Game Theory and Hardline Congresscritters: The Dems are Right

[Jackpine Radical]

There seem to be a number of people who deplore the Dems’ tough new stance in Congress, not cutting the Puggies in on power and generally proposing to treat them the way they treated us in the last three Congresses. Well, those critics are wrong and the Dems are doing exactly the right thing. The best way to explain why this is so is to diverge for a moment into a gamelike situation called The Prisoner’s Dilemma that has been the object of much study by social psychologists and other game theorists.

Here is the “classic” form of the game as described in Wikipedia:

Two suspects, A and B, are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal: if one testifies for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both stay silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a two-year sentence. Each prisoner must make the choice of whether to betray the other or to remain silent. However, neither prisoner knows for sure what choice the other prisoner will make. So this dilemma poses the question: How should the prisoners act?

In this game, the winning strategy is to betray your opponent. That way you either go free (if your opponent makes the mistake of “playing nice” and not betraying you) or get 2 years if he is as unscrupulous as you. You always avoid the 10-year sentence.

However, the game changes entirely when the game is repeated over and over again. In this instance, the winning strategy is to “play nice” the first time and then, on the second iteration, you do whatever your opponent did to you on the first. If he “played nice” too, then you “play nice” again. If he betrayed you, then you betray him. On all subsequent iterations you keep repeating the same pattern, doing whatever your opponent did to you on the previous round.

The Puggies played it last time as if it were a single-shot game. That will turn out to be a bad mistake. The winning strategy for the Dems is to play it as the continuing game that it is. That means that they must go hard on the Puggies this time. That’s what they’re doing.

Bravo.

[aquart]

1. "The evil you teach us we will imitate...

And it shall go hard, but we will better the instruction."

[NashVegas]

2. Some Quibbles

* In the Prisoners' Dilemma, the players are the only people who are affected by the game.

* In congress, the voters will (theoretically) replace players whose game they (the voters) don't like. To a large extent, this is what happened in 2006. Any legislation that gets rammed through without full consideration of how it will affect said voters is going to help Dems lose points in '08.

[trotsky]

9. It should be noted

that the voters weren't really reacting to the Pukes' way of treating Democrats, they were reacting to scandals (Foley, etc.), the Iraq War, and Chimpy. I mean, the Pukes had been running Congress the same way since '94 and it was only the scandals that got people outraged.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

21. not a mix of all of the above?

And aren't the obvious and publicized scandals related to the general behavior of the Puggies? The way that Abramof managed to purchase the hearts and minds of so many congresscritters, the island slave labor, in fact, all of their acts while in power were representative of the disdain in which the GOP held the Democrat Party.

[trotsky]

25. I really don't see how it registered on the radar of most voters.

Those acts may have been representative of their treatment of Dems, but it was the acts and not the treatment that got them into trouble with the voters.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

26. yeah, I can agree with that.

You are right, most voters are emotional, not concerned with most issues, and care not one bit about behavior in general within the bloatway. Except that they think it is all rotten to the core.

[Joe Chi Minh]

10. Nobody said anything about not giving full consideration to how it will affect the voters.

Not only have these Republicans proved to be moral bankrupts, but their supporters seem to be very thin on the ground for that very reason. Moral bankruptcy leads to desperately impaired judgement; the two go together.

Who but a halfwit would imagine that they could go on impoverishing not only the poor but the middle class? Would it be sound judgement on the part of the Dems to factor in the opinions of such people? Would that serve the greater good of the nation? Would it be perceived by the citizenry to serve their interests, personally, and/or as a nation? Or would they, instead, be incensed? I think the latter. Without question.

[elehhhhna]

12. You just cannot compromise with EVIL

Sorry Reeps, you made your own dirty little bed.

[Joe Chi Minh]

44. One of the most primordial precepts taught by Christ in the Gospels, too.

[endarkenment]

24. that is about the 12th time I've seen that assertion made.

"In congress, the voters will (theoretically) replace players whose game they (the voters) don't like. To a large extent, this is what happened in 2006."

Your argument is based on the assertion that voters replaced republicans because of the rules changes they made in the house of representatives that locked Democrats completely out of power. Do you have any evidence at all to back up that assertion?

[NashVegas]

28. ????

Your argument is based on the assertion that voters replaced republicans because of the rules changes they made in the house of representatives that locked Democrats completely out of power. Do you have any evidence at all to back up that assertion?

Don't stuff words on my keyboard that I didn't type.

The average voter was completely unaware of rules changes. I asserted voters got fed up, period, and did not attribute that to any specific reasons. But the two points are connected.

[endarkenment]

31. Here is what you said.

" In congress, the voters will (theoretically) replace players whose game they (the voters) don't like. To a large extent, this is what happened in 2006."

My assumption is that this was meant as an argument against the Op, who is arguing for using not playing nice with the opposition party. You seem to be asserting that voters tossed out Republicans for the way they ran congress. How else I am supposed to interpret your statement?

[NashVegas]

35. You shouldn't have assumed.

A quibble is just that: a minor point to be taken into consideration, within the whole.

[endarkenment]

37. What?

So I give up. What exactly did you mean by " In congress, the voters will (theoretically) replace players whose game they (the voters) don't like. To a large extent, this is what happened in 2006."?

You are not the only person who seems to have claimed that the 2006 election was some sort of repudiation of Republican congressional tactics rather than Republican policy.

I claim there is no evidence that it was 'the game' as in tactics, that voters repudiated, rather than the policies implemented.

[tblue37]

30. But if it is legislation the voters WANT and approve of,

then they will be glad of it, even if Republicans have to be pushed out of the way to get it through. The fact that the Republicans would thwart it if they could will work against them, not against the Dems.

[NashVegas]

34. Yes

I'm thinking specifically of the Terry Schiavo mess when I think of things the last Rupublican congress did that pissed people off.

Overall, I think the current Dem strategy is fine for the short term. As long as we don't create our own Schiavo.

But as far as more important "thwarts" go, I don't think the general public will be informed enough / inform themselves enough to really give a damn.

[Robbien]

3. Plus, there is too much to do to reverse all the evil the GOP put in place

Nothing will get done by playing nice with the GOP, that is why they are pushing so hard for bi-partisanship.

[treestar]

8. Absolutely, playing nice with them only gets them to sense "weakness"

(so they believe) and get them thinking it is time to demand more. They are not the polite opposition of simpler times. Treating them as if they were has caused the rightward drift of the past 20 years.

[rock]

4. When they had a programming contest

which pitted programs against each other playing the prisoner's dilemma, the strategy you suggested won easily. And it's very simple to code.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Yup. (nt)

[JDPriestly]

5. The Democrats will simply be playing by the Republicans' own rules.

Our founding fathers were very concerned about protecting minority rights. The majority has to agree to protect those rights. The Republicans ignored the rights of the Democratic minority when the Republicans were in the majority. Changes in the rules should be negotiated to ensure openness and to create a record for future power plays by one side or the other.

[BearSquirrel2]

6. Limited "fairness" ...

I think a little taste of their own medicine is appropriate for the Republicans. This is nothing more than operating under the rules that the Republicans set so they really cannot complain.

After the Democrats send up all their veto fodder (yes all these bills WILL be vetoed by the POTS) then the Democrats can restore the normal rules. Republicans should be 100% involved in this disucssion so we can here them argue the EXACT same point that Democrats have been making for the last 10 years. Then we can contrast it against what THEY have been saying for the last ten years about the "whining, loser" Democrats.

Likewise, the investigations should start under the "Republican Rules". Though, it should be a point that the rules must actually be FOLLOWED unlike the behavior of the previous Congress.

Honestly, I don't think there are many Republicans with much integrity whatsoever. If it ever comes around again, they will do the same thing as before. It would be a good thing to try to put the rules under super-majority status so that a slim majority cannot bully the institution.

[Jackpine Radical]

11. First, welcome to DU. Second, I agree entirely with you.

The only way to win with the Puggies is to make it absolutely clear that it is in their own self-interest to play by the rules, and that is exactly what happens in the Prisoners Dilemma game. The beauty of it is that it even works with antisocial personality-disordered people.

[Fovea]

13. Very well done, Jackpine!

That is why I have been arguing from the beginning that these guys were going for permanent power. Because their strategy took no account for subsequent turns.

I can't believe even now that they could have been that simple minded or greedy to realize that the game they were created simply could not be lost because the cost was too great.

The Dems cannot 'play for lunch' on this one. The only way to re-establish civility is through games with cooperative enforcible behavior. When the puggies bent the game by locking out, and the nuclear option, they changed the game in a basic way. Now, the game cannot simply be returned to its previous state, because the contracts from the non-enforcible republican game will affect efforts to behave as though the parliamentary contract (among others such as the due process contract) were again, enforcible (or in more prosaic terms, if the rules of order were not simply a system of oppression).

You cannot simply declare that the Bush era paradigm is no longer operative. My Gods, if Nixon proved anything, it proved that you DO NOT OFFER pardon, and you don't cheat due process for some mythical 'healing.'

The must be a disincentive for players to redefine the game in ways that invalidate the rules book. Surely that is obvious.

[Lisa0825]

29. EXACTLY what I have said many times!

"That is why I have been arguing from the beginning that these guys were going for permanent power. Because their strategy took no account for subsequent turns." :mad:

[CTyankee]

42. It's a neat form of "what goes around comes around",

isn't it?:evilgrin:

[Fovea]

46. Imagine a city with a lacrosse league.

and one match is between the City Social Workers team and the and a local gang of thugs.

Imagine the thugs have locked the referees in the men's room, and replaced them with sociopaths who allow the thugs to drive nails through their sticks for added lethality.

At the next break in play, you will be able to let the real refs back out, but the thugs tell you next game they will do it again. At this point, half your team is hors de combat, long term.

Is there any point in playing the next game?
Would there be a point in doing it if you kneecapped 2/3s of the Thug team before the refs got back?

We have a game that has been perverted. The rules have been declared null by the neocons and holy roller repubs. It reached a new level of corruption with the Clinton impeachment. The natural temptation is just to say, we won, now we go back to the old, Constitutional way of playing the game of governance. But the most important forms and checks in our governmental design have been effectively scribbled over with swastikas and dollar signs. You can't just paint over, you have to sand down to wood and reprimer.

The last time this game was played, in the Nixon years, we let the malefactors for the most part skip for the sake of healing. Not only did healing not happen, but several the very same group of players returned to create the chaos we now experience.

Before we re-iterate the previous error, we have a duty to ask ourselves if the world can survive more of the same. Because the folks who only desire more power, only will be deterred by the certainty of undesirable consequences.

If what goes around does not come around, it will go around yet again.

[Jackpine Radical]

47. Yeah--and you use such interesting imagery

in making your point.

[ljm2002]

14. Hear, hear!

The Republicans and their lap dog press assumed that the Democrats would start by softening their stance, and they were prepared to take full advantage. I am sooo glad that for a change, the Democrats see that strength and a good offense are the best strategy right now.

Of course the press is already howling about the need for bipartisanship. Even the S.F. Chronicle's Washington Bureau Chief delivers the message in this article in today's paper, headlined "PELOSI TO BE PUT TO TEST
The vocal and adamant Democrat must now lead the two-party House in passing legislation".

The article is at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/02/MNG8QNBFOD1.DTL

From the article:

"She needs to pivot from being the attacking partisan to being more nuanced in her approach," said Ronald Peters, a University of Oklahoma professor of political science and editor of the book: "The Speaker: Leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives."

"She needs to have two voices: one of a party leader and one of an institutional leader," Peters said. "That's the art of being speaker."

The voice now best recognized on Capitol Hill is that of an unflinching partisan who promised when she became Democratic leader four years ago that she would never blur the distinction between the two parties."

.
.
.
But even in vowing a new day, she prefaced her comment by noting that "for years, the Republicans led a divided House, intentionally excluding Democrats from the lawmaking process and fostering discord instead of discourse."

Such words have engendered bitterness toward Pelosi among Republicans who are skeptical of her ability to put aside her passion for her party for the good of the institution. Pelosi has spent 12 of her 19 years in Congress as a member of the minority, and many have seen her only as a lawmaker focused on bringing her party to the majority."

Note how her comments about how Republicans excluded Democrats from the legislative process -- comments that are entirely true -- are said to be engendering bitterness among Republicans.

Cry me a river, assholes.

[LearnedHand]

15. Well done! Interesting analysis (k&r)

One thing I worry about, though, is that according to the rules of game theory, each "side" will continue to "betray" the other forever and ever amen. Don't get me wrong. I'm so angry about how the Republicans have maligned Democrats over the past 12 years that in my private moments, I imagine visiting the vilest of evils on the whole lot of them. The bastards deserve every bit of what I hope they will get. But how will it ultimately affect the people who follow politics only through the MSM? And we KNOW how 'fair and balanced' the media are in their presentation of the national debate. :sarcasm:

Another poster here mentioned that the Dems should make the Pukes play by their own rules. Boy, there's a lot of soul satisfaction in imagining that happening. And will the Pukes learn the lesson? HELL NO! Remember they're masters of the Orwellian spins. They'll Gingrich the whole situation again -- make the Dems out to be haters of baseball, moms, and apple pie, not to mention America. I wonder if the American public will follow them there again?

Sorry for the thinking out loud. Emotionally, I SO want to see the payback! Logically, I want what's best for our country and the rest of the world.

[Jackpine Radical]

16. Thanks for the K&R. I think, though, that you miss one major point,

which is that the game tends to end up with both sides being nice to each other out of self-interest. The winning strategy is to punish the negative behavior and reward the positive actions of the other. In other words, you train a Republican the same way you train a rat.

[LearnedHand]

17. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Oh, my. *wipes eyes* You're absolutely right. I totally forgot about that part of it. Thanks for that image. I'll carry it close to my heart all day. :rofl:

[valerief]

18. Good point. So the Repubs need to sit in the Naughty Corner and

think about what they've done before they get any hugs.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

22. Like a darlek: EXTERMINATE, EXTERMINATE, EXTERMINATE!

[Zodiak]

23. Another way to say it is

"apply the carrot AND the stick".

I cannot understand why any DUer suggests we put up the stick when we haven't used it since Reagan came to office.

If you use only the carrot, you spoil them and make them arrogant (like the pukes are now).

If you use only the stick, you are abusing them (as we have been abused for years).

If you use both, the balance of the two produces an effective strategy that can adapt to new situations (and in my opinion, it is the "moderate" position to take since the solution has a measure of both poles).

At this time, the pukes need the stick. We'll let them know the carrot is there awaiting them if they change behavior.

[Jackpine Radical]

33. As long as we were out of power, we had neither

a carrot nor a stick. The Pugies had total control of the rewards & punishments.

[LearnedHand]

19. Come on, folks. Vote this one up!

We need to get this one on the Greatest page! I want everyone to see this discussion; it's a good one.

:kick:

[charlyvi]

20. Agreed and done. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

27. I don't think you can fit congress into the model of the prisoner's dilemma, though.

I'm delighted to see someone talking about game theory here, and the tit-for-tat strategy might end up being the best strategy for whatever model is more accurate, but I'm not sure the idea of the mitigated two-year prison sentence fits into the context of a body where bills can pass in their entirety due to a majority vote. The power for the minority to betray the other side could be null in that situation; fighting them does not bring a reduced sentence for themselves and the other side.

[Jackpine Radical]

52. No, the model is not exact. Close enough to make my point, though.

And no, the minority can't betray the majority; each side gets to move only when in the majority. A complete iteration includes each side being in the majority once.

[LoZoccolo]

58. That's even worse.

One side knows what the other side did in that instance. If you're going to try to use mathematics to show something, yes, you're going to have to be exact.

[Jackpine Radical]

59. You're right--

I gotta rethink what I just said. It seemed so clear while I was typing it... :silly:

[Beetwasher]

32. In Addition: REPUBS ALREADY INDICATED THEY WOULD FUCK W/ THE DEMS

I'll see if I can find the story, but there was a news story out recently in which Repubs already indicated that if the Dems played nice, the Repubs would fuck w/ them any way the could.

[w4rma]

38. a source.

…
House Republicans say their strategy will be to offer alternative bills that would be attractive to the conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, with an eye toward fracturing the Democratic coalition. They hope to force some tough votes for Democrats from conservative districts who will soon begin campaigning for 2008 reelection and will have to defend their records.

"We'll capitalize on every opportunity we have," said one GOP leadership aide, adding that Republicans were preparing alternatives to the Democrats' plans to raise the minimum wage, reduce the interest on student loans, and reduce the profits of big oil and energy companies.

Several Blue Dog Democrats said they do not think Republicans can pick up much support from their group.

"If they've got ideas that will make our legislation better, we ought to consider that," said Rep. Allen Boyd Jr. (D-Fla.), leader of the Blue Dogs. "But if their idea is to try to split a group off to gain power, that's what they've been doing for the past six years, and it's all wrong."
…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100784_2.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2671817

[Guaranteed]

36. "Tit for Tat," I believe the program was called that proved this.

Oddly, by its own rules, a program with this philosophy can't actually beat any other program, individually. However, in aggregate, it "wins" the most of all of the programs, when they are all pitted against each other.

It was a fascinating article.

[madmusic]

41. But this is wrong: In this game, the winning strategy is to betray your opponent.

[Jackpine Radical]

43. Only in the one-shot game. That's the point.

If it's a continuing game, the tit-for-tat strategy wins overall.

[redacted]

39. Excellent point! My college's Social Psychology class taught this topic

and I can still remember it from the final exam sophomore year. The zero-sum game model is useful in a wide range of situations.

Big thanks Jackpine Radical for pointing this out.

[madmusic]

40. Uh, wrong...

Tit for tat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tit for tat is a highly effective strategy in game theory for the iterated prisoner's dilemma. It was first introduced by Anatol Rapoport in Robert Axelrod's two tournaments, held around 1980. Based on the English saying meaning "equivalent retaliation" ("tit for tat"), an agent using this strategy will initially cooperate, then respond in kind to an opponent's previous action. If the opponent previously was cooperative, the agent is cooperative. If not, the agent is not. This is equivalent to the concept of reciprocal altruism in the context of biology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

[Jackpine Radical]

45. Wrong?

I believe that T4T is the strategic equivalent of repeated trials of PD. Only in the single-shot PD game is betrayal a winning strategy.

[Az]

48. We are a learning species

You start off by treating others as you would have them treat you. In this way you establish intent and(if you wish to be treated fairly) you teach them to be fair. But if they treat you unfairly then you treat them in kind and in this way teach them what it feels like to be treated as they have treated you.

The only problem with this system is it assumes the other player can learn. If they cannot learn then it will result in an ever escalating conflict.

[depakid]

49. tit for tat

Rapaport's solution for iterated prisoner's dilemma seems appropriate here to me.

Especially since we know damn well what the far right will do in the next set of games. Anyone who doesn't is fooling themselves.

[TahitiNut]

50. The game changes dramatically when the players can communicate.

While the simpler version is typically given as an example of betrayal-as-a-strategy in the limited iteration and non-collaborative version, the indefinite iteration version where communication and collaboration is allowed indicates that cooperation is a "plus-sum game" and the benefits of cooperation are demonstrated.

Sociologically, it's an interesting (vairable) paradigm for discussing what the definition of "win" is for each 'side' - is it enough that the 'other side' loses more? There's 'winning' and there's insane vengeance.

[Jackpine Radical]

51. Yes, you're raising some very interesting points here

about game theory and the elaboration of the PD/T4T paradigms. These topics are sufficiently important that they deserve separate treatment. Even without this further eleaboration, though, I think the PD paradigm helps to clarify and support the Dems' hundred hour move--and that's all I originally intended to do in bringing it up.

[Az]

53. Thats the trick

the action you take in response to the initial bad behaviour has to be proportional. But that is a question of measure and is ultimately subjective. It requires the initiator to even be aware of their transgression and to recognise it as such. If they do not then they will percieve your action as the initation of hostilities.

[aikoaiko]

54. Actually, Tit-for-tat with occasional forgiveness is best.

The problem with tit-for-tat is that once a player defects, they keep defecting on each other.

One player must start to forgive the other and cooperate even if it means the other player still defects sometime in order to get into reward-reward outcomes.

So yes, retaliation is important, but it must be followed by forgiveness.

[Az]

55. I use a slightly modified version

I give people a couple of passes before I turn nasty. I make sure I inform them that something has gone amiss and give them a chance to redress the problem. I find that most issues turn out to be communication problems instead of malicious examples of poor behaviour. Thus immediately retaliating with negative behaviour can often be seen as initiating because the other person is not aware they caused trouble.

[Jackpine Radical]

56. Certainly. That makes sense as a real-world approach.

PD obviously doesn't model the real world in any depth. For example, it is obvious to each player when they are transgressing.

[Jackpine Radical]

57. And so we note that the Dems are proposing 100 hours

of hardline action, not an eternity of it. I think they are right on.