Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)

notesonliberty.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 56 posts

Re: Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)

#21

Post by sjcsjc »

sonofgod wrote: post #16
KevinKallmes wrote: post #11

This relates to the Nobel-prize-winning game theory of Thomas Schelling ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling#The_Strategy_... ), who argued that intentional handicaps could be strategically useful in negotiations.

There's an example based on that work -- the game of Chicken, where you drive a car at another car, person who swerves loses. Payoff table: Both swerve: both lose face Neither swerve: both die They swerve, you don't: you gain face, they lose it You swerve, they don't: you lose face, they gain it So: you make it abundantly clear that you can't control your car, even if you wanted to. Tear out the steering wheel, or la…

I read an amusing analysis of Chicken, but I can't recall where, pointing out that playing against an omniscient opponent gave you an unassailable advantage. You just determine not to swerve come what may and your all-knowing opponent would have no choice but to swerve.

Re: Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)

#22

Post by pimmen »

sonofgod wrote: post #16
KevinKallmes wrote: post #11

This relates to the Nobel-prize-winning game theory of Thomas Schelling ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling#The_Strategy_... ), who argued that intentional handicaps could be strategically useful in negotiations.

There's an example based on that work -- the game of Chicken, where you drive a car at another car, person who swerves loses. Payoff table: Both swerve: both lose face Neither swerve: both die They swerve, you don't: you gain face, they lose it You swerve, they don't: you lose face, they gain it So: you make it abundantly clear that you can't control your car, even if you wanted to. Tear out the steering wheel, or la…

This is also why you might send an envoy to negotiate a purchase instead of going yourself and only authorize a certain amount. They insist on a higher price, they get no money at all. The risk you take is that you lose out completely when you can’t offer anymore money, but you’ve changed their options.

Re: Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)

#23

Post by golemotron »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #19

Now, rerun Cortes' landing a hundred times, and in what, maybe 98 times they all end up dead, or returning home in one ship. Yes the natives would still have suffered terrible losses from disease but some other leader than Cortes would have gotten the empire. The secret to being a trader is to not risk it all, to be there tomorrow to claim tomorrow's profit. Or perhaps the secret to poker is to stay in till you have…

It's sad to see the submission being used as another reason to remind people of the role of luck in human affairs. That take on things involving noted individual success is a little too trendy now.

Aside from being overdone, the reason it bothers me is because it distracts from so many other points. In this case, it distracts from the main point of the article which is that not having a fallback position leads to higher commitment. It's a lesson larger than just the warfare and politics examples given. It has very broad applicability in life.

Re: Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)

#24

Post by User23 »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #19

Now, rerun Cortes' landing a hundred times, and in what, maybe 98 times they all end up dead, or returning home in one ship. Yes the natives would still have suffered terrible losses from disease but some other leader than Cortes would have gotten the empire. The secret to being a trader is to not risk it all, to be there tomorrow to claim tomorrow's profit. Or perhaps the secret to poker is to stay in till you have…

From the perspective of the 98% who fail sure it’s bad. On the other hand from the perspective of the sovereign they work for risking 500 men for an empire is an excellent bet. That’s a wildly asymmetric payoff there.

People here should be familiar with this dynamic.

Re: Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)

#25

Post by mjw1007 »

KevinKallmes wrote: post #11

This relates to the Nobel-prize-winning game theory of Thomas Schelling ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling#The_Strategy_... ), who argued that intentional handicaps could be strategically useful in negotiations.

Right, this is the same idea.

The current article seems to believe that this behaviour is in some sense irrational, presumably on the theory that "rationally" you should never prefer to remove a potentially useful option (which after all you could just choose not to use).

But I think that isn't the best way to look at it. What Cortés really needed was for his men to _believe_ that there was no option to retreat. As the only way for him to achieve that was to actually burn the ships, that was the price he chose to pay. But if he'd had another way to achieve that goal I expect he would have taken it.

The same goes for the chicken game: removing your control of the car is the price you may have to pay for causing your opponent to believe that you have no control of your car.

Looking at things this way, the behaviour is no more irrational than it's irrational for me to prefer a situation in which I end up with less money to a situation in which I end up with more, if I've bought something of value with that money.

Re: Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)

#28

Post by quixoticaxolotl »

golemotron wrote: post #23
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #19

Now, rerun Cortes' landing a hundred times, and in what, maybe 98 times they all end up dead, or returning home in one ship. Yes the natives would still have suffered terrible losses from disease but some other leader than Cortes would have gotten the empire. The secret to being a trader is to not risk it all, to be there tomorrow to claim tomorrow's profit. Or perhaps the secret to poker is to stay in till you have…

It's sad to see the submission being used as another reason to remind people of the role of luck in human affairs. That take on things involving noted individual success is a little too trendy now. Aside from being overdone, the reason it bothers me is because it distracts from so many other points. In this case, it distracts from the main point of the article which is that not having a fallback position leads to hig…

> not having a fallback position leads to higher commitment

That's what the article claims, but that doesn't necessarily make that statement accurate.

There's no proof Cortez et. al.'s troops actually felt higher commitment as a consequence of having their ships burned - we are expected to conclude that's what happened, but we have only Cortez's word to tell us this and an article demonstrating selection bias.

Re: Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)

#29

Post by jacinabox »

KevinKallmes wrote: post #11

This relates to the Nobel-prize-winning game theory of Thomas Schelling ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling#The_Strategy_... ), who argued that intentional handicaps could be strategically useful in negotiations.

The way I look at it this kind of phenomenon is like Liar's paradox; as soon as someone sets forth a system describing what constitutes rational behavior, it's human nature to think about that system and relate to it in various ways, which has the potential to generate preferences which aren't comprehended within the system (due to their ability to refer to it [explicitly countercultural preferences]). However since most systems of rationality are quantitative the system could remain valid as an approximation.

Re: Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)

#30

Post by golemotron »

quixoticaxolotl wrote: post #28
golemotron wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sad to see the submission being used as another reason to remind people of the role of luck in human affairs. That take on things involving noted individual success is a little too trendy now. Aside from being overdone, the reason it bothers me is because it distracts from so many other points. In this case, it distracts from the main point of the article which is that not having a fallback position leads to hig…

> not having a fallback position leads to higher commitment That's what the article claims, but that doesn't necessarily make that statement accurate. There's no proof Cortez et. al.'s troops actually felt higher commitment as a consequence of having their ships burned - we are expected to conclude that's what happened, but we have only Cortez's word to tell us this and an article demonstrating selection bias.

You can't think of an example from your own life? Imagine feeling less committed at a job and not really feeling like looking for another yet. Then, you're fired while being on the hook for all of your living expenses. You become committed to the new search then because there's no backstop.

This is a natural human response. Relatable even without testimony from Cortez's troops.

Post reply on HN