Regardless of whether you think Occupy Wall Street is "right," we should still be able to have a rational discussion about the outcomes, and there's one outcome in particular that's been worrying me.
The worst possible outcome, in my opinion, would be if Occupy Wall Street gains enough momentum to become a major political power in the U.S., but not enough to decisively win.
Regardless of what happens Occupy Wall Street will almost definitely polarize the left further from the center, as they have been recently.
If politics is a game of prisoner's dilema, then the Republicans through the Tea Party have been defecting for the past few years, with no sign of being willing to change to cooperate. Meanwhile, the Democrats have been repeatedly cooperating. If this were a normal prisoner's dilemma game, then the Democrats should switch to defecting as well.
But, in government there is a third term, ability to operate. Assuming there isn't a clear majority in all sections of government:
If both parties cooperate, operation is the highest. If one defects and one cooperates, it's lower, but still there. If both parties decide to defect, the government loses almost all effectiveness. And my fear is that Occupy Wall Street will lead to this outcome.
But, in government there is a third term, ability to operate.
How's this different from ordinary prisoner's dilemma?
Assuming there isn't a clear majority in all sections of government:
If both parties cooperate, operation is the highest. If one defects and one cooperates, it's lower, but still there. If both parties decide to defect, the government loses almost all effectiveness.
This is true at most in the short term. In the medium-to-long term the prisoner's dilemma is an epistemic prisoner's dilemma, and effectiveness is determined by the extent to...
On reddit today I read 'the-Gandhi-quote' on a post about the Wall Street Occupation Protest:
"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you.."
I'm transitioning, possibly, from the laughing stage and am beginning to feel the tiniest bit excited that perhaps some actual change is in order. On the one hand, I feel sufficiently skeptical about the probability of a 'revolution'. On the other hand, given how fast the world has been changing (the internet, gloablization), maybe change is inevitable and this is the way it happens now.
I know this is a rationality site, not a current affairs site, but when something tweaks my interest I like to know what "Less Wrong" thinks...waiting for a spontaneous post could take forever and finding a 'rationality-spin' would be disingenuous so I'll just ask:
What is possible and what is likely?
What factors are important?