Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017) • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by Joe-Z » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 7:45 PM UTC

golemotron wrote: post #30

quixoticaxolotl wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's very easy to imagine the opposite being true and Cortez' troops falling into despair as their leader supposedly turned insane and ordered them to destroy their most valuable assets. Goes for your example too: Maybe not all people are extremely motivated by severe setbacks in life.

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

#32

Post by vmh1928 » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 7:46 PM UTC

Unit cohesion is the key element here and the idea that is transferable to other endeavors. Cortez probably realized his army was a collection of soldiers of fortune and other rogue elements and lacked the cohesion to engage serious adversaries. Burning the ships was a way of communicating to them (as was the practice of the Teutons and Persions of bringing families along,) that, to use an American Revolution saying, "we either hang together or we'll hang alone." Another example of good vs. bad unit cohesion occurs in the Korean War when the Chinese entered the war. The U.S. Army (leaving out other national units for this example,) on the west side of the peninsula fell apart when they encountered the Chinese units leading to a retreat below the 38th Parallel. U.S. Marine units, on the eastern side of the peninsula, hung together and executed a fighting withdrawal from their encircled position. In these examples I believe the difference is in leadership. The Army situation devolved into an "every man for himself" rout while the Marines knew they could rely on the unit the next hill over to stay where they were no matter what and that that unit was relying on them to stay put as well.

In industry you sometimes see a similar "against all odds" spirit that infuses an organization, usually from the top down but sometimes just the worker's commitment to a cause although usually not caused by the CEO burning a building.

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

#33

Post by golemotron » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 7:53 PM UTC

Joe-Z wrote: post #31

golemotron wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's very easy to imagine the opposite being true and Cortez' troops falling into despair as their leader supposedly turned insane and ordered them to destroy their most valuable assets. Goes for your example too: Maybe not all people are extremely motivated by severe setbacks in life.

Not all, sure. But enough to make it real. Evolution has reinforced the trait over millennia. We wouldn't be here otherwise.

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

#34

Post by PeterisP » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 8:17 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #4

> The pervasiveness of these psychological strategies shows that, whether each case was because of a genius decision or an accident of history, they conferred a substantial advantage to their practitioners. Of course if Cortés burned all his ships then his entire force was wiped out, would news have reached home? And if it did reach home, would the news of crushing defeat and incompetent leadership have been hushed u…

Cortes burned all the ships except one, so some communication was possible, but retreating or evacuating the majority of troops was not.

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

#35

Post by dodobirdlord » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 8:28 PM UTC

sjcsjc wrote: post #21

sonofgod wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is an example of the more general game theory advantage of commitment.[0, 1] An agent in a multi-agent game benefits from being able to commit to a strategy.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precommitment

[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/game-theory/commitment/...

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

#36

Post by yesenadam » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 8:42 PM UTC

sjcsjc wrote: post #21

sonofgod wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Planners, of course, proceed on the assumption that the future is not 'already here', that they are not dealing with a predetermined – and therefore predictable – system, that they can determine things by their own free will, and that their plans will make the future different from what it would have been had there been no plan. And yet it is the planners, more than perhaps anyone else, who would like nothing better than to have a machine to foretell the future. Do they ever wonder whether the machine might incidentally also foretell their own plans before they have been conceived?

– EF Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered (1973)

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

#37

Post by lifeisstillgood » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 8:44 PM UTC

golemotron wrote: post #30

quixoticaxolotl wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

As an example from my own life, Job hunting has often been the other way round - when I have had no job, I would take anything - shelf stacking at a supermarket comes to mind. But I remember going through a period of fast turn around when I worked full time but spent most lunchtimes calling and emailing for my next job and literally tripled my salary in 12 months.

So sometimes having the backup plan let's you make better choices.

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

#38

Post by leosarev » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 8:48 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #15

> “an adversary is more hurt by desertion than slaughter.” And disease, starvation, and the general problems of the march. This is one of the things I learned from Clausewitz's discussion of Napoleon's march on Moscow, the one that produces the famous Tufte diagram. The Grande Armeé numbered 422,000 per Tufte/Minard, 1 million per Wikipedia, the same as several large music festivals; and they almost all had to walk t…

> the Russians had burned the food stores of Moscow, starving both the Invaders and the citizens.

From my school lessons, it wasn't deliberate.

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

#39

Post by Yessing » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 8:54 PM UTC

I heard the same story when I was a kid but the general that did it was "Tariq ibn ziyad" in Gibraltar (the mountain is named after him). But I can't for the life of me find a enlgish source that confirms it.

It's the origin of the famous phrase "the sea is behind and the enemy is in front of you".

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

#40

Post by csomar » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 9:03 PM UTC

There is a legend that a Muslim commander (who, ironically, led the invasion of Spain) did the same thing:

> There is a legend that Ṭāriq ordered that the ships he arrived in be burnt, to prevent any cowardice. This is first mentioned over 400 years later by the geographer al-Idrisi, fasc. 5 p. 540 of Arabic text

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_ibn_Ziyad#cite_ref-7

> This strategic choice highlights the difference between logic and economists’ concept of “rationality,”

Maybe if economics were that simple. But if your increased soldiers' willpower to fight is superior to what you lost in terms of tools, then the plan should be economically viable, right?