DLT:
In the end, while he lays out the issues clearly in a "games" format his
recommended action is, "Hey, let's talk it to death." I'm sure our "war
gamers" have done a similar analysis with many of his points
incorporated, the difference is they have to recommend and implement
actions in real, dynamic time where the luxury of endless talk is not a
viable option.
I think this highlights the difference between a pragmatic and an
idealistic philosophic base.
ROG:
I too find over-application of game theory to be nonpragmatic. There are some
basic, useful patterns that game theory reveals that can help one to
understand some of the dynamics of potentially competing interests, but
extending much beyond that gets messy.
I would summarize the insights I have picked up from game theory as follows:
FIND WAYS TO COOPERATE -- If you can establish a win/win scenario between
parties, then you can create a virtuous cycle where success breeds success.
(As opposed to a win/lose situation where success comes only at the cost of
the other's failure, leading inevitably to either a standoff, annihilation of
one's opponent, or mutual destruction) On the other hand, finding a way to
both win is often easier said than done.
BUT BE CAREFUL NOT TO COOPERATE WITH THOSE THAT CHOOSE TO EXPLOIT COOPERATION
-- (The Richard Gere fallacy.) Do not be a shmuck. Do not continue to play
nice with someone that is trying to cheat you, hurt you or to benefit at
your expense. Antagonism must be returned in kind until you can both find a
way to cooperate. (If the other party can exploit you without retaliation,
why should they ever cooperate?)
In MOQ terms, conflicting win/lose patterns lead at best to stasis and at
worst to destruction. Cooperating patterns in a competitive environment lead
to dynamic advance and to the creation of novel new patterns of quality.
In the cultural conflict between Islam and Western Enlightenment the best
(most moral or highest Quality) solution would be for both cultures to learn
from each other. To coexist and even to mix the best of both.
Muslim fundamentalists obviously reject any type of synthesis. They perceive
threats from competing beliefs. They seek victory for their pure beliefs at
the expense of other culture belief systems. They reject cooperation and
embrace destruction.
The West must be careful not to be perceived as a threat. Fear will drive
Muslims TO fundamentalism and away from openness. If the West is attacked
though (as we were on Sept 11th) , the proper response is focused
retaliation. This retaliation must be clearly against the
destructive/disfunctional behavior and NOT toward the broader culture. The
West must convey that the coexistance of the cultures is possible and
preferable to conflict. Muslims must recognize the futility and unpleasant
ramifications of attacking Western culture, and see the potential and the
quality of cooperation/synthesis/harmony.
At least that is how I see it!
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:36 BST