game theory never seemed that convincing (I'm a theoretical biologist). Most people just don't seem to be that mathematically inclined and they stop iterating through some decision problem well before where logic should take them. As such, it makes a lot of the points that the field is making m00t, as they try pin the results derived from Homo economicus / logicus onto Homo Sapiens.

see http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=1518&aid=-1 for an example of this. The result seems to be an outcome of people only thinking one step ahead, and those thinking superrational (i.e. estimating how much steps ahead people will be thinking, and chosing according to that).

Philosophy (reading transcript 23 now as well) might in general be more useful to a human mind then some theoretical system on how a non-existant optimal human would behave.

Just read it. It's nice I think, especially if you've never been exposed to the ideas in there and if you are willing to seriously consider the questions raised. I'd rate it as more useful than game theory by far.