Game Theory...

Ok, last time I posted and a few times before it were rambling thoughts. This is something that I've thought about for quite a while, so hopefully it should be easier to follow and more pertinent.

Anyways, senior year at Valley people are required to take an econ course. Most of the people who read this know that Malek is the AP teacher and thus I took his course. One of the concepts that struck me the most in economics was game theory. For those of you who don't know, game theory is a conceptualization of the decisions that one should make when faced with options. A typical game theory scenario is that two felons have been caught, and both have two options: They can confess on their partner or they can be silent. Thus, four possibilities arise for prisoners A and B. If both A and B remain silent, both get 1 year. If A tells on B but B is silent, then A goes free and B gets 8 years. The third is the same as the previous example, yet B tells on A and A is silent. The final decision is that both A and B tell on each other, and thus both receive 4 years in prison.

Now, for all of you who see this prisoner's dilemna for the first time would think that it would be in both A and B's interest to remain silent. This is true that if both were silent, the least punishment would be dished out overall. Yet, game theory focuses on what is not best overall, but what is best for the individual. If you look at it from A's perspective, his best option is to tell on B. Why? Imagine if A is silent. If B was also silent, A would get one year. If B told, then A would get 8 years. Now, let's imagine if A told on B. If B was silent, A would go free. If B told as well, then A would get 4 years. If you compare the choices overall, A being silent could result in either 1 year or 8 years. If A tells, then he could either go scott free or be imprisoned for 4 years. When looking at the choices that B might make (telling or not telling), A compares the 1 year to going free, and 4 years in comparison to 8 years. Thus, A's best option is to tell on B. The key thing is that if A and B worked together, they could have gotten a better result overall. Yet, game theory only looks at the results from one person's perspective.

Why is game theory relevant to today's post? Simply because it applies to one of the statements Mark Cahill made when he came to Valley for Spiritual Emphasis Week. For those who don't remember or know, Mark Cahill brought up a lot of questionable material, which is good because it got some students questioning, yet it was also offensive to some people. Thus, he was not asked to return on the fifth day of our Spiritual Emphasis Week. But, this is somewhat beside the point and mainly background information to get everyone on the same page.

One of Mark Cahill's main points was a push for evangelism. He strongly advocated just going around and evangelizing to anyone and everyone about Christianity. To back this point, he presented three possible results of evangelism. They are: A, the person converts and becomes a Christian; B, the person ignores the message and life goes on; or C, the person has a seed planted in them and will become open to the idea of Christianity eventually. He said that each possible event has 1/3 of a chance of occurring. Now, he looked at each consequence in terms of whether or not the effect is positive. Obviously, A is a positive result, and C can be considered positive as well. Thus, there is a 2/3 chance that something positive will happen from people evangelizing.

But wait, there's more! (Sorry, an infomercial reference just sounded so great right here...) The Bible has verses that state that even in the face of persecution that we are to rejoice, for it is a sign of our faith and personal development. If I remember correctly the verses are James 1:2-3, which state, "2Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance" (If somebody actually does remember if these are the correct verses/what the correct verses are, feel free to let me know). So why is this important? Because A, B, and C now can all be seen as having positive results, and thus if we go out and evangelize there is an 100% chance something good will happen.

Now, first things first. I was taking AP Stats senior year and I am also taking Psychological Stats right now, so any statistical errors I recognize bug me. Hopefully you had caught on as well, but just because there are three options does not mean that all three options are equally likely. For example, let's think of the lottery in very broad terms. You have two options: You win the lottery or you lose. Now, if we kept the previous train of reasoning going, that means we would have a 50% chance to either win the lottery or to lose. Too bad life's not actually that way, and the chances of winning the lottery are close to nothing... Thus, if we take this train of reasoning back to Cahill's problem, A, B, and C do not have to have an equally likely chance of happening. What affects the percentages of A, B, and C? That's something I'll return to in just a sec...

But, you might object, even if all the chances for A, B, and C aren't equal, they all have positive effects, and thus there is a 100% chance of something positive happening! Oh, sir, I would tip my hat to you only if it were this simple... You see, this is where my whole long introduction comes in. This view presented by Mark Cahill is also prone to game theory. And, as you all should know, is that game theory views the effects from only one person's perspective. At this point, some of you might be wondering what the heck I'm talking about. Let's go back at look at A, B, and C one more time.

For result A, someone evangelizes and a new person becomes a Christian. This is a positive outcome for both person A (who becomes stronger in their faith we will assume) and the converted (who now believes in Christianity, which is the goal of evangelizing in the first place). For result C, someone evangelizes and the person does not convert, yet they may convert later since a seed has been planted. This is also a positive outcome for both person A (who becomes stronger in the faith with perseverance in the face of trials) and person C (who may soon accept Christianity as the truth). Finally, for result B, someone evangelizes yet the person listening rejects the faith entirely. This is positive for person B, for they become stronger in their faith with perseverance in the face of trials (again). Yet, how is this positive for person B?

Here's where my main objection comes in, and hopefully it's not too confusing. I believe that the state that the listener of person B comes to actually may be viewed as worse off than before, and thus it would be a negative effect. Let's say that person B, well, to put it nicely, evangelism is not their strongest suit. They come to a hardcore atheist, they try to evangelize, but without a strong sense of how to go about these things person B is unable to convince the atheist to become a Christian. Sure, this could be good for person B since it's a growing experience, as mentioned previously, yet what happens with the atheist? I would believe that he's unlikely to become more partial to Christianity after this situation. In fact, I believe that he would be more inclined to become more solidified in his rationale, and thus even more opposed to Christianity than before.

Even though this might not happen in every case, it is still definitely a possibility of what might occur, and the likelihood depends on how prepared people are to evangelize (this is the answer to the previous question I said I would return to later, if anyone remembered). All three cases of results A, B, and C are dependent upon how prepared a person is to evangelize. If you go out there just shouting, "Jesus loves you!" to a bunch of hardcore reason based atheists, the chances are you'll most likely get result B (and thus maybe even have a negative effect for them) as compared to results A and C. But, someone who is prepared maybe be more likely to achieve results A and C as compared to result B. Ya follow? Of course, I have been rather ambiguous what it means to be prepared. But, I would believe that it would involve a heavy dealing and study in both Apologetics and the proper way address people not only in argumentation but also personally. Of course, being able to spread the message of the Gospels is at the heart of it all as well. I wouldn't go as far as to say these are the only criteria, for there are probably many other factors I am not currently thinking of as well, but these are necessary ones I would say.

Just in closing, it's important to keep in mind that we aren't the only recipients of our actions, for it's all to easy just to fall into the complete mindset of treating everything as if it is game theory. This is something that is hard to recognize, though, and probably something I fall victim to myself. Also, please don't think I'm ragging on evangelists, for it is something that I think is necessary to do and something I respect for those that do do it, it's just something that I think is best to keep in mind when doing so. Ok, that's it for tonight. I'm probably not gonna write for a while since I'm gonna be really busy Friday and Saturday with work, and just naturally busy on Thursday. Hopefully I'll be able to get a quick entry in on Friday, but if not, see you next Sunday.