Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Stable Equilibrium
One of John Nash's simple but great insights into 'games with N players' is that any persistent situation you observe is an equilibrium (he was then able to derive the math describing price and quantity, for which he ultimately won a Nobel Prize). "Duh", you may say. Yet few people apply that insight to current events, essentially arguing that an equilibrium can change without, if you will, a supply or demand shift.
I heard Bill Clinton make this argument a few months ago in his standard post-presidential ($130,000) speech, citing it as the basis of political and foreign policy success. He says that people will act properly if you can "show them it is in their own interests". I'm not sure I buy that. As a boss, I can tell you that a room full of people who assert they can't figure out a simple filing system will be able to optimize their attendance to a new and complex overtime policy faster than a roomful of University of Chicago econometricians. Understanding isn't always the problem. More often you need to change the rules of the game to change behavior. Woody Brock reminded me of this yesterday.
As a first case in point examine discussion of Palestine. Those sympathetic to Israel say Israel must retaliate against barbaric suicide attacks, and buttress their argument with simple game theory and the notion of not "rewarding terrorism". At the same time, Palestinian apologists suggest that suicide bombing is the only recourse available to the Palestinians, citing the territorial incursions of Israel and its clearly superior military and economic might. Israel's sympathizers will point out, correctly, that the winning strategy for Palestinians would be passive resistance (I've made this argument). Palestinian apologists suggest, as my friend Ted does, that the Israelis should "at last understand that while they can win battles, they cannot win the war so the best thing would be to call it off."
Are both sides pursuing a sub-optimal strategy? Nash would say no, this has been going on for years, they must be pursuing optimal strategies given the game in front of them.
What are these rules that make seemingly self-destructive behavior optimal? I would argue they have everything to do with the powers around the Middle East, most of whom have a vested interest in sustaining the Israel-Palestine issue either as a distraction from their own failed regimes or their desire to ethnically cleanse the Middle East of Jews, Americans and proponents of secular governments. Hence Iran and Saudi Arabia's funding of terrorist cells in Palestine and the Iraqi awards to suicide bombers. In my view, the continuance of the Palestinian issue is entirely exogenous power politics. The cries from the Middle East that Palestine must be resolved before Iraq or other terrorist-sponsor states are truly "stasist" voices, attempting to preserve the status quo. They have put the cart before the horse, for no solution can hold without removing the pressure from other states who have an interest in perpetuating the conflict. That is why peace talks and accords have failed and might likely continue to fail. Talks and televised handshakes don't change the rules. It is the resolution or movement of other problems in the Middle East (no small order) that is most likely to cause the Palestinian issue to find a new equilibrium. Hopefully a peaceful one.
Clinton's notion that people can simply be taught to behave differently is actually pretty condescending. It starts from the assumption that people are stupid or simple, much as the common European view seems to assume that we can't expect more from Third Worlders. I'm also reminded here of the offensive term "Paleo-stinians" coming in to common usage in certain comment threads. Is there a chance we could stamp that one out?*
4 Comments:
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Wed Dec 31, 02:13:00 PM:
"Clinton's notion that people can simply be taught to behave differently is actually pretty condescending."
Many of the world's premier shitholes are shitholes because of the residents' behavior, not because of some sort of malign outside interference. For instance, the American military's frustration with Iraqi corruption, conspiracy theories, laziness, pettiness, and apathy towards their work is well-documented, and representative of most Arab countries. I was on the receiving end of a number of similar (and often amusing, to Americans) stories about Egypt from an Arab I used to know in California.
By 
, at
Thu Jan 01, 12:16:00 AM:
When I was a kid back in the 50s we used to have school plays.. they were not expensive performances.
The hero and heroine would be on stage doing their thing, and the villains would be off to the side, holding a blade or two of grass in front of them to indicate they were "hiding" waiting to get the heroine alone.
The audience weren't mugs.. it could see the villains but knew it was imperative to ignore them so as to build the tension, and scream in pretended surprise and shock when the buggers "decloaked".
So it is in the Middle East. The main actors of Jews and Palestinians are onstage and the other states (esp. Iran) are hiding behind a blade of grass, and the audience is pretending not to notice them so as not to spoil the story.
JC
By Dan Kauffman, at
Thu Jan 01, 04:43:00 AM:
He says that people will act properly if you can "show them it is in their own interests".
One problem is they may not agree with someone else's definition of
"their best interests"
I mean if YOU think your best interest is the total destruction of Israel and the extermination of the Jewish race, then someone else's definition may not appeal to you.
Among the signs of the approach of Day of Judgment is what the messenger of Allah PBUH said: "The hour of judgment shall not happen until the Muslims fight the Jews. The Muslims shall kill the Jews to the point that the Jew shall hide behind a big rock or a tree and the rock or tree shall call on the Muslim saying: hey, O Muslim there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,
Why would a devout Muslim wish to put off the Day the Faithfull all ascend to Paradise?
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Jan 01, 08:46:00 AM:
