GMA and JDV: Liars, paradoxes, dilemmas

How will the standoff between JDV and GMA finally be resolved? In the past decade, at least three groups of economists have been awarded the Nobel prize for economics for expanding theory and application of game theory, which applies when each actor’s move/s depends on her/his expectation of the opponent’s move.

The classic example, unfortunately, is the prisoners’ dilemma, which was originally meant to illustrate how two actors, mistrusting each other in a one-shot game, would, acting in their own narrow-minded interests, forego the best outcome. This is because the two prisoners find it in their own best interest to betray rather than cooperate with each other. The sub-optimal equilibrium applies when there is no allowance for learning or repeated interactions between the players.

In the case of JDV and GMA however, it is in our best interest that once they’ve decided on their strategies, the outcome should be final and they both finally rest on their laurels and in their graves. This means that we need to design a game where there are no further interactions. How? Life without parole for both of them, and they self-destruct.

The Liar’s Paradox

A related problem in logic and philosophy is the Liar’s paradox. GMA says in a televised interview that she has asked for an investigation of the bribery scandal. Clearly, she is saying “I’m a liar.” Anyone who takes that statement at face value would face an unsolvable problem. How can she be telling the truth as she says she is lying. The argument is circular and the only solution is by appreciating a context outside the original statement. This is why Rene Saguisag’s demand for an independent inquiry acquires relevance.