By using the Game Theory Model we can look at a situation based during a Zombie Apocalypse and determine how a person might act based on the outcome, or payoff that they will receive if they choose between peace and war in a game.

Game Theory can be applied to almost any conflict between parties in order to try and examine and make predictions as to the outcome of a confrontation between the two based on their payoffs. In most cases there will be one payoff to benefit both sides, one that hurts both, and two that will benefit one and hurt the other. The most likely outcome where the two will land is known as the nash equilibrium. We can show an example of all of this through situations faced by living people against other living people in a zombie apocalypse. People who are still alive in the apocalypse will do whatever it takes to keep them alive and from becoming zombies themselves. Because of this fact we can use the game theory model to decide what a person might do if they come in contact with another living person. This model and its payouts may vary between individuals, but it is most likely that between fight/kill and negotiate/make peace most people would have a higher payout for the fight option, especially knowing that based on game theory model if they choose peace and the other party chooses fight they face their worst possible payout, and will most likely be killed. Similarly the game theory could be used between living people and the zombies. You can use the model to decide whether to shoot or stab a zombie you come in contact with in different situations. Though one might argue the payout for the zombies would not change between the two options because they cannot make a choice this argument is not true. If the living person chooses shoot the zombie will have a higher payout because he will hear the shot and be attracted to the area it came from, thus improving his payout, whereas he would not be attracted to stab since he cannot hear it and is less likely to get food. For the human this payout varies from situation to situation on how many zombies are in the area and how close in proximity they are to your location, along with danger you face based on these factors. Ultimately the nash equilibrium of either kill if in contact with a living being, and stabbing if in contact with zombies, will be reached.  By using game theory we can predictable assume how someone would react in order to stay alive in a zombie apocalypse.

One of the most critical forms of conflict in todays world is Intrastate conflict, and one of the longest ongoing examples of this is taking place in Israel. The conflict between the Israelites and the Palestinians over the holy land has been taking place for hundreds of years and is no where near an end.

One of largest ongoing intrastate conflicts going on in today’s world is the conflict over Israel by the Israelis and the Palestine’s. This dispute has been going on since the mid 20^th century over Israeli boarders, recognition of each other, control of the city of Jerusalem, and a resolution to the refuge problem caused by war in the 60’s. This conflict has caused intense firefights and disputes among the people living in the region and has caused greater problems for all who occupy the area.

These issues rise about due the grievance that lies between the Israelites and Palestinians based on their religion and many of their holy landmarks both occupying the city of Jerusalem. Since these landmarks are scattered among the city, there is dispute over boarders and settlements of the people living in the city. The biggest issue arising from these land disputes is the refuges that live in these areas and are driven out by the war in order to survive. By having their homes and property destroyed by battle the refuges are left in camps to live and survive until they can be relocated to a new destination to occupy.

Though many steps have been taken in order to try and resolve the conflict, the grievance between the two religions over the area is so great that there is no sight of the conflict being resolved in the near future. As long as disagreements between the two religions continue the violence in this region will be along with it.

A growing issue in todays world is that of transnational terror. Different extremist groups have taken to a variety of different methods in executing acts of terrorism. To fight this countries must work together and aid in providing security to other nations to fight these attacks.

Transnational terror is a problem faced by all countries around the world and must be continuously fought by everyone in order to ensure safety for all. Countries can either choose a high or low offense in fighting terrorism ultimately determining the payoff they will receive. All decisions affect one another and the payoff both the home and foreign country will receive.

An example of this would be in a situation where the payoff for all countries is 10 when the high offense is chosen, yet the cost of choosing the high offense for your country is 12, leaving a net payoff of -2. Therefore, if one country chooses high offense whereas the other country chooses low, the country choosing low will gain 10 while the high offense country gets the -2. There is added benefit for both countries if both choose high offense of an additional 10, making the net benefit 8. Though this is the preferred option the payoff of 10 for a country that chooses low offense is higher and the sought after choice, leading to countries to play this strategy.

On the other hand, in a situation where payoff for a country is only 4 for high offense, and the cost remains 12, however the additional payoff for both countries to play high offense is 16, high offense will be the dominate strategy played by the countries. If both countries use high offensive strategies in fighting terrorism they will get a net gain of 8, where if one chooses low offense they only gain 4. This will push both countries to choose a high offensive strategy.

Overall no matter what the situation it is better for both countries to choose a high offensive for the mutually higher payoff. This way everyone gets better protection and no dispute arises between countries over their offensive strategy.

By using the conflict and game theory models we learned about in class, I was able to come up with the argument that no matter which model is used in analyzing the conflict, the same outcomes will be achieved based off of the preferences and levels of trust displayed by each party in the conflict. By using this idea we can look at different situations that arise throughout the show The Walking Dead and see that no matter which model we use they will still have the same outcome based on their preferences and varying levels of trust. This is explained further in my Walking Dead Argument Paper presented here.

The show The Walking Dead portrays the conflict between groups of individuals living together trying to survive through the zombie apocalypse in the modern time era. Due to their situation characters must make quick rash decisions based on varying levels of trust and association that establish their preferences. Throughout the series you can watch as preferences of different groups change due to different situations that arise between survivors and force adversity between groups. Along with the introduction of new characters and problems due to situation that come about due to different conflicts the group must come to a feasible solution in each situation. We watch their action and can analyze them using both the conflict and game theory models to determine outcomes of conflict. Due to the high risk of becoming a zombie due to infection from either a scratch or bite from a zombie, people are forced to make quick, rash decisions that could be the determining factor of life or death for them. Without the existence of the government anarchy takes over the state leaving the living to take any course of action necessary in order to survive or face the only consequence left in this brutal society, death.

Throughout the show everyone living faces some different form of conflict between them and someone else at some point, through a variety of different situations, in which they must think quickly and rationally in order to reach a solution. This becomes difficult due to different motives amongst the individuals involved in the conflicts and their possible payoffs. Every day of the zombie apocalypse brings about different hardships to be faced by those still living. Conflict may arise between an individual and another living in their own group, an individual in an outside group, or between them and the living dead. No matter who the conflict is with, a solution must be found between the two parties in the conflict. There are many different ways to try and figure out the outcome of this conflict, though no two situations are identical, we can try and predict a solution based on the conflict and game theory models.

Both the conflict model and game theory model take on different routes to try and determine how a situation will play out in a conflict, but both are highly effective when making a prediction on the outcome. The conflict model uses a graph to show the expected outcome after the conflict using a different curve for each party, and with an income restraint curve that limits payoff to the two groups. Depending upon how the curves of each party on the graph are laid out and where their equilibrium is in relation to the income restraint will determine if the two parties will stay at peace or push to war in the situation. Similarly by using a game theory model, which is a chart that shows payoffs for two opposing parties based on whether they choose between war and peace in game we can make a determination of how an individual will act in conflict. The expected outcomes in both war and peace will vary from case to case depending on a variety of factors that may influence the player’s decision. Trust is the key component in this model in determining if a situation will stay at peace or go straight to war. (Anderton & Carter, 2009)

Many of the situations that arise in The Walking Dead make it a prime example for the portrayal of both of these models. Because the charters in the show are faced with different preferences and conflict within themselves on a daily bases the outcome of any situation can be drastically different from another. By using the two models and the show as an example we can try to make predictions as to how the individuals in the show will act in certain situations. There are two main examples of conflict in the show, between the individuals living together in a prison, and also their conflict with an outside group ruled by a man known as the Governor.

First using the conflict model we can look at the group in the prison as a whole and determine they have convergent perceptions amongst themselves (Fig. 1, point A), since they seek to have peace in the group in order to be able to survive (Anderton & Carter, 2009, p. 68). The opportunity curve in this model would be represented by a variety of different factors in order to display the income effect between the two parties. This could range from food and supplies, to ammunition, to simply life itself, where any point met outside of the curve will result in death to the parties participating. The members of the prison know that if they do not work together they could face extreme outcomes that would hurt them as a whole, a point outside the income curve, and forcing them to build up a level of trust between each other that no matter what happens will force their interest to remains with the group and that they will have an adequate payoff to stay at peace in the group. So by displaying convergent preferences, the individuals in the prison group will have curves that stay below the income line and thus have adequate income levels to keep all parties involved happy.

The opposite side of this model would be if an individual in the prison decided to portray divergent perceptions in the conflict model (Fig. 1, Point B) (Anderton & Carter, 2009, p. 70). An example of this may be that one person in the group believes that they should kill off all the sick in order to avoid attracting a virus themselves, whereas the rest of the group is willing to care for the sick and to nurse them back to health in this situation. This happens during The Walking Dead in season 4 episode 3, as Carol, a member of the prison, believes it is the right thing to do by killing the severely sick individuals, whereas the rest of the individuals in the prison do not want to kill off their loved ones as they believe there is still a chance they can recover from their illness. Carol’s display of divergent preferences pushes her to conflict with the group and ultimately her dismissal from the prison. This is an ongoing struggle throughout the show between individuals, as the group must struggle to maintain peace and trust while facing a variety of forces that could push them to divergent preferences. It is a hard balance to try and maintain trust with others, while also trying to have power within the group.

Outside of the prison, the conflict model can also be used to show interactions with others, primarily the group controlled by the Governor (Darabont, 2014)(Season 3, episode 3). The prevalent threat of the other group forces both parties to display malevolent preferences (Fig. 2), in which the a group is willing to give up a large percentage of their income level in order to see the opposing party suffer a worse lose to their income (Anderton & Carter, 2009, p. 75). In The Walking Dead this has occurred during both season 3 episode 16, when the Governor and the town he is leading at the time try take down Rick and everyone in the prison, and again in season 4 episode 8 when the Governor again tries to destroy the prison along with everyone in it with a different group of individuals he has joined. Both Rick and the Governor must play malevolent preferences if they want their group to survive. Even though Rick believes that the two groups can live in peace he knows the governor believes the complete opposite, which forces him to lead the prison to take down the governor at all cost, even if it means a war where there is potential they will also lose men. This is a prime example of malevolent preferences, that even though Rick knows there is a risk to take heavy lose in battle against the Governor, it is a risk he is willing to take in order to bring him down and end his reign in the show, and make the party in the prison remain powerful over the outside group.

Similarly to using the Conflict Model to analyze The Walking Dead, one can also apply the Game Theory Model to figure out how two parties will react towards each other in a conflict situation, or game, that arises between them. The two possible outcomes of the game will either be peace, or war, same as the conflict model. However depending on the different payoffs and varying level of trust that exist between the two parties participating there is possibility for either outcome. Depending on what the payoff is in the game there will either be one or two Nash equilibriums, or points where the game ultimately will end at every time (Anderton & Carter, 2009). These equilibriums will either be at both war and peace (Fig. 3), or simply one of these outcomes (Fig. 4) depending of if one outcome has a payoff that is higher than all other choices available in the game.

In The Walking Dead the group in the prison has Nash Equilibrium at both the point of peace and war for the individuals in the game (Fig. 3). This all is reliant on the high level of trust between all of the individuals in the prison based on the fact they having been living together for so long and know they must rely on each other in order to survive. If they do not trust the others to be able to preform a task they will sprout conflict and dispute in the prison. Trust is the only basis the group has amongst themselves and is crucial between members of the group in order for them to be successful. Without this trust the system in place will fail and the members of the prison will be pushed to war among themselves. By displaying abilities that each individual has they are able to show how they can be a help to the group and, as a whole trust levels among individuals will grow. This high level of trust means that the payoff for both parties will always be higher for peace than it is for war since they want to keep trust at this level. This will lead them to always land on peace during the duration of the game (Anderton & Carter, 2009, p. 57). However Nash equilibrium still exist at war for this game in the prison. Though this outcome is not likely due to such high level of trust between the players, it is still a possible outcome. In order to get to this solution though one player of the game must play war in the first round, where the other individual plays peace, causing the first player to believe he or she has something to gain over the others by playing war (Anderton & Carter, 2009, p. 57).

This example can be seen through the same situation described earlier between Carol and the rest of the prison (season 4, episode 3). Her choice to kill off the sick individuals went against the decision of the rest of the prison, causing conflict amongst the entire group. By playing war during the first round Carol forced the opposing group to also play war in order to minimize there lose in the game. This is shown with some members of the group wanting Carol dead for the actions she took by killing the sick, and forcing Rick to shun her from the prison to live on her own. He believes this is the best solution to the conflict seeing that by her being gone, she will not be able to kill any more sick members of the group, and they are not forced to kill her themselves either. This solution will keep the prison at peace by eliminating the problem that brought about conflict.

On the other hand, a game played between the prison and the governor’s party will only have one Nash equilibrium, at a point where both sides choose war, this is an Example of the prisoner’s dilemma (Fig. 4) (Anderton & Carter, 2009, p. 63). The payoff for peace for either side in this game does not out pay war in any situation, pushing them to this equilibrium every time. Even though it is possible for the two sides to live together, there is the possibility for shortage of supplies such as food and ammunition, along with the more cramped living conditions, and the possibility of new disagreements among the group since they would not have the established trust that the individuals in the existing parties already have. All of these factors will force the group to make the payoff for peace extremely low. However, many of these same factors could be used in strengthening the war payoff, by having the availability of the losing sides resources the payoff for war will be exponentially higher than peace. Such a high payoff for war compared to the low for peace will make war the outcome every time. Having the downside of death in being the losing group, individuals from each side will take drastic measures in order to ensure the victory of their party.

Game Theory is one of the best models that can be used when analyzing The Walking Dead since it can be applied to almost every situation that arises during the show. Every conflict will have a different payoff to its players, and based on these payoffs we can determine the outcome of conflict. Based on different preferences and varying levels of trust among players there will either be one or two Nash equilibriums in a game. Most situations in the show display the properties of the prisoner’s dilemma though, (Anderton & Carter, 2009, p. 63) pushing them to war in every game with no chance of there being peace.

Even though these models are not absolutely perfect in trying to determine the outcomes of conflict, they are still strong models in helping us make an educated guess as to how the conflict will resolve. Also the two models can be used both to make a prediction of the result and after the conflict to analyze what happened between the two sides of conflict and determine future payoffs for individuals. These two models take extraordinarily different approaches to try and determine the outcome of a conflict between two parties, they both prove to be highly effective models to try and make a hypothesis for the outcome of a conflict. By looking at the different factors involved we are able to accurately predict how the people involved in the conflict will act during situations and what their solution to that conflict will be based on their actions and preferences. Though ultimately the deciding factor that will push both parties in the conflict will be the payoff that will be attained at the end of the conflict and the desire by both parties to reach the highest level of payoff possible.

 

Bibliography

 

Anderton, C. H., & Carter, J. R. (2009). Principles of Conflict Economics, A Primer for Social Scientist . New York, United States: Cambridge University Press.

Darabont, F. (2014). The Walking Dead. AMC.