Maariv’s business supplement interviewed Hebrew University Professor Yisrael (Robert) Aumann, Professor of Game Theory and Operations Research. The article says that according to Sylvia Nassar’s “A beautiful Mind” about John Nash, this guy was nominated for the Nobel Prize with Nash. Aumann says he has no idea about that because he never read the book, and because they don’t notify the nominees only the recipients.
Anyway, he gives some cool examples for game theory application:
For instance, the gas masks in the Gulf War: “In retrospect”, he says, “everyone said ‘those masks were foolish’ and that the millions invested in them were wasted. But I say that this is a basic thought mistake, because it could very well be that they didn’t launch missiles with gas because they knew we were protected. We later discovered that the masks weren’t good enough, but Saddam Hussein didn’t know that. He could have reckoned that the harm he would cause himself by launching missiles with gas would be very great, because it would deeply shock the world, but the benefit would be insignificant because Israelis were protected. Had we not been protected he just might have launched missiles with gas… You often invest in things not in order to use them, but in order to avoid using them. Here’s another example: For instance, everyone is crying about how much the Arabs are suffering at the roadblocks in the territories, and some are claiming that they are useless, because they’re causing the Arabs suffering and no (terrorists) are being caught at the roadblocks. Therefore they aren’t effective. But again, this is distorted thinking. Why aren’t terrorists and car bombs passing through the roadblocks? Because the roadblocks are there. So it’s obvious that when you put up roadblocks you prevent terrorists from entering. Some people make this mistake, even though it’s elementary. Nuclear weapons are also developed in order not to use, but as a deterrent”.
When asked if the political conflict can also be explained with game theory he replied, “Yes. You have to imagine that there are two people in the arena, who want to divide a cake between them. Meanwhile, time passes and no one can eat the cake, and it starts to become dry. One of the debating sides says, “I want two thirds of the cake and you can have a third. You don’t want a third? You don’t have to take it. I’ll see you later.” The other one says, “Listen, that’s not fair. Why should you take two thirds instead of dividing it half and half? Let’s divide it evenly, already, and eat the cake.” In the end the one asking for the two thirds gets what he wants and the one who wants half – gets a third. Why? Because according to the theory, someone who has a lower interest level (the one with two thirds, because he’s less pressured, time wise) will get the larger part in the bargaining. The one who pushes to finish the deal will get the smaller part. We all want a settlement, peace, we don’t want war, but this slogan of “Peace Now”? Let us say “Peace”, but not “Now”. They have patience. We should also have patience.”