Prisoner's Dilemma

A few years back, I came across a funny article on IR that compares the discipline to romantic relationships. Many disciplines actually teach a lot about relationships, mainly economics and politics, and better the combination of both: political economy.

I just finished reading Stephanie Lawson's 2015 "Theories of International Relations", something which I should have read and digested prior to taking up Asian Studies. Yes, I was able to survive two grueling years in the program where I almost expired on the last semester because I took 12 units, 6 units of core courses, and 6 units of Arabic. It was a suicidal move but then it now gives me inspiration and reminds me that a strong woman will always be a strong woman. The book is very well written, offering all the major theories while explaining briefly the many strands together with their proponents. One strength of the book is that it offers historical episodes which are analyzed from relevant theories' POV and thus offering readers a welcome into the complexities of IR and that there are no simply black and white, but a long stretch of different shades of gray. Lawson is also able to fit in major Western philosophical traditions into political science and IR but sadly lacks more examples of non-Western IR thought except perhaps brief descriptions of Occidentalism, Afrocentrism and negritude, and Asian Values. As always one can easily say that the book is very Western although the author is very much conscious of it and even explains that whether we like it or not, such is the prevailing IR theories at the moment since non-Westerners may just mirror these Western IR theories while passing them off as non-Western. I encounter the same observation in my other book which focuses on Asian philosophical traditions' influence on IR theory-building. I was able to read only a few chapters because it was a difficult read with so many concepts and -isms that this girl has very little idea of. Or maybe, the struggle is due to us scholars being indoctrinated with Western thought that we now bear little affinity with our Asian roots, a predicament that I seek to rectify by immersing myself in largely Asian cultural products nowadays to somehow get into and better understand Asia's zeitgeists.

So anyway, about Prisoner's Dilemma. It is a classic example in game theory which I first encountered while an Archaeology student. I remember wanting to cry back then because I felt like I should have chosen economics for my undergraduate instead. I just found this idea very simple and very rooted in human behavior. So basically in connection to the realist tradition in IR, states are said to be locked in the same dilemma when they see their neighboring state getting stronger. So they need to prepare also in case something happens. Clearly this speaks of lack of communication and trust, two important foundations for a peaceful relationship.

Sounds familiar? In romantic relationships, one can never stress trust and communication too much. The thing with lovers' quarrel (LQ) is that one party sees something which for him/her is a threat to the relationship. Of course, this may just be due to false assumptions. So when this doubting party does not open up and communicate, it will behave is a rather weird manner which will trigger something in the other party. In the end the two parties will both be fighting over something that may just be a misunderstanding in the first place and the fight could have been prevented if the two are open and are confident enough to communicate their thoughts and feelings. But pride gets in the way. Same as in the prisoner's dilemma wherein a party is afraid of being taken advantage of, demonstrating a lack of trust for the other, thus will potentially choose to benefit himself/ herself.

Looking back, in my relationship with A, it has always been me who was the giver. Well, he did treat me to a number of restaurants, but that doesn't count much as I can certainly pay for myself. I always communicated my misgivings, always letting him see how his actions affect me and our relationship with the hope and trust that if he truly values our relationship, he will do something about it. In the end, I was surprised to learn that he kept a lot to himself until he couldn't take it. That shows that although he tells me he trusts me, he has been lying all along and that he was just leading me on. He misses the point of TRUST which is trusting that your partner is mature to be able to talk serious and awkward things with you. His lousy excuse was that he was afraid I will be angry. Of course people will be angry, people have emotions after all. But it is in talking things out that anger can also dissipate. By not opening up, problems will arise and trust will erode. And so in my eyes, he just played me, because at the start, trust and open communications were what I specifically asked for which he did not have the guts to give to me. 

Q at least is more honest, though I think still not 100%. I still feel that he has a lot of insecurities and still hasn't told me his complete story yet, although he says that he is not an insecure person. One thing I appreciate is him telling me that he will never lie to me, which I have learned, should be taken with a grain of salt. I think I have done quite a lot to get people to open up and meeting halfway is always a rule I abide by. It can get tiring to always be the one who understands. No wonder strong, deep people usually commit suicide, because people around them always think it's okay to take strong people for granted. And when this happens always, even the strongest of persons will fall into a state of depression that this world is not suited for him/ her.