Vladimir_Nesov comments on Unpacking the Concept of "Blackmail" - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Vladimir_Nesov 10 December 2010 12:53AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (136)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 10 December 2010 01:39:12AM *  3 points [-]

Don't even get me started on how ill-defined and far from being formally understood the concept of "Schelling point" is. It's very useful in informal game theory of course.

Comment author: Larks 10 December 2010 01:43:38AM *  1 point [-]

Yeah, I'm reading Strategy of Conflict at the moment. Still, it seems that working out Schelling points would give us blackmail, whilst understanding blackmail some other way wouldn't give us schelling points (as the latter can be without communication, etc.)

Comment author: nazgulnarsil 10 December 2010 02:03:43AM 1 point [-]

Schelling.

Comment author: Larks 10 December 2010 02:24:40AM 0 points [-]

fixed, cheers

Comment author: Will_Sawin 10 December 2010 02:04:33AM *  0 points [-]

A Schelling point is a kind of Nash equilbrium, right? It's the kind of equilibrium that an understanding of human psychology and the details of the situation says you should expect.

The union-firefighter looks like a variant on the hawk-dove/chicken game. If default is (Dove,Dove), which isn't an equilibrium, Hawk can be seen as a black mail action as it makes you worse of than default. So at (Hawk,Hawk) everyone is, in fact, being blackmailed, and this is, essentially, a coordination problem.