Games games games

A few quieter days have passed. A bit of time for reflection. This time thought experiments in game playing.

This one at least in part prompted by the few measures Obama did manage to implement regarding gun control. First lets appreciate the extremes of emotion and potential solutions.

On one extreme we have the "no guns at all" lobby, at the other is the "arm everyone" brigade, in between of course a myriad of combinations and choices including indifference. For once, lets not dwell on who's right and who's wrong. The first point worth considering is that any person selected at random across that entire spectrum will agree they don't want another massacre of children. That's a pretty major revelation if you can disengage from your own passionate viewpoint for long enough. All parties agree on a final desirable result, the problem is consensus on how to get there.

So there's your game set up. Common desire to prevent atrocities. Wide range of view points. So ... what happens? A compromise deal is produced by Obama. It doesn't satisfy those wanting much tighter gun control, and it doesn't satisfy those that want to arm everyone. This is a recurring pattern and is a leading cause of "kicking the can" on all sorts of problems.

In a pseudo game theory sense. The legislation produced is a result of multiple conflicting pressures for different solutions to a common problem. In game theory, this happens fairly often. Rather than an optimal outcome, a fudged or sometimes even worse possible outcome is the result.

Does this matter?

Well, in many instances. No. Humankind has been muddling along with fudged middle ground solutions for a long long time, and is likely to for the foreseeable future. In most cases, compromise solutions will sort of work for long enough for the next crisis to be averted a few years, then we can repeat the process once more.

The times when it does matter, are when the compromise solution is still harmful to a significant population.

All good clean fun, and it's a handy framework to have. Enables one to sit back and take a wider view of many issues in the world ... but just before that smug feeling takes hold...

There's a problem. Compromise is achieved due to conflicting pressures. It's not ideal, but that tends to be the result. Now if you sit back comfortable in the knowledge that another mediocre solution will appear, a source of pressure is removed and the end result will be skewed towards the side that shouted loudest.

Knowing all of the above doesn't remove the need to campaign, educate and shout for what you believe is right. It just makes it feel a little more like being a hamster stuck on a never ending treadmill. Keep running hamsters. It's frustrating, often pointless and the end result is almost never what you wanted ... but that's the way it works.