Slashdot Mirror
Gambling On Bacteria
An anonymous reader writes "When it comes to gambling, many people rely on game theory, a branch of applied mathematics that attempts to measure the choices of others to inform their own decisions. It's used in economics, politics, medicine — and, of course, Las Vegas. But recent findings from a Tel Aviv University researcher suggest that we may put ourselves on the winning side if we look to bacteria instead. According to Prof. Eshel Ben-Jacob of Tel Aviv University's School of Physics and Astronomy, current game theory can't account for bacteria's natural decision-making abilities — it's just too simplistic. Understanding bacteria's reactions to stressful and hazardous conditions may improve decision-making processes in any human arena from everyday life to political elections."
Bacteria has the best chance of surviving whatever we do to the planet, so I'm betting the house on Bacteria to win! Not that it will do me much good when it comes time to collect ... sigh
If both sides stop acting belligerent, there will be peace.
However, if Israel stops and the Palestinians don't, there will be mass casualties on Israel's side.
If the Palestinians stop and Israel doesn't rescind their apartheid policies, the Palestinians will lose what little they have.
If both sides keep fighting, they will both suffer casualties, but they will not lose everything.
It's interesting that the Israelis are looking to biological scum for guidance in such matters.
I thought the research was pointing at the fact that bacteria seem to function as collectives and are therefore more complex then their individual components would indicate. http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler_on_how_bacteria_communicate.html
I'll agree to the basic situation you put forward, but of course the situation is trickier than just two groups on opposite sides. Within each group are a bunch of sub-groups along the spectrum of "let's make peace now" and "we won't stop until they are all dead!" Even if you get most of the groups to agree to a peaceful arrangement, the sub-groups who don't agree can spoil it for everyone by causing trouble, leading to increased tension and eventual breakdown of the peace arrangement. It's very unlikely anytime soon that you will get 100% buy in from all sub-groups within both sides. The best you can hope for is a peace that is strong enough to withstand the inevitable bombardment by the sub-groups who don't join until support for them fades. And, in a region where violence is an everyday fact of life, this is going to be very tough to do.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
As far as I can tell, the researcher is comparing clusters of bacteria with individual (human) choice. Surely he should be comparing clusters of bacteria with clusters of people, we already know that crowds tend to perform well. And my guess is that a crowd of people would do a whole load better than a petri dish of bacteria. Even a crowd of students.
Oh, and by the way: what might be "game theory" to you is actually lives and deaths for people involved. You should be alittle bit more careful with your approach to the subject. It's basic ethics and morality - something that should come as second nature to any wannbe humanist ;)
Individual bacteria weigh their decisions carefully
OK dude whatever. Ultimate in anthropomorphism. I'm surprised the author didn't describe it as little bacteria surfing wikipedia and using their smartphones and twitter to coordinate their flash mobs.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
future humans might add bacteria to their physiological make up to help them make better decisions and this article isn't tagged with "midichlorians"?
I can't help but laugh at that one.
Actually, I would say that the problem here is that, your assessment is exactly the one that seems to be used by both sides. So long as that is the perceived situation, there doesn't appear to be any solution but to have them fight it out and go with the winner (which would be Isreal, we are talking about one side that can utterly wipe the other off the face of the planet, and one that can't).
I would like to think that the reality is, that this assessment is flawed in that "massive casualties" on each side are valued more than massive casualties on the other side. Either way, its peoples lives.
I tend to think that the reality is more nuanced. If Isreal backs off, yes, there would be more casualties. However, I don't see the Palestinians maintaining an elevated level of casualties in such a situation. Its just plain hard to justify continued attacks against someone who is backing down and giving you reasonable things that you asked for.
My own application of game theory is that, in the medium term, such a strategy would drive a wedge within the Palestinian opposition and erode anti-isreali sentiment.
The bigger problem that I see, is Isreal internally weathering the short term storm and not swinging back towards ultra nationalism and changing course back.
Essentially, I would liken such a process to a couple of bipolar people who hate taking their meds.
Thats the problem with game theory, in these situations, you can't assume a "nation" is a single rational actor. Its a play of internal actors playing out their own games, for the chance to control the overall strategy.
Imagine... playing risk, but instead of having players, each color is a group of people who are constantly playing a game of poker on the side to determine who makes the moves. I think thats a far better way to think about it.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Not to mention that while peace would be better for Israelis and Palestinians, it is not necessarily better for sub-groups of those populations, such as the Hamas leadership.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
That is an interesting theory, but it would lead to the result that no nation could act rationally since each individual actor acts rationally within his own sphere of influence. But what that fails to recognize is that such seemingly random actions taken in aggregate actually do exhibit a gestalt which can be examined, and this in turn leads us to view groups as single actors with understandable goals and predictable behavior.
Read Phyrrhic victory. Everytime a jew "wins" by brutalizing an opponent which is inferior and powerless in every way, it gives back more in terms of the international goodwill marked "holocaust" than it gains.
Oh; and the homophobes in Brooklyn yesterday didn't do "the jews" any favors; especially when there was no condemnation from any other "jewish anti-defamation league".
Just sayin.
First the Jews came for the Palestinians, and I was quiet, because they wear towels on their head.
Then the Jews came for the gays, and I said nothing because my best friend is a Jew.
Then they came for the Jews, and I pretended they didn't have it coming...
The free pass your parents got doesn't extend to future generations -
Not to mention that while peace would be better for Israelis and Palestinians, it is not necessarily better for sub-groups of those populations, such as the Likud party.
:(){
No they don't. Did you read the article? The point of it was the bacteria working toward a common good.
"Sometimes we need the restraint of the community," says Prof. Ben-Jacob. "As individuals we need to set some boundaries, and not just boost ourselves at the expense of others."
This right here is the key sentence. When was the last time you've seen "restraint in the community" for the greater good of the whole?
IAAGT (I am a game theorist)
I looked (briefly) but did not find the PNAS article, as I suspect that the medical daily article gets it wrong, and that Prof. Eshel Ben-Jacob doesn't bash game theory tools. The Med Daily reporter probably misinterpreted the Prof.'s comments about groups of bacteria versus groups of people.
Why don't all the cells go into 'survival mode'? It's not the best for the colony, and there are many real world examples of altruistic behavior towards one's family / colony / species.
One game theoretical model for this looks through an evolutionary lens: the players are species of bacteria and choose species wide traits. One strategy is 'everybody goes into survival mode', the other strategy is '10% go into survival mode'. Through random mutation, chance, whatever... a species picks its strategy, nature makes its move, and the game goes to the next round.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
However, if Israel stops and the Palestinians don't, there will be mass casualties on Israel's side.
Say what?
Please, compare the number of Israelis (young or old, male or female) that have died at the hands of Palestinians in the last ten years to the number of Palestinian children that died at the hands of Israelis in the last ten months
:(){
E-coli for congress! They really know their shit!
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
The press release does not link the original article(s):
Bacteria determine fate by playing dice with controlled odds
Eshel Ben-Jacob and Daniel Schultz
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/30/13197.full
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1008254107
This is a commentary on:
Biological role of noise encoded in a genetic network motif
Mark Kittisopikul and Gürol M. Süel
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/30/13300.abstract
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003975107
and makes ample reference to
Architecture-Dependent Noise Discriminates Functionally Analogous Differentiation Circuits
Tolga Çaatay, Marc Turcotte, Michael B. Elowitz, Jordi Garcia-Ojalvo and Gürol M. Süel
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2009.07.046
I say, the palestinians should go where they came from!