Bayes’ formula) on the possible world states, as well as a fitness value corresponding to each world state. The organism weights these fitness values by the posterior probability distribution, in order to compute the expected fitness that would result from the choice xi. And it picks the one with the highest expected fitness. (1) Define some garbage caricaturing "truth" and label it as such. Define some garbage caricaturing "fitness" and label it as such. (2) Setup a two player game where "truth" plays against "fitness-only". (3) Bedazzle with some maths and find that one strategy dominates the other. Use valid maths for added pomp. (4) Forget the very restrictive and unreasonable assumptions within which your results holds. (5) Let out a loud moan and slit your wrist with OR and misconstrue cartoonish for general. (6) Jump the shark in the discussion section, remove all quotes, and title your article "Fitness beats Truth". Just say no to evo-psycho.