Game Theory and Dissent
A while back I posted a link to a critique of the misuse of game theory. Here's another example of what I mean.
There's this notion that it's "unpatriotic" to criticize the government's conduct of a war. Of course, one can simply reject this version of patriotism, but it's important to understand why it exists in the first place.
One reason is that it has some logical coherence. Imagine war as a game of chicken. Each nation drives a car at full speed toward the other nation, and if one swerves it loses. If neither swerves, both lose (and the outcome is worse than losing by swerving). This obviously doesn't capture the intricacy of war, but it describes one salient feature.
Now, one sure way to win is not to have a steering wheel (so long as everyone knows you don't have one). Your opponent would rather lose than die, so he swerves. Democracy is like a steering wheel: it is the choice of doing one thing or the other. You can see that this is a weakness of democracy, in a sense. In some cases, it is possible that we would be better off if we could bind ourselves to a policy that we couldn't overturn with a vote.
All of this is fine, but at this point certain hawks stop the analysis. Democracy is a disadvantage, they proclaim, or at least dissent during wartime is a sure way to lose. The only way to win is to remove the steering wheel or make it very clear to everyone that you have no intention of using it.
So you can see some obvious problems cropping up. One is that, in the general run of things, you want a steering wheel. Another is that, in this country, the steering wheel can't be removed. The hawks' theory is an example of one that is correct only if it is completely accepted. Which is to say, if they could truly remove the steering wheel, the strategy could in theory work (the informational demands are still unrealistic, and there are countless other problems, but ignore that for now). Partial acceptance of their arguments is the worst outcome.
A great example of this is the Church's HIV policy. Antipathy to condoms causes the deaths of lots of people. Yet some Catholics don't see any tradeoff between doctrine and humanity: after all, if everyone would just adhere to Catholic sexual doctrine, HIV would be a minor problem (you would have to clean up transfusion practices, but that's a fairly uncommon means of transmission I believe). The problem is that the real-world Catholic doctrine is being defended with a model of ideal human behavior. It's idiotic and cruel to base policy on the assumption that humans won't sin or make mistakes. So we get the worst of both worlds: Church officials are unable to get 100% compliance with Catholic sexual doctrine. Nevertheless, they insist on pursuing their anti-condom strategy, and resort to all kinds of unethical behavior (for instance, telling Africans that condoms won't protect them from HIV). So imagine a man about to have sex with an HIV-positive woman. He asks a priest if, given his decision to have sex, he should use a condom. The priest says no, and goes home satisfied in his knowledge that Catholic doctrine is great at stopping HIV. This is not a hypothetical: the Church tells married couples not to use condoms when one of them is HIV positive.
The same thing is going on with hawkish "patriotism." Of course, if we could behave in the "ideal" way, it still wouldn't be worth it (as I pointed out earlier, a steering wheel is a useful thing to have). But even for the limited purposes of the game of chicken, it's simply not in the cards for Americans to acquiesce in a misguided war. Given that the steering wheel remains firmly in place, calls for us not to use it are insanely dangerous.
All of this leaves aside that most of the hawks are not in the car, that chicken isn't a very good game to begin with, and that our enemy is unlikely to think in these terms. My point is just that hawkish patriotism has a theory behind it, and that theory is correct on its own terms. We need to be aware that this isn't enough, that a perfectly good theory can lead to horrible outcomes when people use it stupidly.
There's this notion that it's "unpatriotic" to criticize the government's conduct of a war. Of course, one can simply reject this version of patriotism, but it's important to understand why it exists in the first place.
One reason is that it has some logical coherence. Imagine war as a game of chicken. Each nation drives a car at full speed toward the other nation, and if one swerves it loses. If neither swerves, both lose (and the outcome is worse than losing by swerving). This obviously doesn't capture the intricacy of war, but it describes one salient feature.
Now, one sure way to win is not to have a steering wheel (so long as everyone knows you don't have one). Your opponent would rather lose than die, so he swerves. Democracy is like a steering wheel: it is the choice of doing one thing or the other. You can see that this is a weakness of democracy, in a sense. In some cases, it is possible that we would be better off if we could bind ourselves to a policy that we couldn't overturn with a vote.
All of this is fine, but at this point certain hawks stop the analysis. Democracy is a disadvantage, they proclaim, or at least dissent during wartime is a sure way to lose. The only way to win is to remove the steering wheel or make it very clear to everyone that you have no intention of using it.
So you can see some obvious problems cropping up. One is that, in the general run of things, you want a steering wheel. Another is that, in this country, the steering wheel can't be removed. The hawks' theory is an example of one that is correct only if it is completely accepted. Which is to say, if they could truly remove the steering wheel, the strategy could in theory work (the informational demands are still unrealistic, and there are countless other problems, but ignore that for now). Partial acceptance of their arguments is the worst outcome.
A great example of this is the Church's HIV policy. Antipathy to condoms causes the deaths of lots of people. Yet some Catholics don't see any tradeoff between doctrine and humanity: after all, if everyone would just adhere to Catholic sexual doctrine, HIV would be a minor problem (you would have to clean up transfusion practices, but that's a fairly uncommon means of transmission I believe). The problem is that the real-world Catholic doctrine is being defended with a model of ideal human behavior. It's idiotic and cruel to base policy on the assumption that humans won't sin or make mistakes. So we get the worst of both worlds: Church officials are unable to get 100% compliance with Catholic sexual doctrine. Nevertheless, they insist on pursuing their anti-condom strategy, and resort to all kinds of unethical behavior (for instance, telling Africans that condoms won't protect them from HIV). So imagine a man about to have sex with an HIV-positive woman. He asks a priest if, given his decision to have sex, he should use a condom. The priest says no, and goes home satisfied in his knowledge that Catholic doctrine is great at stopping HIV. This is not a hypothetical: the Church tells married couples not to use condoms when one of them is HIV positive.
The same thing is going on with hawkish "patriotism." Of course, if we could behave in the "ideal" way, it still wouldn't be worth it (as I pointed out earlier, a steering wheel is a useful thing to have). But even for the limited purposes of the game of chicken, it's simply not in the cards for Americans to acquiesce in a misguided war. Given that the steering wheel remains firmly in place, calls for us not to use it are insanely dangerous.
All of this leaves aside that most of the hawks are not in the car, that chicken isn't a very good game to begin with, and that our enemy is unlikely to think in these terms. My point is just that hawkish patriotism has a theory behind it, and that theory is correct on its own terms. We need to be aware that this isn't enough, that a perfectly good theory can lead to horrible outcomes when people use it stupidly.
posted by James | 3:30 AM
5 Comments:
That's such a straw man. I don't know anyone who actually uses that contrived signaling analogy as the reason why we shouldn't dissent during wartime. It's not based on economic analysis; it has to do with fuzzy concepts like "solidarity".
Both your examples are terrible: they are not misuses of game theory, because game theory has absolutely nothing to do with those doctrines. Nationalism is not predicated on economic rationality, and neither is religious dogma.
I think this comment misses the mark. I'll go through piece by piece.
1. Is this a straw man? I don't think so. For one thing, I regard game theoretical arguments as better than vague appeals to solidarity, so if anything this is the opposite of a straw man.
2. Anyway, people don't have to use the language of game theory to make game theoretical arguments. Hobbes was making game theoretical arguments in the 17th century. "Solidarity" is unlikely to be an ultimate end, it is a means to something else. Something such as credibility. This is often explicitly stated, as when people talk about giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy.
3. The Church example wasn't meant as game theory, it was meant as an example of a theory that only works if it is completely accepted. A little Catholicism is a dangerous thing, as when you forget to be monogamous but remember not to wear a condom.
So I think you're pretty far off the mark with your criticism. Points for being emphatic, though.
Okay, I changed my display name because Blogger is doing weird things.
Anyway, I'm not defending their arguments. I'm saying your criticism (while completely rational and correct) doesn't really apply because the premises that religious and nationalist arguments rely on have nothing to do with rationality. It's like trying to sway a creationist with "evidence".
I hate this argument, but I'm not sure I see why it only works at the extreme (with the steering wheel removed). Doesn't a sticky (but not completely immobile) steering wheel accomplish the same result in some scenarios?
I think a populace that's initially too "patriotic" to dissent meaningfully at the start of a war goes part of the way toward the sort of "grim trigger" you posit the hawks are arguing for (rather than none of the way towards it). Your argument seems to hold that unless we can commit absolutely to a (crazy, war) policy, greater and lesser degrees of commitment don't matter.
. . . so while I share your horror at the Catholic Church's condom murders, I'm not sure the analogy is apt.
Post a Comment
<< Home