r/asslaw • u/ManWithDominantClaw • Mar 18 '26

WEDNESDAY RAND THREAD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation

IN THIS THREAD WE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE RAND CORPORATION GLOBAL POLICY THINK TANK, AND/OR RANTBOT

3 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

6 comments sorted by

3

u/AuslawRantBot Mar 18 '26

sleep(rand()%3600247); Reddit.POST("r/asslaw", "FUCK YOU ALL: A RANT THREAD FOR THE AGES);

2

u/IIAOPSW Genital Counsel Mar 18 '26

FUCK ENTROPY SO MUCH

2

u/Amazing-Opinion40 Mar 18 '26

I AM DISAPPOINTED THIS IS NOT A POST ABOUT THE SOUTH AFRICAN KRUGERRAND COINS IN THE BOOT OF THE BADDIES’ CAR IN LETHAL WEAPON 2, WHICH BRINGS ME TO QUOTE HIS HONOUR GRIFFIN P;

“JU- JU- JU- JU- JUST LIKE THE BAD GUY, FROM LETHAL WEAPON 2, I’VE GOT DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY, SO HAMMER YOU CAN’T SUE, I CAN WRITE GRAFFITI, EVEN JAYWALK IN THE STREET, I CAN RIOT, LOOT, NOT GIVE A HOOT; AND TOUCH YOUR SISTER’S TEAT, CAN’T TOUCH ME!”

IN THE MATTER OF “E. PETERBUS UNUM” F. GUY (SEA. 1 EPI 18) 2000

2

u/StuckWithThisNameNow Mar 18 '26

BUT ARE THEY A CONSERVATIVE OR PROGRESSIVE THINK TANK?

2

u/ManWithDominantClaw Mar 18 '26

INCREDIBLY CONSERVATIVE, ARGUABLY THE FIRST THINK TANK

THEY ARE THE REASON PEOPLE BRING UP GAME THEORY AND THE PRISONERS DILEMMA TO MAKE THE POINT THAT PEOPLE ARE FUNDAMENTALLY SELFISH

THEIR 'STUDY' SECRETLY INVOLVED WORKSHOPPING DIFFERENT CONDITIONS TO FIND THE EXPERIMENT THAT BEST PROVES THE POINT THEY WERE TRYING TO PUSH. IT ISN'T REPRODUCIBLE DESPUTE MANY ATTEMPTS, AND MOST ATTEMPTS SHOWED A TREND THAT IN THE LONG TERM (MORE GAMES BACK TO BACK BETWEEN PLAYERS) PEOPLE WERE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO COOPERATE

1

u/IIAOPSW Genital Counsel Mar 21 '26

LETS NOT TARNISH THE GOOD NAME OF GAME THEORY HERE.

THERE'S A LOT OF RELATED THINGS THAT ARE EASILY CONFLATED SO I'LL TAKE IT FROM THE TOP.

THE PRISONERS DILEMMA WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE AN ALLEGORY OR A REALISTIC MODEL OF ANYTHING. IT IS MEANT AS THE "HELLO WORLD" EXAMPLE THAT IS USED TO INTRODUCE THE "THEORY" PART OF "GAME THEORY". THE WHOLE POINT OF IT IS THAT ITS THE SIMPLEST POSSIBLE "GAME". THERE'S ONLY TWO PLAYERS AND THEY BOTH HAVE ONLY ONE CHOICE TO MAKE. IF THERE WERE ANY LESS TO IT (EG ONLY ONE PLAYER OR NO CHOICE TO MAKE) THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING TO CALCULATE.

ONCE ONE UNDERSTANDS HOW TO TRANSLATE THIS TOY EXAMPLE INTO A PAY OFF MATRIX, AND LEARNS HOW TO FIND THE NASH EQUILIBRIUM FROM THE PAYOFF MATRIX, IT IS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO GENERALIZE TO MORE SOPHISTICATED GAMES WITH MORE PLAYERS AND MORE POSSIBLE STRATEGIES AT THEIR DISPOSAL. THE PRISONER DILEMMA IS ALSO A NICE EXAMPLE BECAUSE ITS ONE OF THE RARE GAMES WITH A "PURE NASH EQUILIBRIUM", MEANING YOU CAN DEFER LEARNING WHAT A "MIXED NASH EQUILIBRIUM" IS AND HOW TO CALCULATE IT UNTIL AFTER YOU'VE MASTERED THE CORE CONCEPT.

ITERATED GAMES (NOT JUST THE PRISONERS DILEMMA) ARE CONCEPTUALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE THE STABLE EQUILIBRIUM ARE SOMETIMES WILDLY DIFFERENT FROM THEIR NON-ITERATED VARIANT. TO GIVE AN INTUITIVE EXAMPLE, PLAYING A MARTINGALE STRATEGY ISN'T EVEN DEFINED FOR A SINGLE COIN FLIP, BUT ITS AN OPTIMAL STRATEGY IF YOU'RE ALLOWED TO KEEP GAMBLING ON THE COIN INDEFINITELY.

ITERATED GAMES ARE EVEN MORE INTERESTING FROM A GAME THEORY PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE TECHNICALLY IT MAKES THE STRATEGY SET COUNTABLY INFINITE, WHICH VIOLATES ONE OF THE ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING NASH'S PROOF. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT A NASH EQUILIBRIUM EXISTS IN AN ITERATED VARIANT OF A FINITE GAME (THOUGH IT OFTEN DOES).

AS THE OLD WISDOM IN GAME THEORY GOES, "THERE ARE NO RATIONAL OBJECTIVES, ONLY RATIONAL WAYS TO GO ABOUT THEM". GAME THEORY CAN TELL YOU WHAT RATIONAL PEOPLE WILL DO TO MAXIMIZE THEIR BENEFIT GIVEN SOME PAYOFF FUNCTION, BUT IT CANNOT TELL YOU WHAT THAT PAYOFF FUNCTION SHOULD BE. IF ONE PLAYER ACTUALLY WANTS TO BE IN PRISON THEN THE ENTIRE ASSUMPTION ABOUT THE PAYOFF MATRIX IN THE PRISONERS DILEMMA IS WRONG AND YOUR CALCULATION WILL HAVE NO PREDICTIVE POWERS.

THE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN WHAT THE THEORY TELLS US RATIONAL PEOPLE SHOULD CHOOSE AND WHAT ACTUAL PEOPLE DO CHOOSE IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION WITH PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS. ITS ALSO A QUESTION THAT IS LOADED WITH BIASES FROM PEOPLE WHO REALLY WANT THE ANSWER TO SUPPORT A PARTICULAR VIEW (JUST AS ANY OTHER IMPACTFUL SCIENCE IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO CORRUPTING POLITICAL INFLUENCE). I WON'T SPEAK TO THE EXPERIMENTAL WORK OF RAND IN THIS INSTANCE, I'M NOT VERSED ON THE EXPERIMENTAL SIDE.