Fw: Re: wow - is a "shadow" politician still a politician? (oops)

["Alex Shipp \(elist\)" <elist-alex () starlabs net>]

Oops. Wrote dove instead of hawk once.
Edited below.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alex Shipp (elist)" <elist-alex () starlabs net>
Cc: <funsec () linuxbox org>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [funsec] Re: wow - is a "shadow" politician still a politician?


Games theory seems quite appropriate here.

In a population of doves, the average benefit is maximised,
but if a lone hawk appears, he reaps carnage throughout the
population and gains at the expense of the doves.

As more and more hawks appear, the liklihood of a hawk
encountering a hawk increases, and in such conflicts both
end up the loser.

Eventually, if all of the population are hawks, all
encounters end with both parties worse off, and the average
benefit is minimised.

So, lets assume for the sake of argument we can say those with
guns are hawks, and those without are doves. The UK population is 
almost all doves. In this case it makes perfect sense for to argue 
against guns because the best strategy for the benefit of all is 
to keep the population as doves. Even though, of course, the best 
strategy for an individual is to become a hawk.

In the the US the population has a high number of hawks. 
The best outcome for all would be to all become doves.
However, depending of course on the exact hawk/dove balance and on 
the payoff weights for the various conflicts, the best strategy 
for an individual may well be to remain a [xxxx]hawk.

If I re-read the arguements in the the thread, this is what I
feel I am reading:

Dr Solly says that society as a whole is better of as doves.

Brian Loe says he personally is better off as a hawk.

Exactly what game theory predicts.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.