The Quantitative Peace

Historical Cartography

Uri Friedman at the Atlantic has a nice piece entitled "12 Maps that Changed the World." It's based on a book by Jerry Brotton, professor of Renaissance Studies at Queen Mary University. It's worth checking out if you haven't seen it already. This article is interesting for a few reasons. First, it gives you some sense as to how views of the earth have changed over time. Second, Friedman's snippets for each map help to show how politics, culture, and religion all influenced the evolution of these views. And related to that previous idea, it points to that ever-present issue of measurement. Social scientists aren't the only ones who confront these kinds of issues, and information we now tend to assume away as being relatively objective and simple to define/convey (e.g. geography) can actually be more complicated that we might first think:

"All cultures have always believed that the map they valorize is real and true and objective and transparent," Brotton, a professor of Renaissance studies at Queen Mary University of London, told me. "All maps are always subjective.... Even today’s online geospatial applications on all your mobile devices and tablets, be they produced by Google or Apple or whoever, are still to some extent subjective maps."

There are, in other words, no perfect maps—just maps that (more-or-less) perfectly capture our understanding of the world at discrete moments in time. 

At this point in time I suspect the subjectivity associated with cartography is probably less a matter of relative size and space, and more a matter of content (i.e. borders, landmarks, etc.). Friedman addresses this a bit when he talks about Google's map-making efforts in #12.

Map #4 also stood out to me:

What's most striking about this Korean map, designed by a team of royal astronomers led by Kwon Kun, is that north is at top. "It's strange because the first map that looks recognizable to us as a Western map is a map from Korea in 1402," Brotton notes. He chalks this up to power politics in the region at the time. "In South Asian and Chinese imperial ideology, you look up northwards in respect to the emperor, and the emperor looks south to his subjects," Brotton explains.

There's also a clip from the West Wing attached to Map #11, the Peter's Projection. Something for everyone.

The Day of the Doctor and the Veil of Ignorance (Warning: Spoilers!)

The 50^th Anniversary episode of "Doctor Who" aired this week in theatres throughout the world. There was an interesting scene towards the end of the movie, which I would like to share. Below I give a very simplified version of the scene.

There are two main characters in the scene, a human and a shape-shifting alien refugee that took on the human’s form.

The human and the alien are located in a secret storage facility in London and it has the most dangerous alien weapons on Earth.

The alien wants to take over the earth, and she plans to use the dangerous weapons in the room to do it. The human will do anything to stop them from using the weapons.

The alien has two choices: (1) continue to plan to take over earth, or (2) back down and leave earth with no other reasonable place to go, resulting in certain death of her species.

The human has two choices: (1) she can set off a nuclear warhead that will destroy the weapons facility and all of London, or (2) she can allow the alien to take the weapons, take over the earth, and destroy all humans. She prefers the first option. Even though she expects to destroy London, she believes she can save the rest of the earth.

The two figures below outline the game. There are two Nash equilibriums, {Take Over; Set Off} and {Leave; Set Off}. Since the Alien is indifferent between these two outcomes- she has nothing to lose, as her species would die regardless of what the human did- it is hard to predict what the alien should do. In the scene, the alien chooses to try to take over earth. Then the human starts the timer to set off the bomb, and this results in the {Take Over; Set Off} outcome.

When it seems like London is doomed, a third character, the Doctor, enters the room and tries to convince the characters to come to a peaceful agreement. When neither character backs down, the Doctor comes to an ingenious solution: he puts a veil of ignorance over the human’s and alien’s minds, causing them to forget whether they are human or alien. Immediately both players agree to halt the warhead timer and begin to negotiate an agreement.

Ultimately, the Doctor forces the alien and the human to consider each other’s preferences. The Doctor’s solution is similiar to Rawls’ veil of ignorance solution. According to Rawls, if people are unaware of their own personal characteristics at the negotiating table, they are more likely to come to equitable or fair agreements. Since people under a veil of ignornance are unable to determine if they are rich and powerful, or poor and weak, they will  develop an equitable agreement over the distribution of opportunities and rights. 

Not only does the Doctor force the alien and the human to take into account each other's prefereces, the Doctor also forces the characters to consider a third option: sharing the earth. It is possible that neither the human nor the alien believed they could credibly commit to sharing the earth, and this is why they did not consider it prior to the Doctor’s arrival. However, since the Doctor is forcing them to negotiate, they may be more likely to consider the option.

The two figures below outline the new game. The strategic form game takes into account that neither player knows their own preferences, so there is 50% chance of receiving the human’s payoff and a 50% chance of receiving the alien’s payoff. In addition, I think when both players are individually choosing their optimal strategies, they choose the set of strategies that best work out for both players, instead of just for themselves.

The Nash equilibriums of this new game are {Leave; Set Off} and {Divide Pie; Accept Proposal}. Note that neither of these solutions includes setting off the nuclear warhead, so the Doctor successfully changes the outcome of the game. In addition, since {Divide Pie; Accept Proposal} is a better outcome than {Leave; Set Off} (an expected payoff of 0 for both players is better than an expected payoff of -15), I think both players would end up choosing to {Divide Pie; Accept Proposal} as their final agreement.

The main issue I have with the Doctor’s solution is that there is no suggestion of an enforcement mechanism. Both the human and alien could come to an equitable agreement, but they might intend to renege once they find out who they really are. In the very least, after the agreement is reached, both parties would have to be locked out of the room before the veil is lifted. Otherwise, the alien could try to take over again and the human could set off the nuclear warhead. With respect to sticking to the agreement in the long term, both parties would have to come up with some way to force each other to adhere to the terms.

Update

Just a quick update. Three months ago I said we would resume posting later in the spring. Naturally, deadlines are made to be pushed back. It's been a pretty big and glorious summer, though, so I hope our reader(s) will excuse us for the prolonged absence. I'm happy to say that I got married in June (at a zoo, no less) and have just turned in the final copy of my dissertation to the Graduate School, and most of us are in, or have recently completed, the process of moving to new jobs. I could do without the packing, but the road trip will be fun. Anyway, we're hoping that by the fall we'll be back in the swing of things. 

Let's Rent Liechtenstein

The entire country of Liechtenstein is now up for rent. Yes, you read correctly, the entire country! It costs $70,000 a night, with a two night minimum, and there are accommodations for 900 guests. Some of the perks include being presented with the symbolic key to the state by parliament, renaming the streets and the town square, and printing your own currency with your picture on it.

Even though renting the country of Liechtenstein sounds like fun, there are limits to what you can do. Unsurprisingly, you do not get to determine what type of government it has, get involved in politics, or make laws.  If you could, the potential for social experiments would be endless.

Although Liechtenstein cannot be rented to conduct social experiments, it would be an oddly appropriate venue to hold a political science conference. Therefore, we should petition APSA to hold a conference there. If they could get 900 attendees, it would only cost $156 a person. That is on par with the cost of going to most conferences- and they get to rent a whole country with it!

The International Relations Implications of Chinese Parenting Practices

By now I'm sure most people have come across Amy Chua's recent Wall Street Journal article.  After reading David Brooks' response to Chau's article, I've begun to think of some of some of the international relations implications of Chua's Chinese parenting style.  Specifically, I'm curious to see what her revelations imply for China's ascendency in the global community.  In spite of  her in-text caveats, I will assume that her described style indeed applies to all Chinese mothers and in no way, shape, or form is a blanket generalization that might not apply quite so broadly.

1. Espionage -- Historically espionage and subterfuge have been incredibly important in advancing national objectives.  Well--placed operatives can provide decision-makers with valuable information on the intentions and capabilities of rival powers.  And a relatively simple act of misinformation or sabotage can achieve what might take millions of dollars and thousands of military personnel to achieve.  But it appears that we have very little to fear from China in terms of espionage.  Chua claims that a ban on playdates was one of the imporant steps in creating a driven, high-achieving child.  And let's not even talk about participating in a school play.  Do we really expect the Chinese government to field skilled intelligence operatives if they don't even allow their children to partake in afterschool drama activities?  Where are they supposed to learn the  skills necessary to fool other highly trained intelligence operatives?  Denying a child from an early age the basic opportunities that contribute to shaping their social skills and ability to feign interest in the stories of self-involved peers doesn't seem like a very effective means of imbuing budding spies with spy-type skills. 
2. Military -- One of the two categories that Chua lists as being acceptable for her children to under achieve in is gym class.  I've watched enough movies featuring basic training programs to know that big wall and the rope climb are omni-present features of military life.  Furthermore, a basic neglect of physically demanding activities does not seem like a particularly effective way of building up a strong military.  Granted this ignores the emphasis on more technologically advanced means of warfighting, but as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have emphasized the importance of boots on the ground, I'd say physical prowess is still important.
3. Strategy -- Chua doesn't allow her children to watch TV or play video games.  I assume this ban also extends to surfing the internet as well.  We all know newspapers are dying out, so how will Chinese children keep up on current global affairs?  I predict there will be a severe expertise deficit in China as a consequence of this neglect.  It will take several additional years of education before young Chinese adults will have caught up on all that back reading.  This might also cause the Chinese leadership of the next generation to pursue moot strategies---had they watched TV in the here and now they'd know that the Jersey Shore was already destroying America from the inside out and that there was no need for a more heated contest.  China could preserve valuable military and financial resources had they only watched a little MTV and gave it another 5 years.
4. Soft Power -- At first glance it would seem that China has an advantage in this department.  So many gifted, classically trained musicians and an emphasis high academic excellence should make China an attractive place.  A well educated population provides the country with an enormous pool of expertise and talent which can then provide a boost to China's academic institutions, perhaps making them more attractive to foreign students.  Through attending China's universities, foreign students will experience Chinese culture and develop a greater affinity for the country.  However, the standards by which Chinese parents apparently raise their children has likely had a perverse effect in this area.  Admissions standards to Chinese universities must be incredibly high.  If the lower and upper bounds of the typical grade distribution in China are A+ and A+, where do the A students go?  University admissions standards are likely so high that strategic-thinking foreign students realize they can't hope to compete and apply to universities in other countries, thus depriving China of the opportunity to difuse its values and culture to the rest of the world.  And, really, what do you as a country do with an enormous surplus of high-quality pianists?  China may soon come to have an enormous population of struggling artists to support, placing enormous demands on its economic system as funds are syphoned off to support the glut of unemployed virtuosos.       

I'm sure that there are furhter areas in which parenting will matter when it comes to international affairs.  If anyone can think of anything in particular that I've missed, please feel free to contribute.