 
                         20070122.01

     An interesting analogy between game theory as the
reflection of social dialectic, and decision theory as the
reflection of individual (psychic) dialectic.

     The win-win situation described by game theory, where
the apparently adverse interests of the antagonists are
transmuted into an outcome which is mutually beneficial, is
to be considered also in the light of the lose-lose
situation, classically the Pyrrhic victory, where the costs
of prevailing are so great as to convert gain into loss and
victory into defeat.

     The win-win situation in game theory has its analogy
(parallel) in decision theory, when it is understood that the
adverseness of two competing outcomes is but illusory, and
that each outcome has its benefits, albeit qualitatively
different. This circumstance highlights also the cardinal
weakness of decision theory, in that it requires as premise
that the quality of outcomes is indifferent: that only their
quantity matters; that all consequences can be numerically
quantitated, classically in terms of dollars; that every
experience has its shadow price.

     It is not so. Satisfaction or happiness is not the
quantifiable outcome of a transaction, and cannot be counted
or measured.  A man who wins two hundred dollars in the
lottery is not twice as happy as a man who wins one hundred.
Happiness as the quality of spiritual survival is the
facility to adapt, to assimilate, to accommodate oneself to
the diverse and unpredictable situations which one encounters,
into which one is thrust.

     Arguably the optimized transaction is one in which the
branches of the decision tree are (almost) in balance.
Specifically, consider the case of A who has a substantial
sum of money with which he may purchase either B or C. He
somewhat prefers B to C, but if he is disappointed in his
efforts to purchase B, his loss is not all too great because
he can console himself with the acquisition of C. Indeed,
healthy human nature being what it is, he will soon be so
enamored of C, that he will convince himself that C was
actually the better choice over B all along. And if he is so
convinced, preference being subjective, none can contradict
him.

     The foregoing a propos my indecision concerning the
Nantucket project.  The art (Die Kunst) would be so to
structure the choice between unpredictable outcomes, that
either outcome would be acceptable and could, in the end, be
elaborated, developed or rationalized to be optimal. That one
may be (very) happy either way.

                      * * * * *
Copyright 2007, Ernst Jochen Meyer
