Peaceful game theory

Last night I got into a discussion on what game theory is.  Now I have been a student of theories my entire life, as I see it.  All that information got snarled up before I could say a word, so it was not easy to define game theory in a flash. However I did realize that we were playing a card game so I used that as my analogy.

Game theory is the study of strategy used to get results.  It is a plan to win a chess game, to win a hockey game, an election, war or even to get a job.  The strategy you employ (whether you know your strategy or not) is the game theory you use to obtain your goal.   Everyone uses game theory.  One of the most popular theories is fight or flight.  That has been changed to fight, freeze or flight due to the fact that some people get so nervous that they can do nothing but collapse/freeze.

When we have events such as the Jasmine Revolution, we can look to see what the theory was and map it out.  Did Mohamed Bouazizi know that his actions would spark the Jasmine Revolution, would cause a number of other events in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and the Occupy movement all over the world?  You would have to believe that he did not.  However his own personal actions had been rooted in the theory that if he set himself on fire the government would take notice and make changes to the current system.  That was his game theory and he was right.

Now this is a very simple example of game theory.  There are much more complex psychological strategies which have been studied.  Yet the currents and streams of thought on the subject all deal with plans that a person or group uses to achieve a goal.

Game theory is often studied along with the art of decision making and information gathering.  These three elements are all part of strategy.  You need the right information to make the best decision so that the correct strategy is used.

For example we can ask why a government would rather shoot its people than allow protesting.  The initial reason is to gain control of the populous.  Governments feel threatened by large mobs of protesters so that mob has to be put down.  That is one level.  The other level is the personal one where the person in charge, Prime Minister, President or General also feels that their life is in danger or their job.  This personal level hinges on dignity, power and self-image.  The leader feels that the people should be grateful for the life provided and a large protest is a slap in the face.  Also the leader sees a possibility that they will be ousted from power so that has to be fought.  Next there is the image that no one else has the right to hold the position that the leader now holds, it is theirs and the mob is trying to steal it.

How leaders deal with these perceptions is where game theory comes in.  They must ask themselves, what is the best method to end the protest, to retain power and to regain the admiration of the people.  Shooting them is a popular choice because it does work, for a time.  Shooting and killing is the theory employed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Burma, Columbia, Libya, DRC and the list goes on.

For peaceful examples we have Poland Solidarity Movement 1980, Czechoslovakia Velvet Revolution 1989 which lead to the peaceful 1993 seperation of the Czech Rebublic and Slovakia, and the Ukraine Orange Revolution 2004.  Each has taken place in the last few decades.  We can go further back for examples of peaceful revolutions yet these are perfect enough.  As you can see the use of peace as a strategy is a successful game theory and it often results in a stronger country.  Of the peaceful examples Ukraine had a number of setbacks, yet the initial game theory of peaceful demonstration worked. 

That is a quick summation of game theory.  My theory in the game of understanding is that by using such broad examples it is easily understood. 

Just as I was writing this I have learned that Vaclav Havel has died this morning.  He was the person put up as the leader for the Velvet Revolution. Rest in peace my friend you did a great job, we need more like you. 

Political Game Theory

Anatol Rapoport was a Russian scientist that lived in the RUSA and then in Canada where he died.  His mind crossed many subjects of science, those being biology, psychology and mathematics.  While he lived in Canada he became heavily involved in peace studies.  In his time he developed strategy for what is known in political studies as game theory.  He is a wonderful human that is not very well known.

http://www.science.ca/scientists/scientistprofile.php?pID=211

I mention this man because today the people of Russia are in the process of voting for a new government.  Now I have always enjoyed reading about Russia and the people.  To me the governments that have controlled Russia are no better or worse than any other government in the world.  What I feel is that the people of Russia have gone through some really terrible leadership, which brings us to the current people seeking power.

One method of measure for a great leader is how they develop others to take over.  Succession planning has not been a strong point for the political leaders of Russia.  It is difficult to trust the entire political system when the leader holds onto power so tightly.  Do the vast majority of citizens in Russia trust the government?  To be fair, I would say that a strong portion of Canadians do not trust our government either.

Plus we have to think of the opposition parties as well.  They may be as untrusting because they are seeking to oust the current party.  With that we have a situation where the trust in political debates is very low.  Add to that the need to make the other party seem useless is a function of the entire election campaign.  I think about all of the things that I know are going on and trust is a major component which is taking a beating.  The level of intent to get the next shot in and cause pain is increasing.  It is like implementing a cease fire agreement but yet the two sides still continue to fire away knowing that it is doing more harm.  That is a situation in which my own mind and heart are truly confused as to the reason for causing more harm.

What does it do - really?  Why cause more harm?  Is it the lack of causational thought where the person that fires the shot, only sees the shot fired as being the death blow to everything?  I guess that is it.  There is no thought process beyond the shot being fired.  There is no thought of impact or future return fire.  The game of tracking "who has the most hits wins" is a bullshit game but I must agree that it is the most popular game played in politics.