A number of ideologies depend on a logical fallacy called a faulty generalization. It's probably the single biggest shortcoming of being human.
It's the classic tale of the old, blind men and the elephant. Each man touches a different part and describes the elephant as something entirely different, and none of them see the entire elephant for what it is.
Folks, we have to grow outside of the boundaries of our own individual selves in order to reach any sort of enlightenment. In order to do that, we have to abandon arguments from faith as well as from individual experience. I'm not saying that individual experience isn't important--it is--but only that it is the germ of a discussion, the beginnings of reasoning, not the end product.
Here's an example of one I heard from the Carly Fiorina / Barbara Boxer debate (2010) that sticks with me. When asked about her stance on abortion, Carly Fiorina replied that she was pro-life. The reason for her stance, she said, was that her husband's mother almost decided to have an abortion. Instead, she made the decision to keep the child, and it turned out just fine. The fallacy, of course, is the assumption that "it turned out just fine" could be universally applied to anyone pondering the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. It ignores the statistics outside of that one specific instance--her husband. It is also arguing from a position of privilege. If you are one of the lucky ones, then you can pretend the odds don't matter or that they are unimportant.
In a response to The Myth of the Enlightened Self-Interest, Part 2, Taliver brings up an important point: that the ideology of acting solely for self-interest (in a Tragedy of the Commons) is based on imperfect information. Any ideology that follows directly from imperfect information (e.g., based on blind faith in something) without allowing itself to adapt for new information (e.g., statistics, science) is condemning itself to eternal faulty generalization.
One example that has come to my attention lately is the "Austrian School" of economic theory, which should have died a long time ago but seems to have enjoyed a recent resurgence due to the Koch brothers and the Tea Party. Any school of thought that is based on a priori generalization is succumbing to the faulty generalization.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
The Debt Ceiling and Multiple Payoff Games
First off, yeah, I know it's been a while (December--gads) since my last post here. It isn't that I haven't had anything to write about (got that double negative? Good.). Too many projects, never enough time. Anyway, I post here when I can and when it's relevant, not according to any specific schedule.
Folks may remember the series on "The Myth of the Enlightened Self Interest." (Part One) (Part Two) (Part Three). These were some of my most active posts, generating lots of very interesting discussion. Since I've posted those, obviously I've had plenty of time since then to dwell on some of the finer points and peoples' comments.
I've also had the opportunity to let multiple payoff game theory sink in as a concept and wrestle awake the sleeping snake of my rusty matrix math. For example, when Mordicai pondered the idea of a "greatest total payoff"--really what he means is sort of a Nash-equilibrium concept across all independent variables. A Nash^2 or Nash' equilibrium, if you will. It's a great way to reduce some games into a single payoff game. However, it should be obvious to anyone that not all games can be so easily reduced. In fact, the M. Zeleny [1974] paper proves this. Different players may have different value functions where one payoff may be exchanged with another. These value functions may be wholly non-linear. For example, you may want ice cream and to take a hot bath, but if you can only have one, sometimes you'd prefer to have neither.
As the debt ceiling debacle unfolded to its inevitable conclusion (and is still continuing to have grave consequences), it occurred to me that what has been plaguing Washington is an epic multiple payoff game that reduces down to a classic game of chicken. In our case, the variables are 1) the debt ceiling itself (and the budget), which forces all other variables to compromise, 2) partisan political power (Democrat, Republican, and Election 2012), and 3) political ideology (Tea Party). Unfortunately, both 2) and 3) are at odds with the principal 1).
The only solution in our matrix that reduces correctly to a long-term livable game requires a hold on 2) and completely dismissing 3). That solution requires restoring taxes to pre-Bush levels, reforming entitlements, and drastic spending cuts--something nonpartisan economists such as Alan Greenspan have been saying for years. Unfortunately, even if Washington doesn't get it, the rating agencies certainly do, as we will soon find out (I'm really hoping I'm wrong here, but unfortunately I'm probably right).
I plan to talk a bit more about ideology in my next post and how it is not only at odds with 1) and 2), but for now I'm going to punt and blithely assume that rationality trumps ideology.
Anyway, I considered writing out the multiple payoff matrix for this "dilemma" but decided to punt on that, too. I hate it when I'm lazy, but now the damage is already done and it wouldn't matter anyway.
The important thing? That multiple payoff game theory is quite possibly one of the most important areas of further study for the future and has real-world applications that we can use today. Time for Gort?
Folks may remember the series on "The Myth of the Enlightened Self Interest." (Part One) (Part Two) (Part Three). These were some of my most active posts, generating lots of very interesting discussion. Since I've posted those, obviously I've had plenty of time since then to dwell on some of the finer points and peoples' comments.
I've also had the opportunity to let multiple payoff game theory sink in as a concept and wrestle awake the sleeping snake of my rusty matrix math. For example, when Mordicai pondered the idea of a "greatest total payoff"--really what he means is sort of a Nash-equilibrium concept across all independent variables. A Nash^2 or Nash' equilibrium, if you will. It's a great way to reduce some games into a single payoff game. However, it should be obvious to anyone that not all games can be so easily reduced. In fact, the M. Zeleny [1974] paper proves this. Different players may have different value functions where one payoff may be exchanged with another. These value functions may be wholly non-linear. For example, you may want ice cream and to take a hot bath, but if you can only have one, sometimes you'd prefer to have neither.
As the debt ceiling debacle unfolded to its inevitable conclusion (and is still continuing to have grave consequences), it occurred to me that what has been plaguing Washington is an epic multiple payoff game that reduces down to a classic game of chicken. In our case, the variables are 1) the debt ceiling itself (and the budget), which forces all other variables to compromise, 2) partisan political power (Democrat, Republican, and Election 2012), and 3) political ideology (Tea Party). Unfortunately, both 2) and 3) are at odds with the principal 1).
The only solution in our matrix that reduces correctly to a long-term livable game requires a hold on 2) and completely dismissing 3). That solution requires restoring taxes to pre-Bush levels, reforming entitlements, and drastic spending cuts--something nonpartisan economists such as Alan Greenspan have been saying for years. Unfortunately, even if Washington doesn't get it, the rating agencies certainly do, as we will soon find out (I'm really hoping I'm wrong here, but unfortunately I'm probably right).
I plan to talk a bit more about ideology in my next post and how it is not only at odds with 1) and 2), but for now I'm going to punt and blithely assume that rationality trumps ideology.
Anyway, I considered writing out the multiple payoff matrix for this "dilemma" but decided to punt on that, too. I hate it when I'm lazy, but now the damage is already done and it wouldn't matter anyway.
The important thing? That multiple payoff game theory is quite possibly one of the most important areas of further study for the future and has real-world applications that we can use today. Time for Gort?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)