Game Theory

Global Critique

More complex circumstances, however, inevitably challenge attempts at prediction. Here, game theory does not readily translate to actual conflict. Critics of game theory face no shortage of evidence to disprove and challenge basic premises. First, as the challenges of quantifying international development exemplify, much escapes simple linear analysis. Although measuring an increase in societal schools may be straightforward, attempting to do the same with that same society's political system raises tough questions. How do we measure, for instance, good governance and democratization in its numerous variables? Quantifying outcomes with complex conflict presents similar challenge and debate. Costs, risks, and benefits are not routinely apparent. How do we even begin quantifying the value of interethnic understanding, for example, even though few would dispute its value.

Most conflict, as it is practiced, cannot be equated with chess or any model of rationality. If only genius and years of mastery could result in knowledge of all available options, or moves and countermoves, in our most intractable conflicts, elementary game theory would lead to utopia. Yet human beings, particularly those from diverse and dynamic cultures, inevitably defy prediction.

If anything, human beings from around the world prove again and again their capacity to act irrationally—as their own worst enemies. Perhaps globalization will spread economics' faith in maximizing self-interest, but research shows simultaneous rise in destructive distributive dynamics, increasing impasse, and costs rather than the promotion of productive conflict. Research of the prisoner's dilemma paradigm exemplifies. In this dilemma, winning depends on one's decision to cooperate or compete. The best outcomes occur when the players choose to cooperate; the worst if both compete. Less-skilled negotiators are found to have less capacity for understanding complex information and tolerance for ambiguity. Losing players are also found to lack awareness that their own behavior might influence the other side's response, or lead the other to change. Specifically, losers create a self-fulfilling prophecy with their presumption that cooperation is impossible. Apparently, they equate maximizing self-interest with pure competition.

...