Why We Have Game Theory
The mosque killings are why we have game theory. It’s confusing how to respond. No matter what we do, it seems we’re forced into some sin, some morally repugnant action. If we respond aggressively, we seem to be killing as inhumanely as the terrorists. But if we sit back passively, we seem to be giving in to their manipulation, and letting our loved ones get killed.
Game theory gives us a structured method to analyze the dynamics of these decisions.
STATIC V. DYNAMIC
The first lesson game theory teaches is that we must stop thinking one-dimensionally. We have to stop thinking statically. Here’s what I mean. We’re accustomed to considering morality as “Should I do X?” and then we consider whether X is either “good” or “bad.” That works on the idea that actions themselves are good or bad in themselves, and that we consider them in isolation.
Game theory shows that most moral decisions are really strategic (i.e., dynamic). Your action is only good or bad depending on how it interacts with what others are doing.
- If a stranger demands money, giving it to him is a bad decision. But if the stranger holds a gun to your head and giving money is the only way to save your life, the normal circumstances no longer apply. Giving money suddenly becomes the best possible decision.
- If you have a murderer in custody, it would be immoral to release him. But if the murderer’s henchmen take hostages, that changes the good v. bad equation, and it may be the only way to save the hostages. When normal circumstances apply, we wouldn’t do a lot of things. But when normal circumstances no longer apply, we need to adjust what we’re willing to do, to fit the circumstances.
ITERATION
Game theory also teaches that there’s a difference between a one-shot and an iterated series of situations. It’s not enough to consider how to resolve one situation if that resolution affects subsequent situations. In short, if you give in to one kidnapper, you can guarantee that more will follow.
Retaliation can be an emotional response, but it can also be rational. When it’s rational, it tries to deter any future misbehavior by promising damage in return. The hope is that anyone considering misbehavior in the future would have to also include the damage they’d receive in retaliation.
MOVES IN THE GAME
Games are strategic situations in which players have priorities. Each player decides what his highest priority is, and tries to obtain it. But because the results are fixed by what the players do in tandem, you can’t just pursue your highest priority blithely. You have to account for what the other guy is likely to do, by examining his priorities (where you can). Then, instead of pursuing your highest priority, you pursue the highest priority you can expect under the circumstances.
Obviously, if you don’t want the opponent to do X, you make X costly.
Making moves in the game is usually done by attaching consequences to actions you don’t like, and rewards to actions you want to encourage.
THE MOSQUE
The mosque argues that the nutty preacher started it. To try to prevent any future Koran-burnings, the mosque decided to attack and kill UN workers. What’s ridiculous is that the mosque connects the UN to the nutty preacher. Apparently, the mosque treats the entire western world as one single entity. They attacked the UN workers because they considered them as part of the same entity as the nutty preacher. That’s a generalized delusion.
Second, they feel that they acted rationally. The only way to prevent Florida preachers from committing religious atrocities against them is to inflict damage to the west, so that we in the west will think twice before committing any atrocities again. The delusion is that the preacher is part of The West, and that everyone in The West is responsible for him.
HOW SHOULD WE RESPOND?
Well, we all know how the Russians would respond. We all know the famous story of terrorists who took a Russian hostage, only to find their family members murdered immediately. The Russians showed no remorse, and the terrorists knew they would do it again at the drop of a hat. The terrorists returned the hostage, and attempted no more games against the Russians again.
From a strictly rational point of view, the Russian response was perfect. They made the action costly.
It offends our American sensibilities to do anything like that. We take it for granted that the family members of criminals are innocent of the crime, so we’d feel immoral to kill them for crimes they weren’t responsible for – even if it would resolve the hostage situation.
However, it does contain the kernel of what we should do. We must make it costly to do what the mosque did. Based on the lesson of iteration, we can’t afford to let this pass. We must respond.
MORALITY
We wouldn't attack the mosque because of our own sensibilities, and because some would fear how the Muslims would react.
- As for our own sensibilities, I believe that morality transcends cultural sensibilities. Morality is rational. This attack by the mosque is a rationally calculated act to "send a message" to the West. We ought to be at least as calculated, if not more, in our reply.
- As for worrying about how the Muslim world would react, it's more important that they worry about how we will react to these atrocities. If cautiousness allows them to get away with murder, what good is caution?
WHAT I WOULD DO
Following Claire, we don’t treat the Muslim world as animals. We assume that they’re rational.
So, I would be very rational about what I’d do. If I was the president, I’d send the planes to bomb the mosque. But I would also notify the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan why we’re doing it, giving a speech the moment the bombs land – so that they can’t prevent it. We are very clearly restricting our response to that mosque, because unlike them, we don’t blame the entire Muslim world for the actions of a selected few. We also don’t condone Koran-burning, and we will do what we can to prevent this from happening again.
But we cannot allow our people to be wantonly murdered. We must respond.
Privately, I’d tell Pakistan and Karzai that I don’t want it to escalate any further. But at the same time, I’d make it clear that if they wanted to escalate it, we’re prepared to respond accordingly. Then I’d give them a little time to blow off steam. Let them issue condemnations at the UN, and feel the irony of telling the UN why they support killing UN workers.
It will likely blow over in a couple weeks. If it doesn’t blow over, then that merely means that the “working relationship” with Karzai and Pakistan isn’t working anyway. But however this plays out, we need to establish that we won’t ignore our people being killed.
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
Having been educated by Jesuits, KC, I can quite comfortably announce that you have written your post like a true ex-Jesuit, which I believe you once admitted to being. Me, I'm a Polack with an ironic first name in that it means peacemaker, so irony aside I would simply bomb the crap out of the mosque and leave the game theory to the mathematicians and the Jesuits. So far the Muslims have been getting away with murder because we cut them way more slack than we would cut Christians and Jews, and all that has bought us is martyrs. We should be in the business of making martyrs not becoming them. As for game theory, let's consider the premise behind whack-a-mole.
Edited on April 5, 2011 at 12:20amJan '11
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
LOL! Well, perhaps we still have work to do.
Oddly enough, we both agreed to employ some ordnance, and that we can't let our people get murdered. I'd say we might have a working path to agreement.
Dec '10
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
KC, from your second bullet under "STATIC V. DYNAMIC": Releasing a dangerous criminal because someone holds hostages has both near and far term consequences. If, in the near term you release the criminal, he will likely commit more crimes. And there's no guarantee the hostage takers will release the hostages. At that point, you are responsible for the criminal's subsequent crimes.
In the long term, such an act makes it much more likely that more hostages will be taken, not only by the initial hostage takers, but by others who observe the effect that activity had. By releasing the prisoner, you have demonstrated to the world that goals may be accomplished by compounding criminal activity. Especially when you are the decision maker.
The next iteration would take into account lessons learned. Successful actions would be repeated.
You got the equivalent point right in your second bullet under "MORALITY". Why should we worry about how domestic criminals think, but ignore what the Muslim world thinks? Answer, we shouldn't.
Hostage takers and terrorists both desire you to make certain concessions, to take specific actions. Winning the game requires that you not allow those actors to determine your response.
Edited on April 3, 2011 at 7:33amFeb '11
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
Fancy what a game of chess would be if all the chessman had passions and intellects, more or less small and cunning; if you were not only uncertain about your adversary's men, but a little uncertain also about your own . . . You would be especially likely to be beaten if you depneded arrogantly on your mathematical imagination, and regarded your passionate pieces with contempt. Yet this imaginary chess is easy compared with a game man has to play against his fellow-men with other fellow-men for instruments.
--George Eliot, in Felix Holt, the Radical (1866)
Lots of political leaders and their academic advisors, and also more than a few business executives, fail to understand this point about the kind of "chess" that they are playing.
Dec '10
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
Our Supreme Court has held that we cannot prevent people from burning our flag. Other courts of this country have held that the defilement of Christian symbols, as in Piss Christ, is constitutionally protected. How would we prevent this from happening again?
Apr '11
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
Foxman
Our Supreme Court has held that we cannot prevent people from burning our flag. Other courts of this country have held that the defilement of Christian symbols, as in Piss Christ, is constitutionally protected. How would we prevent this from happening again? · Apr 3 at 9:19am
We can't, nor should we. To prevent a man from burning a Koran that he purchased with his own money because someone may take offense to it, and might start killing people, would be morally wrong. We should place the responsibility for the murders of the UN workers squarely on the shoulders of those who committed the crime.
Feb '11
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
Two responses:
It was UN workers who were killed. It is UN who should drop bombs if bombs are to be dropped.
Second, don't play the game to begin with.
Jan '11
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
Hang On:
Second, don't play the game to begin with.
It may be unfortunate that we call it "game" theory, which suggests fun. The better description is interactive logic, because it is logic, as applied to interactive situations.
But the fact is, the mosque has already acted. The "game," like it or not, is already being played. We no longer have the option of ignoring it. We cannot now allow this event to pass without responding ... and the logic says that while we shouldn't be fanatical, we absolutely must respond.
That, of course, is what scares me. The logic says to respond, but I'm afraid this administration will not.
Jan '11
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
That's easier said than done. Once someone takes hostages, they've already dictated, to some extent, what you can do. After all, that's why they did it.
As I think you guessed, the trick is to expand the game. When terrorists tried to hold up the Russians for ransom, they thought they had limited the Russians' responses to pay up or lose their hostages. The Russians, therefore, expanded the game to include the terrorists' families. The hostages thought they had restricted the options, but the Russians cleverly refused to accept those terms.
Aug '10
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
Well said, KC. You're exactly right. Too bad we don't have leaders who are able to think so rationally.
Wolf Blitzer on CNN reports that Hamid Karzai whipped this up for his own twisted reasons. Nobody was aware of the Koran burning there until he went on the radio. I suggest we start by bombing the hell out of him. He's a sick bast**d.
Edited on April 5, 2011 at 12:06amAug '10
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
That's quite an assumption, especially given the strong sense in which game theory uses the term "rational." This is is an important assumption because many of the most powerful tools of game theory --- most notably Nash equilibrium and backwards induction --- only work if you make strong assumptions of rationality. They fall apart if you can't, which is why "mad bomber," "strategic ambiguity," and "power of constraint" are important concepts in game theory and "ecological rationality" is an important concept in evolutionary psychology.
May '10
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
I think Islam is caught up in a Cargo Cult effect. Our more powerful culture is causing odd behaviors in theirs.
Aug '10
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
KC I only have one problem with your logic.
Bombs don't land, they hit. Then hopefully, go Boom.
Other than that, fine lecture - I'm in.
Dec '10
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
KC Mulville:
The mosque argues that the nutty preacher started it. To try to prevent any future Koran-burnings, the mosque decided to attack and kill UN workers. What’s ridiculous is that the mosque connects the UN to the nutty preacher. Apparently, the mosque treats the entire western world as one single entity. They attacked the UN workers because they considered them as part of the same entity as the nutty preacher. That’s a generalized delusion.
If the Taliban (and Al Qaeda) are behind this, and not just the "mosque", does that change the game theory analysis?
Some reports are suggesting Taliban was behind it. Some reports also suggest the attack on the UN was planned in advance. UN representatives and witnesses are also suggesting this. The Koran-burning may have only been a convenient pretext and a cover, enabling one or more of the mullahs to create a mob into which the attackers infiltrated. Recall the UN was driven out of Iraq by a terrorist attack.
Would any of this change your game theory analysis?
Edited on April 5, 2011 at 12:43amJan '11
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
Agreed.
Strictly speaking, what matters here is that the players believe that actions have predictable effects. For instance, the mosque didn't just kill people at random. They did it because they thought it would affect our behavior.
In many situations, you want the other players to predict your behavior, but not always. The notion of MAD (mutually assured destruction) ironically depended on predictability; thus the term "assured." Cyber-security depends on the opposite; you don't want the other player to predict anything.
In this political case, I argue that we need predictability. We want other mosques to know that we will respond to these murders. Further, we can escalate beyond their ability to respond, so they need to know that they can't afford to escalate on their side. That's what stops the bloodshed.
On the other hand, if we hesitate or waffle, that makes the game unpredictable. The other side may likely feel they can get away with other attacks. We must remove the doubt.
That takes presidential courage.
Edited on April 5, 2011 at 12:49amMar '11
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
This is a terrific piece, but there are more players in this game than you indicate.
KC Mulville
Games are strategic situations in which players have priorities. Each player decides what his highest priority is, and tries to obtain it.
Among the players are politicians in this country whose priorities, it seems, are quite different from what you assume. Their own welfare and position are deemed higher than the lives of their countrymen.
No bombs from this administration, I suspect.
May '10
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
The most important thought in the original post (great job KC) was the idea that terrorism is currently being purchased on the cheap -- upping the cost is the angle that we should pursue.
Dec '10
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
Does a cop give up his gun for a bad guy pointing his gun at a spur of the moment hostage? It makes for great TV, but no, he doesn't. It endangers the hostage, and it endangers the cop. Incidentally, it endangers others near the scene of future arrests. A legitimate police agency does not give up a prisoner in exchange for hostages, or it invites more hostages to be taken next time. The police have a moral obligation to follow the law. They owe that to the potential future hostages in the public at large.
Jan '11
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
Absolutely it would. To quote The Godfather, "it was Barzini all along."
But let's assume the reports are true. Why would the Taliban want to portray this as a "justified" response? Assume they did it for a reason. If they were going to attack the UN post anyway, why mask their intent? For that matter, why mask their involvement? The usual answer is because they would lose support if their intent and involvement were known. What does that tell you?
It suggests to me that there are Muslims who don't condone this sort of atrocity, and the Taliban knows it. They didn't conceal their involvement to fool us. They did it to fool their own people.
We should use that to our advantage. We've been hamstrung by not wanting to offend Muslim sensibilities. I'd say we (loudly) declare why we're retaliating, and that even the Muslim world could understand why we must respond. Then we send the Tomahawks. After that defined retaliation, we offer to end it there.
Rational response.
Jan '11
Re: Why We Have Game Theory
Sadly, I can't argue.