Apr
13
2009
|
Pirates Game: Correct Prediction |
|
|
|
Written by JD Johannes
|
|
Monday, 13 April 2009 |
A few days ago, after a brief exchange with Ed from hotair.com , I quickly typed up a rational choice model of how the standoff could end.
Based on the game settlements, I postulated the most likely outcome would be O4/T3.
The O4 standing for Obama Option #4 was "Pirates taken by force, Captain saved."
The T3 standing for Pirates, terrorist Option #3 was "Pirates taken by force, Captain killed, US personnel killed."
Ed, after seeing the scenarios, agreed that my O4/T3 was probably where it would end up.
I ran a another scenario in which the pirates were "run-of-the-mill" but as the facts played out, the pirates were more committed to the cause than that game scenario revealed.
The two levels of pirates addressed the big known unkown-- how recalcitrant the pirates would be.
Now, how did a blogger run a half-assed version of rational choice game theory and get it right?
Well, I can tell you I did very little research. I scanned Google headlines, skimmed the wikipedia and drew more than anything else on my experience watching these scenarios game out in Iraq.
I also run more complex rational choice game models in the political campaigns I consult on.
The key with all of these is motive. Understanding what the sides want. I don't get bogged down into "why", because that is best thought of as another thing they want.
As it turned out, President Obama as National Command Authority gave the military broad authority within the general orders. The Commander on scene made the call in split second decision, and could because the assets were in place.
When the President gave the authorization, he jumped to an O4 option. As I previously stated, O4 was fraught with danger, but the best option because it has the highest payoff. And if the pirates were terrorists, well, then there really was no other acceptable option in the scenario.
According to the initial reports I read--and I have only skimmed a few--the Pirates chose to jump into their own T3.
This was not difficult, it did not require any particular insight, just a little logic.
When you take motive into account, you can eliminate a couple of options T6, T7, T8 and O7, O8.
If you add options, lowest number being best, then divide by the number of options you get 3.27 as a mathematical settlement average.
That is the absolute most crude, poorly calculated way to play rational choice. But the models generally work like that.
Options are listed, weighted, then a settlement arrived at.
The important part is to understand that each player is acting in a way that is rational to them, which is why you need to understand motive.
Understand motive, and you can predict a lot of behaviour, even if it is irrational, people can be predictable in their irrationality.
|
|
