WHY did I win my wager against @ProfessorPape?
I have great respect for him and my respect for him has grown recently. But what did he get wrong?
He believed, correctly, that US security principals faced a strong incentive to do whatever it takes to prevail. He expected them to get sucked into higher and higher levels of escalation to get their way, in a process he calls The Escalation Trap.
I told you from the start that, while this was a good model of an important dynamic at play, it suffered from a grave problem: there was nothing is the model that could ever account for deescalation—it could only explain higher and higher commitments.
So his model was theoretically incomplete in a very important way, and it was not pretty to watch him impose his theoretical priors on a dynamic reality that refused to obey the model.
I tried to think harder about the incentive structures for the two sides. I did eventually formally model the interaction as a bargaining game under asymmetric information. But the underlying logic was already clear intuitively beforehand.
Nadaljujte z branjem→
You must be logged in to post a comment.