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

41–50 of 56 posts

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

#41

Post by AmericanChopper »

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.

A strategy once highlighted (more or less) in this game show:

https://youtu.be/S0qjK3TWZE8

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

#42

Post by mathattack »

csomar wrote: post #40

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 differe…

And game theory supports this type of commitment. People won’t pick fights with you if you’re a “burn the ships” person

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

#43

Post by jbullock35 »

mathattack wrote: post #42
csomar wrote: post #40

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 differe…

And game theory supports this type of commitment. People won’t pick fights with you if you’re a “burn the ships” person

Yes, that line in the article is naive, perhaps gratuitous. "Credible commitment" is a major concept in game theory. It's also important in certain branches of the study of international relations.

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

#45

Post by satori99 »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #35
sjcsjc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/...

There is great demonstration of this in action on a British game show with the players being in a prisoners dilemma situation;

https://youtu.be/S0qjK3TWZE8?t=72

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

#46

Post by Someone »

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…

”Swerve: lose face Don't: die”

Only if you are the only one knowing that the opponent cannot steer the car.

If you know that a bullet is coming and keep running into it, people will call you an idiot, not courageous. You also won’t lose face if you duck, if those judging your courage know that the bullet can’t steer itself.

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

#47

Post by proc0 »

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…

Cortes had a whole civilization behind him. Hundreds to thousands of years of people trading ideas and creating more and better tech. Aztecs were just isolated by themselves with a handful of other natives since they arrived in North America. Obviously the side with better tech will always win, and that's why it only took a few hundred Spaniards to take over hundreds of thousands of Aztecs.

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

#48

Post by Iv »

This is not a paradox, this is people managing morale. Real life is not a RTS with stats on firepower, range and healthpoints and units fighting until they die.

People come to battle for a reason, fight for a reason, obey for a reason, all which may be different. 90% of a victory is bringing the soldiers you need with the weapons you need commanded by the officers you need in the place you need them. We focus on the 10% of battles that were won by tactical geniuses, but even they, without the 90% of logistics that preceded it, would be nowhere.

Caesar was a bridge builder. Hannibal crossed the Alps in winter. Mehmed II carrying ships over land to siege Constantinople. Hitler's specialty, the Blitzkrieg, was ALL about logistics.

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

#50

Post by mikhailfranco »

vmh1928 wrote: post #32

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,…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir

Yes, dramatic and desperate 'damn close run thing' breakout with heavy losses, also including 41 Commando Royal Marines, and assisted by a lot of close air support.

Post reply on HN