Game Theory: Socialism vs. Capitalism: The Hybrid Strategy

It always pays to articulate the obvious. Sometimes it pays to articulate the subtle. I am going to talk about Cooperation vs. Competition. About Socialism vs. Capitalism. About game theory.

You decide if my points have merit. If there is fallacy in my metaphor, please identify it. Please save me from even one more minute of erroneous thinking, because life is short. Let's begin.

I like teaching people to do new things. I like physical education because it keeps people healthy. My belief is, that if people are healthy, they will be happier. I like to make people happy. That is who I am. Who are you?

I was teaching someone to play badminton. I like badminton because it combines agility, alertness, quickness and stamina.

The birdie can absorb as much power as a strong person can generate, producing a pop when the birdie goes supersonic. But a person of small stature can also excel. The physics of the game, “levels the playing field”.

Thus this innocent and interesting game can be enjoyed by a diverse group of people. That is another thing about who I am. I advocate things that include diverse groups of people. What do you advocate?

I can discuss the physics of the game and the aerodynamics of the birdie, but that is irrelevant to my point so I won’t. What is critical about badminton is the way in which people interact and contribute to the achievement of the game.

One day I noticed that if a seasoned player faces a novice player, the novice quickly becomes discouraged. Unless they are able to participate in keeping the birdie going back and forth, the game isn’t fun. A self-important seasoned player might obtain some joy in dominating the newer player. But as newer player becomes discouraged the game stops, resulting in no benefit to either player.

Thus emerges our first principle:

“When players are unevenly matched, competition destroys the game.”

Now in terms of coaching, teaching or participating, there is another strategy one can take.

When players are unevenly matched, the responsibility of the stronger player  is to return the birdie such that the weaker player is guaranteed the possibility of returning it.

The consequence of this anti-competitive strategy is that the stronger player is now challenged to produce an exacting sort of shot, within the envelope of the weaker player’s skill. The weaker player now has the obligation to at least try to return this buffet platter of a shot. They are obligated to return the favor to the stronger player.

When this strategy is employed a very interesting thing happens. The stronger player begins to fatigue, because it takes more energy and more skill to deliver to the weaker player, this idealized shot, so that the game can continue.

If the game continues in the anti-competitive strategy, after awhile, it becomes the stronger player who withdraws because the demands of the game become so high. But the weaker player improves rapidly as a result of multiple successful returns.

Thus emerges our second principle:

“Anti-competition stresses the stronger player
while improving the weaker player”.

The game continues, but only for the duration of the stronger player's ability to endure.

I would say that these principles of competition and anti-competition should be obvious to everyone, but they were only obvious to me after fifty years of life, so perhaps not.

For the game to continue a new strategy MUST emerge. A strategy that takes the needs of both players into account. I call that strategy, the Hybrid Strategy. If you don’t already have it on the tip of your tongue, I will explain how it works.

Two players, a weaker and a stronger player start anti-competitively, enabling the game to be established, allowing the players to assess their position and skillset in the game. The weaker player becomes stronger and the stronger player (a measurable quantity by score…) eventually tires and calls for a strategy switch.

The players now engage the game in a competitive strategy. BUT, the players are now more evenly matched. The weaker player is now stronger, the stronger player is now tired. The game continues until the weaker player no longer wishes to participate, or the roles reverse from the weaker player becoming strong.

Now we have the third and most important principle:

"When both players consent to a strategy switch, the game continues."

The result? Improvement and value-added for both players. When either player does not consent to a strategy switch, the game ends.

Now in politics or government the metaphor can be applied as follows. Players can be Rich vs. Poor. Republican vs. Democrat. Brahman vs. Untouchable. High IQ vs. Low IQ. Strong vs. Weak. Coordinated vs. Clumsy. Citizen vs. Alien. Capitalist vs. Socialist Etc.

The hybrid strategy enriches everyone’s life to the fullest extent, and leads to the most important principle, “Reduction of Harm”. Reduction of Harm is a topic for another essay, but is quite useful in calculating those laws, ordinances and enforcements that are, in some global sense, best for society.

The selflessness of the hybrid strategy ends up benefiting both parties to the maximum degree.

We know this intuitively. How can we put it into practice?

ITABIMAS: In the Absense of Better Information Make a Story: Part 2

The Life Cycle of ITABIMAS


ITABIMAS comes and goes. One aspect of ITABIMAS is that it discourages multi-factor thinking. Although extolled as a virtue, looking for a single unifying principle is a bad habit, when in fact many principles are at work in complex systems. Biological complexity is a great example of the breakdown of single-factor simple-minded ITABIMAS. How often have we heard that, "x causes cancer", or that "y cures this disease"? in cancer and disease x and y single parameters in a constellation of interacting processes. One must consider the space of the interacting processes and not just this simple variable or that. Single-factor thinking is so attractive, so seductive and so irresistible that we do it all the time.


One force which modifies ITABIMAS is Dissent, caused by those who ask the question, "Why", or better yet, "What Happened That". Science encourages Dissent, and therefore has a rapidly-evolving ITABIMAS. But even this has exceptions, as we saw in the case of the quasicrystals. The scientific method involves a verification step called Experiment. If a scientific theory doesn't explain the Experiment, one is allowed, even required to say, "We need a new theory." Any theory that holds up with a confidence of five standard deviations is called a "law" (99.9999426697% - BTW) A law is an ITABIMAS with small Dissent. The law of gravity is a good example of small Dissent. It is proven daily. It is proven quickly. It is proven painfully. It has a numerical value. I once knew someone who thought they had a special exception to the law of gravity. I managed to talk them out of it.


There is ITABIMAS war. In Galileo's time someone purportedly staked their religion on the earth being at the center of the solar system. They had to modify their ITABIMAS and took their sweet time doing it. Measurement is good. One can measure where the sun is. Evolution and intelligent design are competing ITABIMAS. If you can't measure something you are stuck. This is what makes fundamentalism a dangerous thing. It cannot be verified. Effective medicine did not evolve from religion. It came from the experiment of the scientific method. I always wanted to heal people supernaturally but it never seemed to work out. I wonder "why" or "what happened that"? Perhaps I was too busy asking questions...


In Religion great lengths are taken to preserve ITABIMAS. Since these ITABIMAS are sacred, religion does not typically tolerate Dissent by definition. If their theory doesn't explain your experiment, one becomes eligible for a Joan-Of-Arc style vertical roasting, real-quick-like-Jimmy, to prevent the ITABIMAS from being damaged and the power structures from being threatened. Religions and their delegates are willing to sacrifice anything, up to and including intellect, to save the ITABIMAS in a strange sort of logic. Stand up in the middle of a church service and start asking the obvious questions. Perform the experiment, see what happens... Suppression of Dissent is common in all venues where ITABIMAS is sacred; In cults, social or religious, in military organizations, at work, and down at the country club.


In Government, the war is between that of Science and Religion. Policy makers can respond, "Because "IT"[abimas] says so", or, "Because "I"[tabimas] say so". Perhaps Democracy is a "safe" religion, I mean, form of government. In Democracy Dissent is purportedly acceptable, in Autocracy it can cost you your head. In Media, ITABIMUS is the end goal. Dissent is maximized to increase revenues. In the tabloid case, any ITABIMUS will do.


In Design, ITABIMUS is fluid until the design is frozen. The effect of Dissent is immediate. The programmer or architect can change whatever they want, however they want, early in the process. As more decisions are made the concrete hardens. As real copies of the design are made, the ITABIMUS starts to freeze. Perhaps any design that lasts unchanged for a thousand years should be considered a religion.


© 1996 L.Van Warren · All Rights Reserved  · Revised 11/21/2011

-->

ITABIMAS: In the Absence of Better Information Make a Story, Part 1

Definitions

Human beings do it.
You do it, I do it.
Eskimos and Greeks do it.
Lawyers and Criminals do it.
Psychiatrists and their Patients do it.
Everybody does ITABIMAS.

"In The Absence of Better Information Make A Story."

Scientists practice ITABIMAS, and call it "Making a Theory."
Religious people practice ITABIMAS and call it "Having Faith."
Government officials call ITABIMAS, "Making Policy."
Media People call ITABIMAS, "Making Copy"
Designers call ITABIMAS, "The Newest Version."

Scientific ITABIMAS is recorded in documents called "Journals."
Religious ITABIMAS is recorded in documents called "Scriptures."
Government ITABIMAS is recorded in "Bills", "Manifestos" or "Constitutions."
Media ITABIMAS is recorded as, well, "Various Sorts of Media."
Design ITABIMAS is recorded as manufactured artifacts or "Stuff".

There is a part of the brain that takes information coming from the world, the senses and from memory, combining it to create coherent reality. I call this part of the brain, the "Confabulator". The reason? When the Confabulator is cut off from factual information, it keeps right on doing what it does best... making a story.

Aging people will tell stories that are not true, because they have lost the ability to perceive objective truth, but not the ability to construct a story. Individuals with bipolar disorder will say, "I am depressed because of x, or I am manic because of y". The fact is, that the mood extremes of bipolar disorder are controlled by serotonin, dopamine, neurotransmitters and hormones playing together in an elegant symphony. An individual is depressed or elated because of neurotransmitter and hormone levels. The Confabulator creates an ITABIMUS to explain reality through the veil of current mood, perception and circumstances.

When exceptions arise during the course of experience adjustments are made. As time goes by, an ITABIMAS may bog down with special case amendments and become unwieldy. Sometimes the exceptions outweigh the story and the ITABIMAS collapses under its own weight, like a dinosaur. The collapse of one ITABIMAS marks the birth of another, enabling the ITABIMAS to rise from the ashes reproduced. It returns as a new, simpler and hopefully less oppressive ITABIMAS.

There is institutional ITABIMAS brought about by the opinions of a few who reside in carefully crafted positions of power. The institutions of Science, Religion, Government, Media, and Design operate using ITABIMAS. Keeping an ITABIMAS up to date is revision. That is how humans do things. In the absence of information, they make up a story and revise as necessary to describe the current reality. We are all con artists in the prison of life deluding ourselves to varying degrees. You can quote me on that.

© 1996 L.Van Warren · All Rights Reserved  · Revised 11/22/2011

-->