The article's pretty short on analyzing what game best models the current debates. My vote would be for the ultimatum game, but that ignores the element of time in their decisions. Time is a huge factor in this game, so it probably isn't even that great of a model.<p>Wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive list here: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_in_game_theory" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_in_game_theory</a>
Giving oponents a reasonable percentage of irrational behaviour is actually a normal thing in game theory. Game theory doesn't stop to apply because someone on this planet acts irrational to gain an advantage. I like to think more in terms of finding the rationale behind the "irrational behaviour". That the truthfully out of mind elephant acts this way because the cost of a failure really doesn't matter to him at that moment. If u don't care about the losses, maximising the win percantage actually is quite rational. And in a game of chicken the best chances of winning are of course if you really don't stop, ever. The only reason why most people stop before the crash, is that they worry about the cost of a failure might be bigger to them then the possible win of a success.
I thought this was an interesting article as it's more analysis than it is political commentary, something the hacker news community could enjoy from an analytical perspective.
This is an interesting article, but the game isn't chicken, what is happening in Washington is a dance of distraction. Most of the damage to the economy is already done, the public is just waiting for the "leadership" to finally drive the rotting ship into the iceberg. No matter how much the rational and historically educated among us yell "The emperor has no clothes", we are powerless against the interests that have dominated over the last thirty years.
Good article - up until the point where he claims the Republicans are the "rogue elephants". To the other side the Democrats are the "rogue elephants", and it's interesting that the author appears incapable of seeing that.<p>A truly irrational person is a rare thing. If you are unable to explain the actions of your opponent in any other way then the fault lies within you, not them.
> The president is best advised to do the same: declare that the other side has foregone all pretense at rational legitimacy, and simply proceed to govern as best he can for the good of the country.<p>This is seriously how the article ends? How does the author suggest he do that, considering one house is controlled by these "rogue elephants". That's the important question. Professor Captain Obvious hasn't really contributed anything new by labeling the republicans as a much of crazy animals...