BRIGHT LINES IN NEGOTIATIONS. Kids, I posted several times on the debt ceiling negotiations before it was resolved, and in this post I cited Thomas Schelling’s THE STRATEGY OF CONFLICT for its discussion of the game of “chicken.” Chicken is an example of a zero sum game, where one player wins and one player loses. Schelling also analyzed more complicated games, and called attention to the value and importance in negotiations of naturally existing bright lines. An example was the 38th parallel of latitude in the peace settlement negotiations in the Korean War. Although the eventual settlement wound up with a different line drawn, the 38th parallel was the center of attention in the negotiations for a long time. Similarly, the parties in the debt ceiling negotiations had bright lines on taxes and on social security and Medicare which were important throughout the negotiations. Bright lines help to coordinate coalitions.
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
- Gary Nuetzel on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- Francesca on EATING PEAS WITH A KNIFE.
- avon wilsmore on CHEATING IN CHAMPIONSHIP BRIDGE.
- Anonymous on THE LANGUAGE WEIRDNESS INDEX.
- James Friscia on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Ken Babcock on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Lickity Splitfingers on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Ken Babcock on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- David Quemere on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- Nicholas Schaefer on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
Meta
I don’t agree that there’s necessarily a winner. A classic game of chicken involves teens on a narrow lonely road being egged on by “friends.” Each drives his car straight toward the other. The one that veers off loses and is “chicken.” But both may lose face, but survive, by veering. However, if neither “chickens out,” both lose big time in the headon collision that kills them.
I remember that Karl Deutsch included this game, prisoners dilemma and another called underdog in one of his books. He put the payoffs for both players in numerical terms, something like this. If both chicken out, they both wind up – 10. If one chickens out and the other doesn’t, the scores are +20 to -10. If neither chickens out, the score is -50 each. This was one possible model of the possible outcomes of the Cuban missile crisis and, generally, of the nuclear balance of terror.
Pingback: SIMPLE AND COMPLEX CHICKEN GAMES (COMMENT). | Pater Familias
I took Alternative Dispute Resolution with Dean Feerick this summer, and just tried out for the negotiation/mediation team at Fordham yesterday. We’ll see what I learn if I make it.
I have been told that what the judges look for the most is “growing the pie” and coming up with creative solutions that aren’t necessarily obvious. Non-monetary, symbolic gestures, services, promises, etc.
Pingback: HOW A BANK DEFAULT CAN BE DIFFERENT FROM A CHICKEN GAME. | Pater Familias
Pingback: THE EUROZONE—A CHICKEN GAME WHERE EVERY MEMBER CAN BLOW IT UP? | Pater Familias