June 22, 2006
SURE WE BEAT HITLER, BUT THE SWISS GOT THE GOLD (via Brian Boys):
Overconfidence is a disadvantage in war, finds study (Roxanne Khamsi, 6/21/06, New Scientist)
Overconfident people are more likely to wage war but fare worse in the ensuing battles, a new study suggests. The research on how people approach a computer war game backs up a theory that “positive illusions” may contribute to costly conflicts.“It supplies critically needed experimental support for the idea that positive attitude - which is generally a [beneficial] feature of human behaviour - may lead to overconfidence and [damaging] behaviour in the case of war,” comments Peter Turchin of the University of Connecticut, US. [...]
Dominic Johnson of Princeton University in New Jersey and his colleagues recruited 200 volunteers to play the role of the leader of a fictitious country that is in conflict with another over newly discovered diamond resources that lay along a disputed border.
Before the game, volunteers were asked to predict how their performance would rank compared with the other 199 people in the experiment. They then played anonymously against other volunteers and received $10 if they won the game, that is, if they amassed the most wealth or defeated their opponent in war.
Each player began with $100 million in game money to invest in their military or industrial infrastructure, or to reserve as cash. The program gave them constant updates about the offers and actions of their opponents.
Careful negotiations with opponents could win players additional resources in exchange for the diamonds. But they also had the option of waging war. Their victory in battle was determined by how much they had invested in their military, along with an element of chance.
Players who made higher-than-average predictions of their performance – those who had higher confidence - were more likely to carry out unprovoked attacks. These warmongers ranked themselves on average at number 60 out of the 200 players, while those who avoided war averaged out at the 75 position.
A further analysis showed that people with higher self-rankings ended up worse off at the end of the game. “Those who expected to do best tended to do worst,” the researchers say. “This suggests that positive illusions were not only misguided but actually may have been detrimental to performance in this scenario.” [...]
“One wishes that members of the Bush administration had known about this research before they initiated invasion of Iraq three years ago,” he adds. “I think it would be fair to say that the general opinion of political scientists is that the Bush administration was overconfident of victory, and that the Iraq war is a debacle.”
Even setting aside the assumption that war is primarily about financial gain, as Mr. Boys points out, the over-confident players in the WoT have been Sadam Hussein, Al Quaeda, the Taliban, Zarqawi, Osama Bin Laden, etc... Posted by Orrin Judd at June 22, 2006 11:05 AM
I don't think there can be any doubt of overconfidence on the part of Bush. Apparently I shared the same overconfidence. Bush didn't expect the magnitude or persistence of the insurgency. Bush has set us upon a course of "nation building" in Iraq, which I think will require far more deadly force than Bush or the American people are willing to support. He is going down in public opinion polls and the military is focusing on how to punish American enlisted men and reassuring the public that we are ethical. Public support for the military action in the future is weakened.
Far different position for Bush than previous to this invasion.
Bush said Oct 11, 2006 in a debate with Gore "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."
We don't have a nation-building corps. We have an insurgency fighting corps. They won. The Iraqis are doing fine building their own nation.
Posted by: oj at June 22, 2006 11:42 AMNo, W didn't expect to have to move the 4th(?) ID out of Incirik(sp) and get there 3 - 4 weeks later.
If they had been where they were supposed to have been, we'd be having a different conversation.
Blood is directly on Turkey and frogistan for this.
Posted by: Sandy P at June 22, 2006 11:55 AMThat's silly. It ,made no difference whatsoever. The Sunni weren't going to willingly give up 1400 years of power over the Shi'a, no matter when a few Americans got there. Meanwhile, the Turks needn't gladly support the creation of an independent Kurdistan on their border when they have trouble with Kurdish insurgents.
Posted by: oj at June 22, 2006 12:00 PMOJ
But the rest of my statement you agree with? Come on you can do better than that.
BTW the government of Iraq can't even get the electrical grid operating for more than a few hours a day. The Iraqi government is hunkered down in the green zone.
We need to support a division of the country into three parts now.
Posted by: h-man at June 22, 2006 12:03 PMoops, that was Oct 11, 2000 debate
Posted by: h-man at June 22, 2006 12:07 PMNo, the rest was too silly to respond to. He has carte blanche for Iran and North Korea and just keeps winning elections and passing legislation. You're focussed on atmospherics and far-Right obsessions, not political reality.
Posted by: oj at June 22, 2006 12:07 PMWhere can I get that game? Looks like it would be fun to play with the brothers.
Posted by: Jay at June 22, 2006 12:13 PMThis is beyond silly. As oj points out, Saddam & Osama were incredibly confident, and one doubts that Prof. Johnson would argue that things have turned out well for them.
Besides, from the description given above, the game is designed such that it rewards those who avoid conflict, so of course those who choose conflict tend to do worse--that's the way the game is set up! Too bad the world doesn't work that way...
Posted by: b at June 22, 2006 12:26 PMWhat's so surprising? Bullies do just fine until they can't bluff anymore.
Posted by: jim hamlen at June 22, 2006 12:31 PMThis is sort of a tautology isn't it? I mean if the people listed were just confident then they would have won right? By definition, being overconfident means that you didn't do as well as you expected.
Posted by: Brandon at June 22, 2006 12:37 PMSome can't see the forest for the trees. Why whinge about the minor tactical details? Iraq is a major strategic victory that will completely change the middle east and therefor enhance our strategic security significantly.
Posted by: lebeaux at June 22, 2006 1:26 PMNotice that everybody ranked themselves above average.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 22, 2006 1:40 PMEverybody ranked themselves above average? Well, that's what you get for using the kids at Lake Wobegon High for your study sample.
Posted by: Mike Morley at June 22, 2006 3:07 PMGotta admire that last paragraph quoted. In the whole article, it's the one indisputable example of "overconfidence", in that this cluck actually thinks this "game" has any relationship with the real world of politics and international relations. Sheesh.
Will to win counts for a great deal, but that is not the same thing as overconfidence born of delusions of adequacy.
Verious losers have thought that they couold make Geist of Damashii or Valor take the place of tactical competence and material weight.
Winners have will, competence and weight in balance.
Posted by: Lou Gots at June 22, 2006 4:39 PM'.. One wishes that members of the Bush administration had known about this research before they initiated invasion of Iraq three years ago, he adds. I think it would be fair to say that the general opinion of political scientists is that the Bush administration was overconfident of victory, and that the Iraq war is a debacle.'
first the verdict, then the trial!
Posted by: JonofAtlanta at June 22, 2006 6:37 PMEverybody attending Priceton ranked themselves as above average. Wow! There's a shocker.
Posted by: erp at June 23, 2006 8:31 AM"I think it would be fair to say that the general opinion of political scientists is that the Bush administration was overconfident of victory, and that the Iraq war is a debacle.
I think the "general opinion" of people with any sense at all is that "political scientists" are idiots.
Posted by: Bob at June 23, 2006 10:25 AM