![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackMy dad told me about a scene from a film. The protagonist was confined in some jail, and the guards had a gun and the cell key and he didn't. There was a flurry of unexpected (possibly violent) activity, and when it reached a natural pause, it turned out that he had the gun, and the guards had backed away from the cell and still had the key.
He wants to escape. The guards don't want him to. No-one wants to get shot. What happens?
He turns the gun toward the first guard, and says, I'll give you a count of three to throw me the key. The guard refuses, and he counts 1. He counts 2, then he shoots him without warning.
Then he turns to the second guard, and says I'll give you a count of three. The second guard throws him the key before he can begin counting.
What I realised is that in game-theoretic terms, this is exactly the game of chicken. If neither party gives in, the result is very bad for both. If either party gives in, it's less bad for them and good for the other one. And if both parties give in, it's a draw.
But of course, the way to win a game of chicken is to behave like you're going to act more irrational than the other party. It's a trope that being threatened by a professional can actually be less scary than being threatened by an amateur. Although if both parties do that, it unfortunately leads to a big crash.
And unfortunately, you get exactly the same thing in politics, where there's a big incentive to play "Oh no, I absolutely can't compromise, my allied extremists would never forgive me, we'll just have to do it my way, sorry." But to secretly know when you actually have to give in, but never admit it. But obviously this means sensible solutions like "lets all get round a table and talk" are hard to achieve, since people have a negative incentive to actually be honest about their needs and wants.
He wants to escape. The guards don't want him to. No-one wants to get shot. What happens?
He turns the gun toward the first guard, and says, I'll give you a count of three to throw me the key. The guard refuses, and he counts 1. He counts 2, then he shoots him without warning.
Then he turns to the second guard, and says I'll give you a count of three. The second guard throws him the key before he can begin counting.
What I realised is that in game-theoretic terms, this is exactly the game of chicken. If neither party gives in, the result is very bad for both. If either party gives in, it's less bad for them and good for the other one. And if both parties give in, it's a draw.
But of course, the way to win a game of chicken is to behave like you're going to act more irrational than the other party. It's a trope that being threatened by a professional can actually be less scary than being threatened by an amateur. Although if both parties do that, it unfortunately leads to a big crash.
And unfortunately, you get exactly the same thing in politics, where there's a big incentive to play "Oh no, I absolutely can't compromise, my allied extremists would never forgive me, we'll just have to do it my way, sorry." But to secretly know when you actually have to give in, but never admit it. But obviously this means sensible solutions like "lets all get round a table and talk" are hard to achieve, since people have a negative incentive to actually be honest about their needs and wants.