While game theory and various other studies should be taken with a grain of salt (it's hard to do these studies in the real world, at least to do so with any scientific rigor) they do bring up some interesting points. I threw the bit up there about 'complex organizations' because those bring their own problems. Complex organizations make it hard to pin down the cause and effect, especially since the effect can be significantly delayed.
I can't remember if it was from the studies on complex organizations or from game theory (probably the latter, or a study that drew on game theory), but there's also issues with transmission. People have a strategy they think works, someone tries to copy that strategy but makes errors in copying. Others copy the strategy, but they don't understand the reasons behind it and get stuck imitating the strategy even when it's no longer the best strategy for the situation.
In trying to apply this understanding to history and people...well, it's more opinion than science. Speculation. But let's roll with it.
My little story about the Surgeon General was to try to capture some dynamics I think we've seen throughout our own history...particular with rulers. A community is at risk - either it needs better access to food and water, or it needs to defend its access to existing resources. So they have someone who is good at fighting, and they say "we'll provide you all the food you need, so you can keep training and practicing and protect us from the bad guys". Give it some time and you start to see a warrior class and a peasant class. It's not that everyone in the warrior class is naturally a warrior, or that nobody in the peasant class couldn't be a warrior...but it's what you know, it's what your parents did, it's what you got taught growing up. (When there's disruption, sometimes people can jump to other areas. A peasant might successfully defend during a surprise raid, and get selected to join the warrior class.)
Some of the first rulers were the best warriors. Strongest fighters. But honestly? Being good with a sword isn't the only thing needed. The other skill...the best I can do to explain it is 'field sense', like you get with sports. An athlete with good field sense can see where the openings are, and can throw the ball to the right person. A good quarterback isn't just someone who can throw a ball well, it's someone who can see where to throw the ball. So the first rulers might not have been the best with a sword, but they were the best at sensing the battlefield. At knowing where to send the troops, how to send the troops, and where the openings were in the enemy's position.
But ruling isn't just about fighting, either. There are some very strong fighters who were abysmal at administration. When there's a time of civil war, where violence seems everywhere, then people will often turn to and support a 'strong man' because they hope and believe that person is strong enough to stop all the violence. This is part of why Thomas Hobbes called for his Leviathan (a strong central government). He was living through the English Civil War at the time. This is also, btw, why Iraqis are kind of nostalgic for Saddam. Yes, he was a horrible ruler...but they didn't have to worry about being murdered while buying groceries.
On a slight tangent - I think you can see 'imperfect copying of a strategy' and 'delayed cause and effect' here. Sun Tzu has a famous (or infamous) scene where he killed a couple of concubines. A king wanted to see Sun Tzu's theories in action and asked him to train some of the concubines. The concubines laughed and failed to follow. Sun Tzu beheaded the two leading concubines, and the concubines performed flawlessly after that.
Why do I bring that up? First 'imperfect copying of a strategy'. Some people would look at this and say 'you have to be brutal.' 'People must fear you'. And sure, in some cases (moral issues aside) it works. For a time. In that particular circumstance, Sun Tzu wanted the concubines obedient...and killing a couple definitely made them more obedient. While pulling up info on this story, I came across an article that had a different lesson learned. In this case, the lesson the author took is that the concubines were acting as pretty poor officers. Beheading them, harsh though it was, took the bad officers out of the mix and made room for better ones.
And the second point - delayed cause and effect. Sure, the concubines performed well at that time...but what were some of the delayed effects? Or, since this was one little anecdote, let's imagine the brutal ruler who is imperfectly copying the strategy by instituting a rein of terror. Doesn't ruling through fear come with some pretty serious consequences? People are afraid to speak up, afraid to initiate action unless they know they won't be killed for it. People will take any chance to get away with things, if they know you're not watching. Then you have to spend all sorts of time and resources making them think you're watching all the time. And then deal with the effects of having an entire population feel justifiably paranoid.
But enough of the tangent. Let's go back to my little story.
The root reason for the surgeon general was to provide medical care to the village. Just as a general is supposed to win wars for a country. And a king is supposed to govern that country. When our Constitution was created, the creators divided the tasks of kingship into three areas - judicial, legislative, and executive. Executive may sort of cover other things - like trade policy and foreign policy - that were also the prerogatives of kings.
But history showed a couple of problems with deciding who will rule. The Romans were torn apart by civil war after civil war, so hereditary rule seemed much safer. Except with hereditary rule, after a few generations you may wind up with a king who doesn't really care about doing what a king does. He'll go live it up in a castle somewhere, go hunting and screwing mistresses, and leave all the nasty and dirty work of ruling to his ministers and counselors. (Yep - like the Surgeon General and his Physician's Assistant).
You wind up with either a figurehead of a ruler, someone who does the ceremonial things, or you get a ruler who's ripe for being supplanted.
Except supplanting a king is not easy. They will have loyalists, simply because they are the king and a subject feels it's their obligation to suppor the king. Or because reasonable people are afraid of a civil war. And there will be loyalists simply because they think they'll gain by backing the existing ruller.
To Be Continued
I can't remember if it was from the studies on complex organizations or from game theory (probably the latter, or a study that drew on game theory), but there's also issues with transmission. People have a strategy they think works, someone tries to copy that strategy but makes errors in copying. Others copy the strategy, but they don't understand the reasons behind it and get stuck imitating the strategy even when it's no longer the best strategy for the situation.
In trying to apply this understanding to history and people...well, it's more opinion than science. Speculation. But let's roll with it.
My little story about the Surgeon General was to try to capture some dynamics I think we've seen throughout our own history...particular with rulers. A community is at risk - either it needs better access to food and water, or it needs to defend its access to existing resources. So they have someone who is good at fighting, and they say "we'll provide you all the food you need, so you can keep training and practicing and protect us from the bad guys". Give it some time and you start to see a warrior class and a peasant class. It's not that everyone in the warrior class is naturally a warrior, or that nobody in the peasant class couldn't be a warrior...but it's what you know, it's what your parents did, it's what you got taught growing up. (When there's disruption, sometimes people can jump to other areas. A peasant might successfully defend during a surprise raid, and get selected to join the warrior class.)
Some of the first rulers were the best warriors. Strongest fighters. But honestly? Being good with a sword isn't the only thing needed. The other skill...the best I can do to explain it is 'field sense', like you get with sports. An athlete with good field sense can see where the openings are, and can throw the ball to the right person. A good quarterback isn't just someone who can throw a ball well, it's someone who can see where to throw the ball. So the first rulers might not have been the best with a sword, but they were the best at sensing the battlefield. At knowing where to send the troops, how to send the troops, and where the openings were in the enemy's position.
But ruling isn't just about fighting, either. There are some very strong fighters who were abysmal at administration. When there's a time of civil war, where violence seems everywhere, then people will often turn to and support a 'strong man' because they hope and believe that person is strong enough to stop all the violence. This is part of why Thomas Hobbes called for his Leviathan (a strong central government). He was living through the English Civil War at the time. This is also, btw, why Iraqis are kind of nostalgic for Saddam. Yes, he was a horrible ruler...but they didn't have to worry about being murdered while buying groceries.
On a slight tangent - I think you can see 'imperfect copying of a strategy' and 'delayed cause and effect' here. Sun Tzu has a famous (or infamous) scene where he killed a couple of concubines. A king wanted to see Sun Tzu's theories in action and asked him to train some of the concubines. The concubines laughed and failed to follow. Sun Tzu beheaded the two leading concubines, and the concubines performed flawlessly after that.
Why do I bring that up? First 'imperfect copying of a strategy'. Some people would look at this and say 'you have to be brutal.' 'People must fear you'. And sure, in some cases (moral issues aside) it works. For a time. In that particular circumstance, Sun Tzu wanted the concubines obedient...and killing a couple definitely made them more obedient. While pulling up info on this story, I came across an article that had a different lesson learned. In this case, the lesson the author took is that the concubines were acting as pretty poor officers. Beheading them, harsh though it was, took the bad officers out of the mix and made room for better ones.
And the second point - delayed cause and effect. Sure, the concubines performed well at that time...but what were some of the delayed effects? Or, since this was one little anecdote, let's imagine the brutal ruler who is imperfectly copying the strategy by instituting a rein of terror. Doesn't ruling through fear come with some pretty serious consequences? People are afraid to speak up, afraid to initiate action unless they know they won't be killed for it. People will take any chance to get away with things, if they know you're not watching. Then you have to spend all sorts of time and resources making them think you're watching all the time. And then deal with the effects of having an entire population feel justifiably paranoid.
But enough of the tangent. Let's go back to my little story.
The root reason for the surgeon general was to provide medical care to the village. Just as a general is supposed to win wars for a country. And a king is supposed to govern that country. When our Constitution was created, the creators divided the tasks of kingship into three areas - judicial, legislative, and executive. Executive may sort of cover other things - like trade policy and foreign policy - that were also the prerogatives of kings.
But history showed a couple of problems with deciding who will rule. The Romans were torn apart by civil war after civil war, so hereditary rule seemed much safer. Except with hereditary rule, after a few generations you may wind up with a king who doesn't really care about doing what a king does. He'll go live it up in a castle somewhere, go hunting and screwing mistresses, and leave all the nasty and dirty work of ruling to his ministers and counselors. (Yep - like the Surgeon General and his Physician's Assistant).
You wind up with either a figurehead of a ruler, someone who does the ceremonial things, or you get a ruler who's ripe for being supplanted.
Except supplanting a king is not easy. They will have loyalists, simply because they are the king and a subject feels it's their obligation to suppor the king. Or because reasonable people are afraid of a civil war. And there will be loyalists simply because they think they'll gain by backing the existing ruller.
To Be Continued
No comments:
Post a Comment