JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,756
- 2,220
Game Theory has as a potential goal for the 'gamer' with different types of games.
Game theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is among the possible strategies and outcomes something called the Nash Equilibrium which says that there is an optimal outcome for players in every situation that has an optimal outcome depending on the rules. So one can modify the most likely player choices by changing the rules.
In the Prisoners Dilemma the optimal solution is to snitch and risk the moderately longer jail sentence rather than risk the other partner not keeping his silence. If we modify the scenario to include the worst outcome being 'Killed by criminal syndicate if snitching', then we alter the game to make the optimal player strategy to be to not talk and not risk being killed. A similar rule change would be 'Snitch gets a vendetta from betrayed partner to hunt him down and kill him once released.'
But that is only the negative side of incentives, what about some carrots?
A criminal organization can work on the 'Robin Hood' strategy, making friends of the locals by sponsoring entertainment, providing assistance for those in need, defending community members from hostile actions by other criminal organizations, and giving cash payments for legal piece work and day job labor; ie becoming part of a community that looks after its members regardless of what befalls them in life. They can promote from within to encourage loyalty and provide a strong disincentive to snitching if the organization bans any positive activity for them or their family members. In this fashion a snitch would not only be betraying their partners but also their friends and family as well.
Now the Nash equilibrium looks like this:
If we weight criminal community assistance for a life time as (20) and a vendetta, community ban, and contract on one's life as a [-10] for the likely period of time one might reasonably expect such assistance or period of fear.
Now we get:
.............................Do not Snitch..............Snitch
Do not Snitch...........4(20), 4(20)...........0(20), 5[-10]
Snitch......................5[-10],4(20)...........3[-10],3[-10]
In this example snitching does not pay, even if you go to jail, while snitching does not pay off at all as you have to live the rest of your life looking over your shoulder.
But the personalities of those that run the organization are critical too. Are they more brutal and try to control by fear? Do they run their organization by helping those within it and thus control by respect and leadership? Is it better for them to be Scar Face or El Papa or Boyd Crowder?
In this day and time it seems that the media has portrayed criminal groups as being, little more than brutes sitting on gold piles ruling their organizations by fear and threat.
But what happens if the people in the organization want to be there due to allegiance to friends, are willing to die for their leaders and would rather spend the rest of their lives in prison than give up any information?
Methinks they will prosper.
Game theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is among the possible strategies and outcomes something called the Nash Equilibrium which says that there is an optimal outcome for players in every situation that has an optimal outcome depending on the rules. So one can modify the most likely player choices by changing the rules.
In the Prisoners Dilemma the optimal solution is to snitch and risk the moderately longer jail sentence rather than risk the other partner not keeping his silence. If we modify the scenario to include the worst outcome being 'Killed by criminal syndicate if snitching', then we alter the game to make the optimal player strategy to be to not talk and not risk being killed. A similar rule change would be 'Snitch gets a vendetta from betrayed partner to hunt him down and kill him once released.'
But that is only the negative side of incentives, what about some carrots?
A criminal organization can work on the 'Robin Hood' strategy, making friends of the locals by sponsoring entertainment, providing assistance for those in need, defending community members from hostile actions by other criminal organizations, and giving cash payments for legal piece work and day job labor; ie becoming part of a community that looks after its members regardless of what befalls them in life. They can promote from within to encourage loyalty and provide a strong disincentive to snitching if the organization bans any positive activity for them or their family members. In this fashion a snitch would not only be betraying their partners but also their friends and family as well.
Now the Nash equilibrium looks like this:
If we weight criminal community assistance for a life time as (20) and a vendetta, community ban, and contract on one's life as a [-10] for the likely period of time one might reasonably expect such assistance or period of fear.
Now we get:
.............................Do not Snitch..............Snitch
Do not Snitch...........4(20), 4(20)...........0(20), 5[-10]
Snitch......................5[-10],4(20)...........3[-10],3[-10]
In this example snitching does not pay, even if you go to jail, while snitching does not pay off at all as you have to live the rest of your life looking over your shoulder.
But the personalities of those that run the organization are critical too. Are they more brutal and try to control by fear? Do they run their organization by helping those within it and thus control by respect and leadership? Is it better for them to be Scar Face or El Papa or Boyd Crowder?
In this day and time it seems that the media has portrayed criminal groups as being, little more than brutes sitting on gold piles ruling their organizations by fear and threat.
But what happens if the people in the organization want to be there due to allegiance to friends, are willing to die for their leaders and would rather spend the rest of their lives in prison than give up any information?
Methinks they will prosper.
