Cooperation is Key, Dreaming Big with Stag Hunt

in game theory models the Stag Hunt is the visionaries greatest tool. It goes something like this

A group of hunters are walking in the forest. If anyone wants to hunt a hare, he may, and he will get one pound of meat. If anyone wants to hunt a stag he may, but will need the cooperation of the entire group to bring down the stag. A share of the meat from he stag will be ten pounds each. If anyone chooses to hunt the hare, he may not hunt the stag, and anyone hunting the stag will be unable to catch anything, if anyone chooses to hunt hare.

The best payoff for each hunter is for them to cooperate and hunt the stag, but it only takes one shortsighted fool to ruin it for everyone. This model scales really well, and its variations are primary arguments for pursuits of world peace, space travel, and the banning of biological weapons.  A prosperous global peace is greatly beneficial to all, but it only takes a few shortsighted idiots to wreck it by causing near endless global conflicts, usually because they have figured out how to make money from it.

The most exciting application is usually in space travel and colonization, where everyone’s cooperation toward that pursuit could greatly benefit all, but it can be difficult to maintain support of enough people to see such projects through to their ultimate benefits.

Nearly all socialized (I tend to define government activities that maximize economy of scale for the benefit of the general public as “socialist”, so even public roads and the like are socialist programs) programs have the same issues, the difficulty is in keeping shortsighted “anti-government” types from becoming bureaucrats and wrecking the program by simply causing work stoppages and unlawfully denying benefits to those who qualify.

Many group projects fall into this classification in one form or another. The next time you have a big idea, don’t forget to put some effort up front into motivating support and getting enough people on board to keep the “hare hunters” at bay.

The Deathbed Test

The OODA loop and similar strategies are great for split second decision making and short term, even preemptive planning. What about the long haul?

“Plan for this world like you will live forever, and the next like you are leaving tomorrow.” I’m pretty sure Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) said it, but the mighty Google has failed me.

It is often helpful when evaluating a major life choice: career path, etc. to imagine one’s self on the eve of one’s death, looking back over one’s life. Upon reviewing the events about to unfold, with the benefit of hindsight, how might you feel abut the decision you are about to make? Remorse? Guilt? Pride? Joy?

Each says something about the quality of that path, and whether you should choose it or seek another one.

This is also, quite naturally a chance to take the long view and exercise as much strategic foresight as possible, but its best applications tend to be large and personal.

IN IT TO WIN IT, Game Theory and the Art of War.

If you go to YouTube, Yale makes available their Game Theory classes, and it’s a fantastic way to get to know the subject. There are countless others now. Even Cracked.com has one article on why it makes people assholes.

The version of the Art of War I read when I was young came with an introduction by the translator. It said quite simply, “This is not a morality lesson, this is a book on how to win.”

It’s important to draw that distinction. Game Theory assumes that everyone is always perfectly rational, clearly that’s not true, and usually that everyone has “perfect information”, also a fantasy. It makes no judgements about right or wrong, and requires suspension of such notions. It is a powerful force, but it is not at all balanced between good and evil and frequently advocates “screwing someone over”.

While morality may be its weakness, it has some advantages over other models. Game Theory models tend to be simple, even when they are scaling down massive problems. They tend to help identify the motivations of others, when those motivations might otherwise be obscured, and they encourage ripping a problem apart. “All models are flawed, but some are useful.”

The most famous model in game theory is the Prisoners’ Dilemma. Consider two criminals accused of a crime. The cops put them in separate rooms, and make them each an offer. If they both rat out their friend, they will do five years in jail. If they both hold tight, they will do two years in jail. If one rats and one doesn’t, the east will walk free, the other will do ten years.

This is the essence of using game theory in negotiation. The cops have no incentive to go to trial, but they probably don’t need to, the difficult to see thing is that whether your friend rats or not, you do less jail time if you rat. It’s often presented with slightly different numbers but this isn’t math. It IS important that the numbers are in roughly that proportion. You may see small charts set up to display/track decisions and outcomes for this and most other game theory “games”.

Similar models can be used to predict the distribution of birds feeding in a field, whether nation states will honor environmental treaties, and the likeliest choice of strategies in countless situations. The key is in its ability to shed light on most of the possibilities. A strategy can then be selected based on not only its likely outcome but on what it says about an opponent’s likely plan.

While I don’t think this is the one thought model to end all thought models, familiarity with game theory is a great exercise in foresight, and occasionally is the perfect tool for the job.