The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
How can I describe this concept succinctly?
Peter Principle
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I remember a scene in a movie with Steve Martin. He's holding a bunch of bad guys (nazis, iirc) at gunpoint. There are like 10 or 15 mooks, but the pistol he has does not hold 10 or 15 shots. One of the bad guys points this out, something like "We should rush him! He doesn't have enough bullets to kill us all!" Steve replies "That's right, I can't kill you all, but who wants to volunteer to be first?!?" or words to that effect.
So in essence the idea is that of one entity that could overwhelm, defy or escape another entity through attrition, but no one in the thwarting group wants to be the first to suffer the threat, so the victims remain victims.
I'm sure there's a word or phrase that describes this concept (in the way that "Mexican Standoff", or "Mutually Assured Destruction" describe their respective concepts), but I can't think of what it would be. Help, please?
So in essence the idea is that of one entity that could overwhelm, defy or escape another entity through attrition, but no one in the thwarting group wants to be the first to suffer the threat, so the victims remain victims.
I'm sure there's a word or phrase that describes this concept (in the way that "Mexican Standoff", or "Mutually Assured Destruction" describe their respective concepts), but I can't think of what it would be. Help, please?
"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer, _The True Believer_
Peter Principle on
0
Posts
but they're listening to every word I say
edit: although if we were looking at this question from the side of the Nazis at the other end of the pistol, they'd almost certainly be familiar with the phrase Polish Parliament.
I don't know, they seem different. A "Mexican Standoff" is a situation where both sides have more or less equal force. What's inhibiting aggression is that both parties know an initial use of force will result in an equal response from the other actor, so neither acts.
For this concept I'm wondering about, there is force assymetry. Only one side has the gun, the power to arrest, state military backing, whatevs. They may even use it, even frequently (which wouldn't happen in a Mexican Standoff) It's just that the force can't be applied to the entire group, and it is the disinclination to be the ablative protection for the rest of the group that keeps everyone in line.
I don't think that quite gets it either, since it's not that everyone in a Polish Parliment is afraid to act that causes the lack of action. It doesn't even have to describe a conflict situation, does it?
I think that's it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem#Collective_action_problem
Seems like there would be some catchy, colloquial phrase associated with the concept.
I'm sure there's a description of a problem like this somewhere in game theory, but the answer isn't immediately springing to mind.
Think of the group as a hive mind of sorts. So you basically still only have two entities. It doesn't matter that they don't have a gun, they can still overpower the gun toter but at a grievous loss of life. So still, neither side wins. Mexican Standoff.
Its really all about the nazi's. No one wants to move first.
/economist
Collective action problem does also work very well.
I still don't think that's the right concept, that doesn't take into account the force disparity. In a mexican standoff, both sides are equally inhibited; in this thing, only one side is intimidated.
As mentioned though, this could be graphed into a nash equilibrium. (a fairly complex one, as there are many different outcomes with this many players)
This is untrue: if the hostage taker unilaterally changes his strategy and begins firing on the hostages, the hostages are no longer disincentivized from rushing him. Regardless of who specifically survives the resulting conflict, he will certainly not be among them.
Which returns me to why I think Nash equilibrium is the best description if we include the hostage taker as one of the players and not part of the game.
EDIT: Knowing whose turn it is specifically isn't as important as the fact that whoever acts first changes the entire equilibrium. Maybe it could be described with two.
Fair point. I sort of assumed that it was a hostage's turn to act given the question Steve Martin apparently asked, but that's an assumption.
She said there wasn't a word for it specifically. It's just effective time management. I still hate that there isn't actually a single word I can use to describe it.
Back on topic!
A collective action problem is what it is for the guys against the wall, but we don't really have a popular phrase that encapsulates what a collective action problem is (other than tragedy of the commons I guess, but that isn't really in common use either and isn't a great description for this situation.) Not only that, just saying 'collective action problem' doesn't really include the gunman in the scope of the term.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Sure, but the hostage taker doesn't necessarily want to kill everyone. I think one of the defining characteristics of this situation is that the hostage taking faction isn't being intimidated. They are getting whatever it is that they want: "Walk down that hall!" "Do not oppose my regime!" "Pay your taxes!". The hostages aren't exerting any leverage on the hostage taker. They could, but they don't as a group because no one individual wants to be the first to suffer the consequences of disobedience.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
If they do attack the hostage taker, it's no longer that situation. Similarly, it's a mexican standoff as long as no one fires. Once the bullets start flying, it's not a standoff anymore.
Teenagers are held hostage at a gas station by an unarmed, not-very-smart but strong man. The hostages start whispering to each other "there's 7 of us and one of him, we can take him". One of hostages asks the man "What do you do when you get attacked by several people at once?".
He replies (im proably misquoting a lot): I only attack one. I was once attacked by five guys with bats and knives. I picked just one at random, knocked him down and started bashing his face in *makes face-bashing gestures* until he was almost dead. The other ones were hitting me and stabbing me but I kept bashing and bashing this one guy until you couldn't recognize his face. Eventually the others stopped attacking and just begged me to stop hitting him"
The hostages swallowed their saliva and decided to not go forward with the plan.
The scene in question at 9 minutes 7 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqvw2HDZWxA&t=9m7s
"A situation in which assured destruction is matched against just possible destruction can create a stalemate on par with a mutually assured destruction scenario."
See, I think maybe the analogy between whatever it is your paper or project is actually about and the movie scene your comparing it to may be imperfect because your original question didn't really have anything to do with compelled orders like paying taxes or anything of that nature. And it seems like you're simultaneously expanding the problem to incorporate a bunch of new interests and choices for the hostage taker while narrowing the definition of the problem to include only a single valid choice for the hostages, which is apparently compliance.
Obviously if someone is using leverage against someone else they want that other person to do something, even it's very simplistic like "Nobody move!" I'm fairly sure Steve Martin's character said that at one point in the scene while pointing the pistol at the bad guys. I didn't mention it originally, but I thought it would be assumed.
Well, yes. That's the the general idea I'm trying to describe. Group A has power of some sort over Group B, and A wants B to do something. A's power is limited. A can't affect everyone in B, but they can affect some in B. Everyone in B does what A says, because no one in B wants to be the first target.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned this in the OP.
And it's not expansion, it's just recognition that it doesn't have to be an overt combat or violence situation for a term to apply, even if that's the origin. If two neighbors are threatening to sue if the other sues them, but neither does because they don't want to get sued, that's also a mexican standoff. They're pointing lawyers at each other, not guns, but the concept is the same.
"In game theory, it specifically means that it directly changes the outcome of the game from a win to a loss. The term is used less precisely in games such as chess; i.e., the game theory definition is not necessarily used in chess (Berlekamp, Conway & Guy 1982:16), (Elkies 1996:136). For instance, it may be defined loosely as "a player to move cannot do anything without making an important concession" (van Perlo 2006:479). Zugzwang is a common technique to help the superior side win a game and sometimes it is necessary to make the win possible (Müller & Pajeken 2008:173)."
Well then you're going to have to open your scenario to include a lot of different possible choices and outcomes once you open all of this up to other interests because the leverage of the hostages increases. If he says something like, "pay your taxes!" (since you brought it up), that adds a new set of choices to the mix on the part of the hostages: they can now rush the hostage taker, they can not rush the hostage taker and pay their taxes, or they can opt not to rush the hostage taker but also opt not to pay their taxes. Because it's not in the interest of Steve Martin to begin firing on the hostages (because it will inevitably result in his death once his ammunition is depleted), they can win by refusing to play the game.
It's not actually any sort of a standoff at all in that case, which is why again I'm going to posit the suggestion that it may be an imperfect metaphor for whatever it is you're actually writing about.
Ok, that doesn't even make sense in context. The scenario is what it is. It's like you're saying "Well, in a mexican standoff, one guy could run away, or he could set his gun down and show the other guy he means no harm, or he could jump behind a wall. There are many different choices." Sure, but as soon as something else besides two guys pointing guns at each other happens, it's not a mexican standoff anymore.
And yes, the nazis could do all sorts of creative problem solving things, but once the conditions change then it's no longer a [nash equilibrium/zugzwang/whatever that situation is].
And I'm only using "pay your taxes" to illustrate that the situation could involve other forms of coercion.
According to the liberarians, a tax revolt could force the us government to its knees, and we'd live in a free market utopia etc etc, but no one individual wants to be the first to piss off the IRS.
Again, it's two groups. Group A can realistically do something to some, but not all, of Group B. Group A makes a demand of some sort. If Group B defied Group A as a whole, B would win. However, Group B complies as a whole because no individual in Group B wants to be shot/imprisoned/sued/whatever.
I hope that makes things clear because I just don't know how to explain it any more plainly than that.