Connecting the Dots...Mike's Model

[MikeF]

CONFLUENCE OF VERSE is the only phrase that I could determine to describe. I have solved the majority of this mathematically, and it had been validated.

In a couple of weeks, I'll brief it formally. Since none of this is original thought (I simply connected the dots), I'm putting it on SWJ for free. Most of my thoughts derived from feedback and criticism on this site anyways. So, it is appropriate.

Take your time, we'll go from science to law to economics to pyschology. If my logic is off, let me know. I'm not concerned at this point. The model works for me.

It helped me regain my sanity. If you are an academic, please feel free to take my thoughts and run with them. In a tactical sense, I was only taking a knee to determine direction and distance to the next waypoint.

We'll start with science.

v/r

Mike

[MikeF]

Ralph Waldo Emerson struggled with his personal traumas. He coped by writing...His works defined the Great American Dream.

Charles Darwin sought to develop a theory of creation. So, he set forth and ventured across the globe to explore. He learned through direct observation not a unilateral classroom setting. He struggled with his findings because they contrasted and contradicted with his wife's deeply-held religious beliefs. He was more spiritual than religious. Eventually, he published. You know the rest of the story.

Next, John Maynard Smith wanted to understand the world he lived in. He summarized it in his book Evolution and the Theory of Games.

Each man simply took time to really watch what was going on around them. They transcended.

We'll now discuss Smith's findings...

[MikeF]

Doves, Hawks, and Retaliators...In a closed system with limited resources, animals react in different ways. Doves fall victim refusing to fight and only taking what is free. Hawks fight to the bitter end. Retaliators posture. They combine the best of doves and hawks reacting towards whatever best suits the game.

In the end, and somewhere in between, the strongest survives.

Smith hoped to find the perfect point that intersects and evolves. Smith only missed one point as it pertains and applies to humans. One of his assumptions was wrong.

He assumed perfect communication.

[MikeF]

The human brain is complex and wicked beyond belief. We can never hope to truly understand it.

Just think of how many times you have mispoke or something you said was misunderstood in your day to day lives. That is the key to understanding Smith's flaw in assumptions.

This miscommunication is the key to it all.

[MikeF]

As I try to explain...sometimes as the world is crashing down upon us, sometimes as nothing makes sense, we have to turn to verse, music, humor, and fiction....

Sometimes I think Homer Simpson has it all figured out.

[Ken White]

What, precisely is your intent with this thread and series of posts that, for others, may sow more confusion than light?

I can understand the therapeutic effect but I really question whether it is smart or right to ask others to partake without a more direct approach. I'm more than willing to help and /or participate but it seems to me there should be some semblance of orderly thought and if the ol' brain is disorganized, forcing it to organize a bit may be more beneficial than stream of consciousness.

For example:

CONFLUENCE OF VERSE is the only phrase that I could determine to describe. I have solved the majority of this mathematically, and it had been validated.

Be helpful to know what 'this' that you solved was or is...

The human brain is complex and wicked beyond belief. We can never hope to truly understand it.

I'm not sure wicked is a good term, it can be misconstrued and misused. It is unbelievably complex and we can indeed never hope to understand them -- our own or others brains -- but not wicked, not unless you want to know things you cannot...

As I try to explain...sometimes as the world is crashing down upon us, sometimes as nothing makes sense, we have to turn to verse, music, humor, and fiction...

True for some, I suppose but not necessarily for everyone. Should those for whom it does work expose their work for others who may misconstrue -- or would that be miscommunication?

Been my observation that frequently things don't seem to make sense but they get sorted after a bit, patience and sometimes effort are required. As for the world crashing down -- one should not allow that. In the event one is unable to prevent it, then one digs out and tries again.

Not picking, only trying to find some clarity.

[MikeF]

There are applications. Just allow me to explain.

If I'm wrong, at least I strived...That's better than the current predicament when you consider the financial cost.

We'll see...just trust that I did a cost-benefit analysis or MDMP on this prior to executing understanding risk verse reward.

I realize this is a different approach, but so what?

It all makes sense. Sometimes we simply have to take a knee, LISTEN to our surroundings, pull out the map and compass, and WHISPER amoungst each other to determine direction and azimuth...

Give me a chance. If I am outlandish, SWJED will let me know.

In the end, it's just a model, and it works for me.

If you're confused or disgruntled by the thoughts I propose, then I challenge you to walk.

Go grab the homeless person on the street; Go talk to the the gangster in your neighborhoo- then come back and suggest your counter-argument.

v/r

Mike

[Ken White]

You may have done the cost-benefit for yourself but did you do one for the board?

SWJED or one of the monitors can indeed let you know -- but if you mention that, you have considered it and that should mean that you also considered many other who post here. I mention that not to deter posting but to cite the fact that we all have to make an extra effort to communicate clearly; this is, after all, a very imperfect medium for communications. That leads to the question -- do you just want to post or do you truly want discussion? That's an important question.

In the end, it's just a model, and it works for me.

Good. I mean that. However, I have to ask: what does it do on an open forum for or to others?

[MikeF]

I'll publish it as quickly as everyone can comprehend....

Sometimes it is as simple as a game of poker. I'm trying to explain so that you may comprehend not to be removed to some academic dribble.

People are people and hearts and minds left to free will.

That is the mistake that Smith made in his assumptions.

People posture, and sometimes we misread intentions. If you read through the agreed theory, then you can understand.

Instead, I'll try different ways to describe so that all may understand. I refuse to show you the graphs yet that connect- in the same way that you hold your cards until the final call.

Because in the end, poker is simply the competition of minds as is the rest of the world....Just allow me to explain...If I'm wrong, so be it- I'll go teach high school students. If I'm right, so be it...

We'll see...Regardless, an endstate must be reached....That's how we think....Right or Wrong?

The immediacy of this is determined by the number of our chips...Since we discarded the gold standard that number is vague.

[jmm99]

Don't know where Mike (F) is heading, but so far it's starting with game theory and John Maynard Smith - Anatol Rapoport (at U of Mich, when I was there) on this side of the lake.

Basic Hawk-Dove is related to Chicken. It is also related to Snowdrift, where two cars are separated by a snowdrift and each driver is limited to two forced choices: sit in car or shovel through drift.

These games assume that people will play by the rules - and that they will play the game. Since snowdrifts are near and dear to this Northern Michigander, I would also be thinking of other choices:

1. Don't go out in the blizzard - basic UP survival skill.

2. Put on the snowshoes (from the trunk) and walk over the drift to the other vehicle. Only an idiot would start digging without knowing how much snow has to be dug.

3. Dig into the nice high side bank and create an igloo - better than sitting in a cold car and a candle will keep you very warm.

So, what happens when a person refuses to play the game according to its forced rules ?

The ultimate game at which Smith and Rapoport were focused was, of course, thermo-nuclear war - where the choices can be reduced to pure starkness.

Viewed in this light, this has much to do with wars of all kinds.

So, Mike, this Mike (M) is following along as best I can.

[MikeF]

for the links...

I'm trying to place it where people can understand....Sometimes I forget that most have not read....In Minzberg's organizational behavior theory, what I'm doing is simply immersion...diving below the water...

joining everyone's thoughts towards truth.

thanks again for the references for others....

Mike

[MikeF]

Is where I have been. I do not expect you to understand. Just listen.

And I heard, as it were, the noise of thunder: One of the four beasts saying: "Come and see." And I saw. And behold, a white horse.
There's a man goin' 'round takin' names. An' he decides who to free and who to blame. Everybody won't be treated all the same. There'll be a golden ladder reaching down. When the man comes around.

The hairs on your arm will stand up. At the terror in each sip and in each sup. For you partake of that last offered cup, Or disappear into the potter's ground. When the man comes around.

Hear the trumpets, hear the pipers. One hundred million angels singin'. Multitudes are marching to the big kettle drum. Voices callin', voices cryin'. Some are born an' some are dyin'. It's Alpha's and Omega's Kingdom come.

And the whirlwind is in the thorn tree. The virgins are all trimming their wicks. The whirlwind is in the thorn tree. It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Till Armageddon, no Shalam, no Shalom. Then the father hen will call his chickens home. The wise men will bow down before the throne. And at his feet they'll cast their golden crown. When the man comes around.

Whoever is unjust, let him be unjust still. Whoever is righteous, let him be righteous still. Whoever is filthy, let him be filthy still. Listen to the words long written down, When the man comes around.

Hear the trumpets, hear the pipers. One hundred million angels singin'. Multitudes are marchin' to the big kettle drum. Voices callin', voices cryin'. Some are born an' some are dyin'. It's Alpha's and Omega's Kingdom come.

And the whirlwind is in the thorn tree. The virgins are all trimming their wicks. The whirlwind is in the thorn tree. It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

In measured hundredweight and penny pound. When the man comes around.

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts, And I looked and behold: a pale horse. And his name, that sat on him, was Death. And Hell followed with him.

-Man In Black

[Ken White]

Life is not -- should not be -- stark.

War is not stark; not to me at any rate. It had its bad moments of course but I had fun many more days than not. It created some gaps and problematic things but all I had to was put the sweaty Ruck on my back and keep moving. Like they used to say in La Legion -- March or die. Or as Joe used to like to say, Keep on keepin' on, it don' mean nuthin.' It rarely does. Mean as much as we like to think. Initially, I mean...

I guess part of my lack of understanding was that back in the day the thought of thermonuclear war was not nearly as disconcerting as many today like to presume or insist it was. I also have long been highly skeptical of the civilian strategist as beacon. Thus I ignored Smith (after I hit all the recall buttons -- I'm old--and the late 70s were a day or two ago). Your Snowdrift suggestions BTW are spot on...

Thus, while I finally go to and understood the Smith and the Doves / Hawks references, I saw and see no applicability to the current situation re: Afghanistan or Iraq (or the economy or much else...) so I was wandering, and unlike Homer had nothing figured out...

Every post, I learned more and more about less and less...

Penalty of being my lackadaisical, irreverent, insubordinate, antisocial, areligious, amoral, mildly sociopathic and excessively blunt, realistic -- but lovable for all that -- self I presume...

However, I have been train-ed to be patient and let the Sand Fleas bite without movement (inside joke) so I can wait for Clarity -- whoever she is -- to appear.

Wilco. Out.

[jmm99]

since the choices are usually not black and white.

Thermonuclear war (full scale) was simply too much to dwell on - so, we (our generation) ignored it for the most part. And, neither side chose to play that game.

A choice is to sit in bleak, reinforcing concentration - stewing in one's own juices (and perhaps in the juice as well) - which makes for a very dark, bleak day. Another is to look out the window, see that it's a bright, sunny day - ask: self, why I am sitting here - then, open the door and walk outside.

Maybe something like that.

[Ken White]

Thermonuclear war (full scale) was simply too much to dwell on - so, we (our generation) ignored it for the most part. And, neither side chose to play that game.

For others there was practice to play in the nuclear dust -- an enduring question was; "Uh, if that fireball will melt Nylon, why am I supposed to lay down and cover myself with my nylon poncho?"

Always seemed a fair question to me. Still, nuclear war was not and is not nearly the dread phenomenon that many wished to make it. Unpleasant, yes. Survivable, yes. Far more ado than necessary; no big thing. Ask this guy LINK. Not making light of it or advocating employment, merely stating that there are a lot of more deadly things (many in nature, no less).

But I digress. Yes, indeed, you're correct -- something like that...

[MikeF]

Nature is stark...Life is stark if we only take a moment to listen.

Let's get back to science lest we get sidetracked again. I apologize. I started it with my aside to Homer.

Christopher Coyne discusses this in-depth in After War: The Political Economy of Exporting Democracy in Somalia long before anyone thought to worry about captain crunch and other pirates...

Allow me to get back on track. This is slow...Slow is good...You won't go too fast, and I will go just right...

[Ken White]

Philosophy is grand but rarely resolves much in the field of human endeavors or behavior.

We could also discuss for days whether any of the Social Scientists you continue to introduce are in fact really discussing any "Science" to get back to.

Nor am I certain we observers were or are "sidetracked." Quite difficult to get sidetracked when the self appointed point man has not identified the track other than by vague inferences. There must be a track here somewhere...

This is a really interesting statement that bears lengthy consideration:

Allow me to get back on track. This is slow...Slow is good...You won't go too fast, and I will go just right...

I suggested several times you get on track, you opted not to do so. Cool. Now you say you will do so but as you offer not a track, apparently you will get there eventually. "Slow is good" is, I suspect true only in the eye of the beholder. "Just right" obviously is the same only more so, the implication being that you are the Ringmaster -- or Professor...

Judgment calls yours to make, certainly. Equally, they are calls that can be rejected by others.

My reluctant conclusion is that I left my last college class and the lengthy philosophical arguments in the wee hours designed to demonstrate phenomenal erudition and a grasp of weighty concepts 53 years ago because they were tedious. I guess I'm too old and crotchety for this. Sorry. Hope it all works out for you. So no, fear not, I for one won't go too fast -- I won't go at all until such time as you make a point of some sort. I'm looking forward to it. See you then...

And another no, Life is stark only if one chooses to make it so.

[Ron Humphrey]

Nature is stark...Life is stark if we only take a moment to listen.

Let's get back to science lest we get sidetracked again. I apologize. I started it with my aside to Homer.

Christopher Coyne discusses this in-depth in After War: The Political Economy of Exporting Democracy in Somalia long before anyone thought to worry about captain crunch and other pirates...

Allow me to get back on track. This is slow...Slow is good...You won't go too fast, and I will go just right...

I think I get where your coming from

Just right for you not necessarily in a (the correct way) but in a way that is productive for you.

Just a few random thoughts to consider.

1- Science requires proof to confirm, proof is in the pudding
(sometimes others are eating jello)

It all starts with ideas thus philosophical assertions which you may later be able to confirm or deny through testing. That said

Remember crucibles come in many forms and not all of them are equal yet all probably have close to the same effect on those enduring them. For someone who's never gone without in their life to suddenly be on the street without a job or family it may be just as painful and seemingly endless suffering to them as to you or I in completely different settings and/or experiences. Same goes for looking at other cultures through our own lenses.

Thus the many many cautions from so many about being sure not to assign our own understandings on others. It goes for not only inter-cultural relations but for any interactions we have with anyone. Greatness is not something that anyone truly achieves but rather something that is used by others to recognize them for actions, thoughts, or deeds they have taken. Same thing goes for sameness(hehe) we are not one exactly like another and as such each must strive to find their path to "enlightenment" or as many might simply say Acceptance of their circumstances.

In seeking yours and sharing with others just try to remember how although some may be simply unwilling to listen for a variety of reasons most will try to walk the journey with you as long as it doesn't look like it's going to rival Gulliver's travels

[MikeF]

Thanks all for the constructive criticism. It is valid. All I'm trying to do is introduce an idea that I stumbled on to. I have had parts of it validated by experts in each field. If I'm right, then that is great- there are real world macro and micro applications. If not, it will add to the body of work that others are conducting. That's all; however, I'm challenging the assumptions of two Nobel Laurettes so I want to get as many eyes on my product to determine any flaws in the logic. With that said, back to the argument.

In trying to model the behavior of animals in nature, Smith assumed perfect communication. Perfect communication is an oxymoron- we transmit information, and it is interpreted by the receiver. Sometimes, what we meant to say is not what is translated. Instead, sometimes we act like hawks, sometimes as doves, and sometimes as retaliators. Modeled, it leads to two Nash Equilibriums. For example, if the hostile parties are competing over 50 units, then you'll find that one will win all of them, they will fight until they destroy themselves, or they will eventually tire from fighting and settle for a undetermined number of units.

When you play this game out in a game theory model, the results are catatrophic because they lead to both parties destroying each other and all 50 units of utility being destroyed. In circumstances of hostile non-cooperative parties, intervention is required.

John Nash determined how to intervene. Now, I'll transition to economics. I will use divorce and lawyers as the example to follow.

[MikeF]

Nash spent his life trying to connect the dots. He wanted to create an original idea. He did. What he determined was how to neutrally intervene to solve a competion between non-cooperative, hostile parties. He solved it mathematically. His Arbitration has many applicable factors in business, foreign policy, and marraige.

Basically, he determined a mathematical model to divide up goods and services (utility) fairly.

In a contested divorce, the role of arbitrator is played by judges and lawyers. They determine (depending on the state) a fair settlement of goods and assets.

The failed assumption in Nash's thinking is that of utility. It only speaks to the value of goods and services. It does not address the emotions that the hostile parties suffer through as a social contract is broken.

This gap is why many choose to disregard game theory because it is incomplete. I searched for a long time and found some answers in psychology that bring it all together. At a minimum, understanding Nash Arbitration will assist others in conflict resolution in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'll now move to psychology to explain the rest.