[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Mad SCO Disease

[gepr at tempusdictum.com]

Russell Senior writes:
 > gepr> So, if we were all peace-lovers and there was never any threat
 > gepr> of retaliation, then some arrogant do-badders would
 > gepr> ... well... do bad.
 > 
 > Maybe.  But is the rational response for everyone to take that as an
 > invitation to do as much bad as we can?  I manage to go through life
 > trying not to do bad things to others.  Isn't the rational global
 > optimizing function to work to minimize the badness impulse in
 > ourselves and others?  Isn't it possible to do that non-violently?

I don't think so.... but, that's just an opinion.

But, I think the critical part of the argument can be put forth
without opinion (or extended scientifically beyond opinion).  That
critical point is not the "doing" so much as it is the expectation of
retaliation.

What the iterated prisoner's dilemma (IPD) shows us is not that "one
must do bad upon others in order to convince them to do good upon us".

What the IPD shows us is that "if you set expectations in your
partner's (in crime) estimation of the payoff for betraying you, then,
as a team, you stand a better chance of achieving the highest payoff."

Translated, that means that good behavior is _encouraged_ if all
parties know that there are consequences for mis-behaving.  If one of
the parties _expects_ that she can mis-behave without negative
consequence, then they _might_ mis-behave.

b1) What gun carriers believe is that many people think that the cops,
lawyers, courts, etc. are not here or won't have enough evidence to
convict them, or they just won't get caught.  Or, perhaps they just
don't _think_ that far ahead.

Yes, many people do realize that courts present consequences.  But,
many people don't.  Or they believe that they have pretty good odds
fighting a battle in court.

This belief is justified and there's evidence for it.  (I know lots
of people who traffic fireworks from Washington to Oregon.  It's
illegal; but, they do it.  Why?  Because the gun carriers' belief
is sound.  Many people don't think law enforcement presents sure 
enough consequences.)

b2) This belief then leads them to believe that they _might_ be able
to make up for this lack of expected consequences in some mis-behavers'
heads by the unpredictability of the thread of a concealed firearm.

I haven't seen any evidence to back up belief (b2).  But, it's 
better than doing nothing about those who expect to get away with
mis-behaving.

---

 > Isn't it possible to do that non-violently?

Sure!  But, at what cost?  What overhead do we have to purchase
or build in order to come up with non-violent counter-measures
to people who believe they can get away with things?

We could, do alot of body-building so that they saw how muscular
we are and would, hence, be afraid of messing with us or our friends.

We could, wear loose baggy pants in order to rely on them having 
heard the rumour that inner-city people wear baggy clothes to hide
firearms.

We could attach permanent security devices to our bodies that would
immediately alert the police (with GPS lat/long coordinates) when
and if our personal integrity is violated.

We could mount cameras all over our bodies to take video of everything
that ever goes on in our presence (for use later in court).

Etc.  But, it's a hell of alot cheaper (and usually more fashionable
... at least to my tastes) to just carry a gun. [grin]  Even learning
some significant self-defense techniques is a larger investment than
a point-and-click solution.  When I think of all those hours I spent
punching kicking and yelling, where I could have been hacking on 
the latest PHPNuke release...

 > gepr> For a clear explanation of this point see some of John von
 > gepr> Neumann's work.  It's called "game theory".
 > 
 > Hey, it's only a theory!  ;-)

[grin]  Well, unfortunately, it's misnamed.  It's not a theory at
all, of course.  It's a mechanism for thought experiments and a 
hypothesis for some of the causes of human socio-cultural behavior.

And, there are _many_ reasons to discount game theory.  But!  It's
still useful when coming at this issue with no tools, at all, for
discussion other than the "I'm a pacifist!" versus "I'm a realist!"
rhetoric.

-- 
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                           Hail Eris!
H: 503.630.4505                              http://www.ropella.net/~gepr
M: 971.219.3846                               http://www.tempusdictum.com