Game Theory: STDs – To Tell, or not to Tell Part 1 of 4

A while back there was an ad on the subway by HIV Stigma (www.hivstigma.com), and it posted a thought-provoking question: “If you were rejected every time you disclosed, would you?”

My first reaction to that question was indignant. Of course you have to disclose! It’s a matter of basic human decency! That’s someone else’s health, or even  life,  on the line there. Framing the question this way almost make it sound like it’s justifying people who don’t disclose.

My second reaction was: you know, if you look at it from the infected people’s point of view, the question becomes that of human nature. And if public educators are going to be successful in encouraging good behaviour (and the uninfected population is to learn how to protect itself), the first step is to understand the bad behaviour.

Think about that silly classic movie scene. Two people in the heat of passion, and right before “doing it,” one pauses and asks, “Er, you’re clean right?” And the other replies, “Of course!” Resume course right away.

The thing is, if a partner is clean, he’ll tell you he is. If he’s not, he’ll tell you he is anyways. Yet if everybody (both boys and girls) does that, the disease will spread rapidly in the population. Making people do the right thing is very hard indeed, especially if they don’t want to admit having it to themselves.

We live in a culture that spends plenty of time glorifying sex, but not nearly enough time talking about its consequences. Since there are zillions of articles out there teaching people to have great sex already, I decided to take a less-travelled road and talk about the not-so-pretty and not-much-talked-about side of our sexual culture.

So here’s a moral question: If you found out that you’re carrying an STD, would you tell your current partner? Would you tell your past partners? Let’s play devil’s advocate and see how someone who’s not so ethical might think in such a circumstance.

Here’s the underlying problem. Self-identification has no apparent benefit (except appeasing the conscience) but does carry a heavy price:

-The price of not getting laid

-The price of facing your partner’s anger

-The price of not looking cool (it’s one thing to call up an old flame after getting an Oscar, it’s quite another to call him up regarding genital herpes).

-The price of facing the fact that you’re infected

-The price of word of your infection being spread around the grape vine. That’s one’s reputation on the line. This is especially bad if one is in one of those incestuous social groups where everybody eventually slept with everybody else. Or if your partner has some mean and mouthy friends and it’s all over Twitter by the time you take a cab home.

(continued in my next post...)

Prisoner’s Dilemma: To Cheat, or not to Cheat Part 6 of 6

In my previous posts, it would seemed that in the game’s simplest form, cheating makes sense. Now here’s where the game changes.

You see, the underlying assumption for the previous scenario is that the game is only played once. You know: thief meets fellow thief, thief loses fellow thief through betrayal, thief does his time, end of story. But what if the game is played repeatedly? Then it would be like a “I know what you did last arrest” and “If you screw me once, I’ll forever be screwing you over.”

If you add all the agony of betrayal over and over, it’s just not worth the little less jail time that very first time. So the thieves will choose to work together in fear of punishment from the other forevermore.

There’s a few conditions for this to work. For example, the total number of games played must to be random or unknown to the players. That fits marriages perfectly: In a til-death-do-us-part kind of deal, you never know if you’ll have five years or fifty years with your partner. So it’s best not to piss them off.

If both parties are there for the long haul, then they have the incentive to be faithful. Building a life together involves contributing to mortgage payments, raising kids, having common social friends, etc.  There is simply too much to lose by cheating. Monogamy is a stable and desired condition because it’s mutually beneficial.

Not very romantic, but there it is.

Of course, I’m not discounting personal integrity, ethics and values. I am just proposing a fun way to view faithfulness through economic theories, and offer a bit of hope that yes, non-cheating rules! Yay!

******

I also have a little announcement to make: The good news is, my dark paranormal novel became finalist in a writing award, and my docu-drama TV series just got optioned. The slightly bad news is, due to these time commitments I have to reduce my blog posting from three times a week to two times a week. But The Economics of Love remains near and dear to my heart and I thank you for your ongoing support!

Prisoner’s Dilemma: To Cheat, or not to Cheat Part 5 of 6

In my last post I talked about the “I sold you, you sold me” equilibrium. Graphically it’s as shown below:

	Suspect # 2 refuses to cooperate with the cops	Suspect #2 cooperates with the cops
Suspect # 1 refuses to cooperate with the cops	(1) Both walk free. No sentence.	(2) Suspect #1 gets a heavy sentence, while Suspect #2 get a light sentence.
Suspect #1 cooperates with the cops	(3) Suspect #2 gets a heavy sentence, while Suspect #1 get a light sentence.	(4) Each get a medium sentence.

The players start at the upper left corner (1), and they shift to improve one’s gain (2/3). But they ended up in the lower right corner (betraying each other), as represented by (4).

Does that mean my old friend was right? And if that applies to love and relationships, does it not support many cheaters’ claim that monogamy is unnatural? Does it mean we should all go out and cheat? Not so fast! I did promise an anti-cheating conclusion, did I not?

(stay tuned for my next post...)

Prisoner’s Dilemma: To Cheat, or not to Cheat Part 4 of 6

In the last post I talked about what goes through Suspect #1’s mind as he sites in his jail cell. He would arrive at the conclusion that cooperating with the cops is the best move. Meanwhile, his partner, Suspect #2, is thinking exactly the same thing to himself. So they both cooperate, and each gets a medium sentence.

The reason that Prisoner’s Dilemma fascinates economists so much, and why it’s so important in military and corporate strategy analysis, is that its outcome depends on what each player thinks the other will do. One screws the other over for fear of being screwed, so they’re both worse off in the end. It’s like a total self-fulfilling prophecy.

What’s interesting about this theory is that if the two suspects had just trusted each other, both would have gotten off scot free. This reminds me of a quote from George Orwell’s novel 1984: “Under the spreading chestnut tree, I sold you and you sold me.” It’s very sad.

But in this game’s simplest form, being loyal is not considered a stable outcome, as each party will be tempted to protect themselves from being taken advantage of. The theory says that in this case, betrayal is actually the sane, logical and rational thing to do (in economics, self-serving is considered a rational thing to do). The “I sold you, you sold me” result is called an “equilibrium” - the ultimate, stable choice for a rational human being.

(continued in my next post...)

Prisoner’s Dilemma: To Cheat, or not to Cheat Part 3 of 6

In my last post I talked about the example of two suspects being interrogated by the cops. I laid out what would happen if they both cooperate/refuse to cooperate.

But if one cooperate when the other keeps his mouth shut, that’s when things get sticky. You see, the betrayer gets a light sentence, while the faithful one gets a heavy one. The game is illustrated as below:

	Suspect # 2 refuses to cooperate with the cops	Suspect #2 cooperates with the cops
Suspect # 1 refuses to cooperate with the cops	Both walk free. No sentence.	Suspect #1 gets a heavy sentence, while Suspect #2 get a light sentence.
Suspect #1 cooperates with the cops	Suspect #2 gets a heavy sentence, while Suspect #1 get a light sentence.	Each get a medium sentence.

The whole idea of the Prisoner’s Dilemma is to examine the thought process of the two suspects while they are locked in their separate jail cells with no idea what the other will do. How would they choose?

I remember learning it in university and thought it was so cool. It sure brings a sense of street danger into the otherwise wholly scholarly environment. It’s like The Godfather plus Law & Order plus The Sopranos plus that whole testifying mess with Lil’ Kim.

So as the two suspects lie in their separate little jail cells, doubts start to creep in. Suspect # 1 thinks to himself, “It’s nice and all if neither of us cooperate, but what if my partner gives in? Then I’m done for with a heavy sentence. But if I cooperate, then I’ll either get a medium or a light sentence. Either way, I’m better off than a heavy sentence. Well, forget about him. Why should I stick my neck out for him? I’m cooperating!”

(continued in my next post...)

Prisoner’s Dilemma: To Cheat, or not to Cheat Part 2 of 6

Last time I told you about my old friend’s view on cheating. Though his thinking was flawed, it could be explained through an economic decision-making model called the Game Theory, and the problem that arise from it called the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The thing is, at the first glance it looks like the theory supports cheating, but further examination tells a totally different story.

Now, there are many academic papers written on Prisoner’s Dilemma, with many variations on the game. But for the purpose of this analysis, I’ll just look at the game in its most classic form, with just one variation at the end.

To put it simply, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is nothing but the decision of whether or not to screw your partner over.

For example, say two suspects were arrested by the cops for robbing the bank, but the cops don’t have sufficient evidence to nail either of them. So they take the two wise guys into separate interrogation rooms, give them a Red Bull, and turn up the charm. “Just confess,” the detectives coax Suspect #1, “You’ll get off in no time if you work with us.” They say the same thing to Suspect #2.

If the two suspects refuse to cooperate with the cops, then they both walk free that very same day, because the cops ain’t got nothing on them.

If they both cooperate, then they each get a medium level sentence.

(continued in my next post...)

Prisoner’s Dilemma: To Cheat, or not to Cheat Part 1 of 6

To cheat, or not to cheat, that is the question that many have asked throughout history.

There are those who would be offended that the question should even be asked at all, there are those  who would commit the act without the slightest hesitation, and then there are those who protest just a tad too much (those are the ones you really watch out for).

Once I had a friend who cheated on his girlfriend, so I asked him why he did it. He said he had no idea if she was sleeping around, and in case she was, he’d better sleep around too just to even the score. If she isn’t cheating, then he wins. If she is, he’s not losing.

That was a very cynical way to look at life, and my friend wasn’t right in his assumption. Turns out, his girlfriend wasn’t cheating, but she did find out about him doing so. He ended up losing out on a really amazing girl*.

*That’s why one should never assume that just because a guy cares a lot about whether you cheat or not, that he actually has integrity himself. He might just want to be the only cheater in the relationship. Sometimes, the cheaters make the most suspicious partner because that’s how they view the world.

(continued in my next post...)