Regular listener Susan L. from WA wrote to us with a very interesting question about game theory and COVID-19. She says:

I have recently been thinking about how to solve this problem (how to stop the President from interfering with the pandemic resolution, which could kill more people). It occurred to me that if one could discover a pattern in his behavior, and then create a disruption to the pattern, his actions might be stopped. That made me think of Game Theory, but I don't really know that much about it. I'm writing to you as experts...

Well I'm no expert on game theory, but it strikes me that a game theory analysis of collective behavior assumes a certain level of rationality amongst the agents making decisions in the game, and I just don't see how we can assume that when it comes to the president. First, we would need to identify what he wants, what is motivating him in the game (i.e. what would count as a 'win' for him). I don't think it's controversial to say that he is motivated by something likelooking good, both as an end in itself and as a means to getting reelected.

If he were a rational agent, he would understand thatlooking goodis achieved by doing things like tackling the crisis, getting necessary medical equipment to those who desperately need it, showing empathy for all those economically devastated, and generally acting like a leader. But instead, when he first was told about the impending threat of the virus back in early January,his first move was to ignore it. Then he called it a "hoax" and claimed it would just disappear one day "like a miracle." Now that he's gotten bored with a week or so of social distancing, he says he wants to "reopen" the economy and get people packing churches all over the country for Easter celebrations, even though our best infectious diseases experts say this would lead to the healthcare system being completely overwhelmed and many thousands more dying.That would not look good.

我得到的印象是，他认为病毒是他可以与之达成协议的东西(毕竟，他确实做了最好的交易!)，好像他可以让病毒同意一个有利的时间表，或迫使它屈服，就像他的共和党同事一样。这显然是不合理的，完全脱离现实，我不知道博弈论分析如何适用于如此抗拒事实的玩家。

I reached out to one of our hosts and resident epistemologist, Ray Briggs, for more insight on the question. Here's what they had to say:

What an interesting question! I'm not quite sure how to solve this puzzle with game theory, but I have a few thoughts on where to start.

博弈论研究的是个体在集体决策情况下的行为，每个人的行为都在决定发生什么。对于年轻健康的个人来说，在大流行期间做出隔离的决定看起来很像多人版的“囚徒困境”游戏中的一个举动。你可以选择合作，做一些让你付出一点代价却能帮助你周围的人的事情，也可以选择背叛，让你自己获得一点好处，却让你周围的人付出更大的代价。在这种情况下，社交隔离是一种合作:它可能会为你的幸福付出真正的代价，但它会保护你周围的人免受一场毁灭性的、失控的流行病的影响。叛逃是诱人;这对个人有直接的回报。但如果每个人都合作，我们都比每个人都背叛要好。

Leaders can encourage ordinary people to cooperate by choosing a coordinated action and encouraging (or ordering) everyone to take part. A political official who issues a stay-at-home shelter-in-place order (as many state governors and city mayors have donethroughout the US) is doing something that makes sense as an attempt to achieve a good society-wide outcome. But what happens when you have a leader who isn't motivated by the common good?

To get a prediction from game theory, we'd have to answer several questions. First, what incentives does Trump respond to? Second, who are the other relevant players in this game (the CDC? FEMA? every member of Congress? all of us?), what do they want, and how do their actions influence the outcome? Third, how much can we trust the players to do a cost-benefit analysis of their options?

The Prisoner's Dilemma is useful because it helps us pull a simple and illuminating pattern out of a complex situation. I'm not sure how to give a similarly simple and illuminating account of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but I hope some game theorists are able to weigh in.

It seems a situation where one just has to distract him or change his perceptions. He seems very driven by the latest things he sees on a certain channel—and I am not sure how one can change that from the outside.

So there you have it, Susan! Thank you for your great question. It certainly gave us all something to think about.

If you have a question for us, send it tocomments@philosophytalk.organd we might just feature it on the blog!