the world has changed so much. some non-credible threats have now become so credible. in a hijack-game in undergrad class today, the prof referred to the game as being played in pre 9/11 days. that one sentence held so much information for a game theory student. it made me smile, despite the underlying gloom in its meaning. there was a time in this world when killing oneself (with killing others) was considered an incredible threat, by theorists at least. even though the people threatened often took it seriously and thus obeyed. though this started to change in parts of the world even before 9/11, it was 9/11 that left no doubt about the credibility of such threats. since then, blowing oneself up in order to blow others, is no longer seen as having a negative payoff for the perpetrator of the threat. in fact, sometimes the suicide bomber may not need the excuse of his demand not being fulfilled to threaten to bomb. the bombing may in itself be an end result to him/her. and what's scary is that, in such situations, for reasons still bewildering and half unknown, there may in fact be a positive and dominant payoff to the bomber.
so the prof changed the payoffs to represent a present-day scenario for comparison. subgame perfect: bomb no matter what.
2 comments:
This is a reflection of the dominance of Anglo-Saxon thinking on economic research (and perhaps research in general). Suicide bombing is not all that new a tactic, certainly it existed before 9/11. I believe the LTTE first came up with it.
you are arguing against an imaginary opponent. i did not say anything that does not agree with what you are saying
Post a Comment