The Plague of Misidentification

Causality Part 9

In today’s TPOM, we're going to take a look at the evolutionarily stable strategy. Developing a deep understanding of this strategy is imperative to developing an understanding of reality. Dig in and hang on. This one is going to be interesting.

Evolutionarily Stable Strategy

The evolutionarily stable strategy or ESS finds its origin in game theory. Its design is such that when properly initiated, it is impenetrable to the opposition of competitors. Once initiated, it creates a form of Nash equilibrium that is considered to be evolutionarily stable. Upon instantiation into a population, this strategy will prevent alternate strategies from gaining a foothold via the process of natural selection. In order for the evolutionarily stable strategy to be successful, two criteria must be met:

• The one employing the strategy must be better than any other competitor that employs the same strategy or any other strategy. 

• In the case of an instantiation of a new strategy, that is equally as good, the entity employing the original strategy must do better than any entity employing both strategies. 

Its original design, in some sense, dealt with the following: The populace develops a high-level strategy with great efficacy and then institutes its usage across its majority. Once this is in place, it renders outliers incapable of gaining the advantage. This was in part due to the fact that the highest-level strategy was first selected. Next, the fact that the populace initiated the strategy over the whole further denies the outlier any sense of gaining grounding for penetration. We are thus sitting within a maximized environment in which the probabilistic advantage sits entirely on the side of the ones employing the ESS. 

An Example

Let's consider an example of the ESS at work and then take a look at the various ways things will play out over time. 

Consider a seal population. Seals eat fish, and they need a lot of fish per day to meet their caloric energy requirements to be happy and healthy seals. The strategy, in this case, is for the majority of the seals to hunt for fish, which is a no-brainer because otherwise, you go to seal heaven. Enter the mutant; the mutant is a common term given to the entity that opposes the evolutionarily stable practice that lends those wonderful probabilities to the survival of you and your seal friends. The mutant, in this case, decides to let the other seals do all of the hard work in catching the fish. Once caught, the mutant swoops in and takes the fish, or what they can get of the fish, away from the hunter seal. This strategy works for the mutant seal, so before long, he is joined by others adopting his strategy. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that as this progresses, there will be a catastrophe. Eventually, the equilibrium of the seal's environment shifts, and fewer and fewer seals are doing any active fishing while more and more of the mutant seals are waiting to swoop in and take the hunter seal's catch.

This would be a good time to pause and think about how this parallels human life. I wonder if the human species has a group that is a direct correlate to the mutant seal group? If so, they would need to be a group that swoops in and takes away our "catch." If so, they would need to be small enough and intelligent enough to make sure there is no shift in equilibrium such that the majority of the populace would notice them. Otherwise, they would risk the type of ultimate loss the mutant seals risked and then some. Humans, it seems, are especially vexed by those who poach their earnings in one form or another. Well, all things being equal, I guess this is an interesting thought, even if it is just some food for thought. 

Interestingly enough, in the seal example, as the equilibrium shifts away from the hunter seals in favor of the seals that poach the captured prey, we find that the ones that poach begin to go hungry and die, leaving the active, more robust hunter seals around to live and hunt another day. In this case, the mutant seals ultimately had a defective strategy, at least as far as the initial observations of game theory are concerned. The real issue is not that the strategy is ineffective, but that it became overused.

The ESS is undoubtedly the one where the seals hunted for their own food because that gives the seal its highest probability of success with the least factors getting in the way. If that is the case, then why belabor the other point? It is for no other reason than the apparent critical distinction that beings far more intelligent than seals have already made. For such a being, the position of the mutant, if carefully guarded or, say, had certain defensive gatekeeping capacities or strategies in place, then such an individual or group would be able to assure their continued success as they would go relatively undetected by the populace. In other words, their ESS would be to poach from others, but by means that go undetected, or if detected, the detections would be obfuscated in such a way as to guarantee that the ones doing the poaching are never considered, or identified in connection with the poaching at all or that the numbers of the ones detecting would be so minor as compared to the rest of the populace that there would by nature be little impact to the poachers. 

The Zombie Ant

Still, yet, there is another way this could happen, and that is via a control mechanism somewhat like that of the Ophiocordyceps unilateralis, also known as the zombie-ant fungus. Once it takes hold of the carpenter ant over the course of a week, this fungus moves through its body, effectively causing the death of the ant's neuronal tissue to seize control over the ant's muscles and to quite literally drive the ant against its will up a plant stalk approximately 25 centimeters above the ground and permanently use its powerful mandibles to latch itself to the central vein on the underside of a plants leaf. 

Why 25 centimeters? The fungus knows its optimal environment, desired humidity, and temperature. Once in a highly strategic position, (yep, wait for this one), the fungus finishes growing through the ant's body, ultimately forming a long stalk that slowly erupts from the top of the ant's head. The stalk culminates in a bulbous capsule that is an intended delivery system. The ant, situated on the underside of the leaf, is now latched permanently due to its will and the total control of its body having been taken over by the fungus. According to the latest research, the ant's brain is untouched and appears to be fully operational though it cannot control its body in any significant way. The ant has been completely hijacked; terrifyingly, it is a prisoner within its own body. Now, the seized ant is hanging around 25 centimeters above the highly trafficked trail used by its brother and sister ants, yep. Finally, the fungus releases its spores from the bulbous capsule, now falling upon other unsuspecting ants of the colony for this cycle of near-perfect predation to continue. For me, this is an excellent example of an evolutionarily stable strategy. It would appear that Ophiocordyceps unilateralis is highly proficient in game theory. I think von Neumann and Nash would have been quite impressed. I wonder, can you think of a correlate to the zombie ant fungus in human form?

I point this out, aside from it being an amazingly interesting fact, because this strategy is insanely effective and, therefore, qualifies it for consideration. The zombie ant fungus checks off both criteria set forward in the above explanation. It has been accomplishing its tasks and propagating itself forward in time for who knows how long at the cost of the ant population with a maximum level of unimpeded execution. This is one for the ages when it comes to a survival strategy. When it comes to thriving, it is also one for the ages. 

Let's now take our newfound understanding and apply it to the seal population to round out our discussion. We will find that the best strategy, evolutionarily speaking, is for there to be way more hunter seals than mutant seals. It is thought that this is the most likely of the options to obtain the Nash equilibrium state. Therefore, it is believed that this situation is the highest outcome that allows for the most stable environment and is thus the ESS. 

We are barely scratching the surface of what the evolutionarily stable strategy is and how it can play out in reality. Before long, we will go into the mathematical underpinnings and dig deeper into the types of models that go into its filtering process, which end up being critical. Much of what people discuss seems to be the static model. However, that model can cause some issues if applied poorly or in place of the dynamic model and vice versa. In the end, this mental model is only as good as its correct application and its ultimate agreement with reality. That said, it is a potent tool that can be used to significant effect in our quest to better discern the reality in which we live.

Analogies

Analogies are a phenomenal concept and one instrumental in learning. However, I would like to add that starting with first things and reasoning from core principles is far too often passed over for the use of analogy in our current society. That said, the ability to analogize at a high level is a hallmark trait of higher intelligence. This is why you see analogy-based testing being used by high IQs. Societies and colleges around the world. One famous test of the like is the MAT or Miller Analogies Test. 

First things: what is an analogy? An analogy is what one does when generating an analog of something. In other words, if you make an analogy, you are comparing and contrasting the correspondence between two things, or in the relationship between two things and their respective attributes; parallelism, equivalence, or an instance of this. Chiefly with between, to, with. It also regards the elements of comparison, i.e., the types of filters through which one compares, e.g., if one compares a car to a tricycle, one must look at the elements, components, or constituent parts of both in not only physical form, but also function, usage, and others up to the metaphysical parallels due to the sense of analogy being only bound by the limits of what one can perceive or create. 

The MAT uses the question form of: 

X : Y :: A : __ where the symbol ":" stands for "is to" and the symbol "::" stands for "as." Let's take a look at a typical question that you might find on the MAT. 

Bee : Hive :: Cattle : ________

a. swarm

b. pod

c. herd

d. flock

We are looking for correlations that follow a logical flow and must follow from the premises of our inferences as to what the core correlations are, thus proving our answer to be correct. Otherwise, we may miss the question. 

The first relationship is set up for us so that we can then understand via logical reasoning how to make the second relationship exactly as the first. 

Let's take this analogy apart and see if we can mirror it perfectly so that we can get the correct outcome. To be fair, this one is pretty simple, but I will do it long-form to help us better understand analogy and the process of analogizing well. 

What are bees? Bees are insects. They are flying insects. They have defenses of various types, and they involve stingers and venom. Okay, we know a little bit about bees now, so we should look at the hive to round out our "is to" statement. What is a hive? A hive is an artificial receptacle for the habitation of a swarm of bees; a storehouse of sweet things; a busy place; an abode. We can see that a hive attends, in its most general sense, being "a place," and regarding bees, it is "a place that bees artificially construct for themselves to live in." So far, so good: we are getting somewhere. Next, we need to look at our "as" statement. I will do this by mechanically adding the new data to the statement. It goes as follows: 

Bee (a flying insect that stings and is venomous) : Hive (an artificial place, abode, living quarters, or place in which bees live) as Cow : ________. 

Now, we need to build out the second analogy so that its structure is precisely like the first. 

What is a cow? A cow is a quadrupedal animal of the genus Bos that can be understood as the female of its kind or in a general sense of its kind as being either male or female, i.e., a domestic bovine of whatever age or sex; also, a mature female of various large animals such as an elephant, moose, or whale. Well, they are not making this easy for us, are they? This is the type of stuff that is very frustrating about analogy-based tests. Sometimes the more you know about something, the more trouble you can get into, and other times the more you know, the better off you will be regarding the questions. We will table test-taking methods for the current time and deal strictly with our unfolding analogy giving the test designer the benefit of the doubt and mitigating toward the more simple of the answers. 

Next, we need to piece this together further:

Bee (a flying insect that stings and is venomous) : Hive (an artificial place, abode, living quarters, or place in which bees live) :: Cow (A cow is a quadrupedal animal of the genus Bos that can be understood as the female of its kind or in a general sense of its kind as being either male or female, i.e., a domestic bovine of whatever age or sex; also, a mature female of various large animals such as an elephant, moose, or whale.) : ________. 

Now, we need to know something about our answers. Let's take a look at each of them as follows:

a. swarm - a swarm is something bees do as an activity. It is likely not our answer. The first two words deal with bees, and the third is an analog with a cow, so it will likely not be another bee-based thought. I think under most of these types of circumstances, we can rule this one out, though there is always an exception to the rule. 

b. pod - a pod is a number of animals clustered together. This is a good fit because it is a direct parallel to a hive. We now have this as our underlying form: 

Bee (creature) : Hive (living space for bees) :: (Cow (creature) : Pod (living space for cows.) This is a good fit, but we should not stop here by any means on an analogy test as the answer is usually stated as being the "best" analogy. 

c. herd - a herd is a group of cattle or other domestic animals of a single kind kept together for a specific purpose; a number of wild animals of one species that remain together as a group; a large number of people; a crowd. Okay, we can see that this does apply to cattle, so we have one point of connectivity. Now, ask: what is the correlation to the first "is to" statement? Bee : Hive. We can see that while cows are grouped into a herd, the term herd here would more closely correlate to a swarm, which is something bees do or a group of bees. We can now see that "herd" does not fulfill the direct flow of logical parallelism required to complete this analogy. In other words, where something dwells as a location space is not a direct correlate to a group of something. For this reason, I think we can safely move on to our next option. 

d. flock - a flock is a group of animals (such as birds or sheep) assembled or herded together. Once again, everything that applies to a herd will apply to a flock. Also, we do want to note that cows are rarely described as flocking or being members of a flock. This is something that is most commonly attributed to birds, though some animals are described in this fashion, such as sheep, as noted above. For these reasons, I think we can safely pass over this answer as well. 

It appears that the logic dictates the answer is a pod. I pulled this question from a MAT practice test, and I looked up the answer, and it was indeed a pod. Even the simple questions on the MAT can hide complexities. Many people would have undoubtedly fallen for the herd because at first glance, it is a "cow" related word, and that is the trick of it; we need to follow the form of the analogy set out by first things, i.e., the Bee : Hive statement in order to find the flow of the logic to ensure that we understood the analogy perfectly. 

Assignment

Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is as follows: go back and take a look at the components or constituent parts of the zombie ant fungus and create a point-for-point analog and project that analog into thought space, creating a point-for-point logic correlation sequence to the realm of human beings. Write it out, and then see if it describes anything in reality. 

This was a fun one. Thank you all for reading, and may you continue to grow all of your days. 

We will continue. 

B.S.R.