60 seconds more
The Wisdom of the Ancients and their Game Theory
Would you rather have unlimited time but only 30 moves to resolve the Syrian civil war or have unlimited moves but only 60 seconds? Would you be more effective having unlimited moves but only 60 seconds to address this regional conflict or would you be more effective having unlimited time but only 30 moves. What kind of game are we playing here?
In writing this second installment of a series about our web of global risks, I had hoped, as is de rigueur for serious thinkers who use the term de rigueur, to go all the way back to 440 BC, ancient Greece, and a really important historical figure named Herodotus to help me wisely explain that our perception of time/history shapes both how we define our risks and how we address them…I got as far back as 2013, the iTunes store, and a really addictive phone game called Dots, so we’re going to have go with that instead. Like I said, it’s a really addictive game.
______________
Armed with the wisdom of, well, of Dots, let’s return to the Syrian civil war. I’m guessing that, like me, most of you would instinctively choose for unlimited time but limited moves, in this case 30. We all like to think that our bad outcomes mostly stem from rushed decisions due to time constraints, and that if only we had more time we could think so much more clearly and plan so much more effectively. We reassure ourselves that given unlimited time we could solve anything, probably with moves to spare. The assumptions we use with this reasoning are not only flawed but are so flawed that we can’t even see the errors.
- First, we always assume we will inevitably get much smarter as time goes by.
- Second, while we wait to get inevitably much smarter, we assume the problem or risk will wait for us and not worsen or compound.
- And lastly, and here’s the killer app…we assume, that through waiting or simply slowing down our decisions, time will magically reveal to us ahead of time how all the multiple moves will play out, when the truth is we can only ever see how no more than a few moves might play out, no matter how long we wait to make those moves.
- Dismissive of the wisdom of ancient Dots? Go ahead and try it..stare at this painstakingly-reconstructed ancient screen shot as long as you wish and wait for 30 moves of wisdom to reveal itself.
And for those readers understandably hung up on the game-related term limited moves being used in the context of addressing life-and-death-related risks, it might help to substitute one of the following terms: limited resources, limited political will, limited attention span, limited imagination, or limited capability.
At most, having unlimited time but limited moves gives you a chance at making the best possible first move or setting up a more effective second move. That’s all. The third and fourth moves will indeed be affected by your choices but you won’t know that until the third and fourth moves. The wise ancient Dots calls out to us from the touch screen with a message: if you don’t reassess the new reality after each-and-every move when addressing serious risks, you’re literally wasting energy and time even if time’s not a factor.
A tactical, sacrificial move to set up another, hopefully better move might pay off more than the combined score of two average moves, but you do that too many times and you’ve won the clever contest but lost the war with a below-average outcome. And whether tactical or strategic, every move you make no matter how good is also one move closer to the end no matter the time.
“Wise is the one who when dealing with chaotic and random variables relentlessly sticks to the achievable goal rather than to the articulated plan.”
Dots, 2013
Go back to the start of the Syrian conflict in 2011 and stop the clock—but remember, you’re only stopping the clock; the killing, the destruction, and the infinite and indelible tragedies move ahead. Take as much time as you need to make an awesome first move or use/waste that first move to set up a more effective second move. What exactly would you have done?
Even with hindsight I’m not getting past vacuous statements such as “get the parties together to talk” or “intervene quicker somehow”.
Now lose the hindsight… hard, right? If the construct of unlimited time/2011-present Syrian conflict and limited moves/failed peace efforts is too recent, try out unlimited time/1948-present Israeli-Palestinian conflict and limited moves/failed peace efforts…still think we’d have moves to spare?
When the fighting started in 2011, we understandably waited to see what would happen next…We finally made our first move, one that never works but that we have to try anyway, and executed the classic opening move of a vetoed United Nation’s resolution…It’s ok, there’s time…As the fighting spread, we waited to see where it would spread next…We finally made our second move, what the ancients would have called “our first move but with a different name.” With all the time in the world but with limited moves, we became ever more hesitant to waste precious capital, or something made up called ‘international prestige,’ or imagined leverage on what could turn out to be an unsuccessful attempt…We made our third move but luck stayed away and so people called it a bad move…We paused to stare again at the dots, hoping and hoping they would reveal the wisdom of moves not yet taken…We waited for the wisdom…We anguished over the impact of every potential move…And the fighting went on…And the fighting goes on.
To say that with relatively unlimited time, we will make great decisions and achieve great success is to say that if we stare at the test paper long enough, we can learn trigonometry when we not only don’t know trigonometry but we’ve forgotten basic arithmetic. The ancient wise game of Dots tells us that, far from making great decisions and achieving great success, we will likely not make any decisions, preferring to out wait time while our challenges and risks literally outwit us.
_____________
It’s time to pick on those of us who preferred to solve a civil war with unlimited moves but with limited time. And for those readers still hung up on using silly game-related phrases to discuss serious internecine-related problems or risks, substitute unlimited moves with international efforts in Afghanistan and limited time with 2014 withdrawal.
While perhaps the international efforts in Afghanistan aren’t limitless, they’re as close as we’ll likely see for awhile in this new austere environment. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent trying to stabilize a country that not only isn’t inherently stable but that isn’t inherently a country in the 20th-century sense. If we study our Dots, what does it tell us?
Ancient screen shots tell of chaos, limited insights, and a blue color that is close enough to the green as to be annoying during the 60-second race where the slightest misstep cascades into a really low score. They tell of self-imposed pressures that compound with every second, with our brave player abandoning thoughtful strategy for frenetic motion, surrendering reason to the mob rule of the clock. Looking at this archeological treasure, we can easily imagine the panic of the player when luck is lacking and she’s stuck making quick moves that garner two or three points but never set up the big big score.
Crack! The international efforts in Afghanistan began with a mad dash, with our money moving faster than our reasoning. No time to think, just move. From Arghandab to Zabul, we made countless quick moves that garnered a few points at best, while eating up precious time. Luck appeared to have blessed us from 2002-2005, when the dots connected without much struggle. The score rises faster than time dwindles. Move this. Move that. Count this. Count that. We began to believe we’d not only get a new high score but we’d do it with time to spare. We acually even stop keeping score for a bit, so cocky were we in our countless little moves. Check out how the moves we’re making...
Then the reality of what we were trying to do reasserted itself.
Time, which we had ignored for a while when we were racking up what we believed to be big/lasting successes, slapped us and announced that it was running out. We panicked and moved ever faster, throwing more resources into the game…connecting more dots for some reason, who knows, building more roads to go somewhere, who knows, constructing more schools to teach something, who knows, faster. and. faster. the. pressure. builds. don’t quit now we have to keep pushing…move. move.move.movemovemove.
…and then the clock hits 2014…we take a breath..and we look up to see that we have burned through our time like a match lit in a desert, and that only when it burned out could we now see all that we hadn’t done.
And now it’s game over.
So which option is the right one? A limit on time or a limit on moves, insane pressure on each move or insane pressure on each second? Play the game one way long enough and you get comfortable, and perhaps get decent results if luck is present. Play the exact same game, with the exact same goal, but with the other option, and it’s frustrating and strange and uncomfortable. What kind of game are we playing here?
“Wise is the one who can learn from an iPhone game”
Herodotus 440 BC
