Game Theory in 2012

Game theory, as a field of intellectual study, spends a whole lot of time defining and mapping the way that forces interact, and how things could potentially go wrong. It's actually pretty boring to most people, since the models and theories of the field are generally pretty obvious, and since the math used to express the theories is appealing only to people who genuinely like working with math. But even though math generally sucks, most people can nonetheless appreciate game theory and its applications. Hell, Nash's Equilibrium theory was in fact generated in the course of discussing which girl of a group should properly be pursued, so as to maximize the chances of a drunken grad-student getting laid on a given Friday night at the bar.

The technical expression of the theory is that, in any given game, a group of players is in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that he or she can to maximize their own returns, taking into account the decisions of the others. The application of the theory is that in a closed system and given a sufficient time-line, any number of competing factions openly pursing mutually exclusive benefit will reach a state of equilibrium, wherein each faction settles into a fixed strategy (accepting the payoff from such strategy), and abandons all other possible strategies as less productive than the chosen strategy. This state of equilibrium can in fact be proven mathematically, with all sorts of interesting implications in all sorts of different fields.

Insofar as it relates to trolling for co-eds on a Friday night at the bar, all this game theory shit is just a really long and complicated way of saying that unless Joe Schmoe is the one of the hottest and most desirable guys in the room, he's probably wasting his time hitting on one of the hottest and most desirable girls in the room, and any persistent attempt to do so is almost always contrary to anyone getting laid, particularly Joe.

Of course everyone at the bar is allowed to pursue whatever strategy they like, and can reach for whatever (or whoever) they think they can take. Given the fairly short timeline of a given Friday night, there will be the occasional incident where Joe hooks up with hot girls tacitly out of his league, and likewise there will be times where Joe must bottom-feed or else (gasp!) go home alone. But according to the theory (and the supporting mathematics), given a set time-line, the guys and the girls in the room are going to reach a state of equilibrium in pairing off, with each of guys and girls finding reasonable matches based on accepted norms such as one girl per boy, and whatever scale and degree of social/sexual male/female desirability as can be explored in the available time-frame. In the end, and given the available time-line before last call, game theory says that it's in Joe's best interest to be reasonable in targeting his efforts, spare himself the trouble of being shot down, and skip to the end-game where - ideally for Joe - he gets his pole waxed by the best girl in the crowd that he might reasonably win that night. This is not "settling." It's Joe playing the best game he can to reach the desired goal of the at-issue game, which for today's purposes happens to be trolling for meaningless ass in college bars.

And to think people say that analytical math is no fun.

Besides providing complex equations of largely indecipherable mathematical symbols, game theory provides language, terms, and descriptors to analyze interactions. This is important. Besides breaking down college bar meat-market dynamics, even. Any linguist can tell you that the complexity of a possible idea is inextricably linked to the ability of the thinker to form and articulate the idea. There's a clear chicken-or-egg relationship between thought and linguistics, regardless of whether development of language supports the development of new ideas or whether development of ideas spurs the creation of new language. Especially since, like the chicken and the egg, we've clearly reached a point where each follows the other. We need terms and language to express ideas. This art of idea building, by the way, is the real value of a liberal arts education: the ability to take fairly simple language and build it into ideas, which ideas can then be sold at value sufficient to spare one the burden of lifting heavy objects for a living. It works, trust me.

For an example of such an idea, created out of various simpler concepts, and built up in the hope that somebody might find it interesting enough to give or ascribe some form of value to (in this case, entertainment), take this:

The world is of course going to end soon. The Aztec calendar says so, and that was created using stone-age technology and astronomical observation. Given their primitive state, the Aztecs must clearly have known secrets of the universe beyond the grasp of current scientists and prognosticators. Or something. Even current prophets (profits?), burdened as they are by all the interference and clouding of their predictions by all that science shit of modern civilization, say The End Is Coming. Some of them go so far as to say that the rapture has already passed - with those Taken by God numbering so few that nobody has really noted their absence - and we are already into the trials and tribulations. Which aptly explains things like, for example, Casey Anthony.

Of course, they're all idiots. Everybody who still has a brain knows that When The End Comes, it's going to be zombies. In some ways, the Zeds have already taken over the world, and are making substantial headway in their efforts to appropriate, control, or nullify all brains not already under their sway. Don't say you haven't been warned.

Whatever. But with The End of Days looming, I suppose it behooves us to do our best to look forward to the What Might Bes. Now then, continuing in the liberal arts trend of cobbling together ideas, slapping on a coat of paint, and trying to sell them for more than there actually worth: Among any number of other theories and guidelines, Game Theory postulates that the effect of a breakdown in any system is based on the degree of the breakdown, and the pervasiveness of the system. This is just a complex way of saying that the breakage of important shit matters more than the breakage of trivial shit.

Take religeon, for example. Except for the families of those involved, nobody game a damn about those crazy Heaven's Gate guys with their shiny Nike's and $5.75 to pay Chiron's toll for a seat on Hale-Bopp. Too small a sample, too far on the fringe, and the end result is just a lot of off-color humor and a house destined to appear on Ghost Hunters. Nobody really takes religion seriously as a defining bedrock of society, and even hard-core types will generally admit that the whole "creation of the world in 7 days" thing is a metaphor, rather than how things actually went. Among all our institutions and factions, church is typical a middle-weight at most, and theological developments almost never make a difference in our world.

But there have been times when religious developments have literally reshaped the world. Not so much recently, but discussed before, there was a period measured in centuries when the Catholic Church was the defining power in the lives of the entirety of the western world. So much so that it was largely unthinkable that its strength over peoples' lives would change. Entire generations pledged fealty, and parties were held where dissenters were hanged, set on fire, or just tortured until they toed the line. The Church was EVERYTHING, and while there were always factions and objectors, nobody took any of them seriously.

Of course, it didn't last. The system became so large, complicated, unwieldy, and internally non-supporting and/or nonsensical that the catholic church fragmented from within, and created its own worst enemy (Protestantism). Which internal fracturing of an institution in itself is an inevitability, by the way. But with the rise of Protestantism and the concurrent fracturing of the mighty pillar of Catholicism, there was utter chaos. The church was the central pillar of the European world. Deprived of the stability of that foundation, a whole series of wars swept through Europe (the Hundred Years War), with the end result of religions - the prior BMOC - losing nearly all of their political standing, in favor of the still-persisting model of Nation-States based on local political representation of the populace.

The leadership and influence of the catholic church was so pervasive, so ingrained into European society, that its breakdown was catastrophic. The breakdown itself resulted in a century of warfare between the nations and modes of thought that stepped in to fill the power vacuum, and the end result was an entirely new political-social structure. Not coincidentally, pundits of the collapsing Catholic Church were not shy about trumpeting the apocalypse and subsequent End of Days. For them, it was.

Applying to the present this lesson regarding a central pillar of society breaking down, ask yourself: what article, institution, or thing is so pervasive in our society and in the world today that its breakdown would throw the world into chaos? What loss or breakdown would create a power-vacuum so vast as to spawn a hundred years of war among contenders to assume ascendance? Narrowing the issue to 2012, is there some pillar of our modern world, upon which rests unimaginably vast systems and balances, which appears to be cracking, and where the collapse would result in large-scale re-organization and re-calculation of the haves and have-nots of the world as a whole?

The answer is YES. And the pillar in question is the dollar.