Thinking About the Crypto Unthinkable
Tim May
tcmay at got.net
Sun Aug 26 20:11:00 PDT 2001
On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 07:15 PM, Faustine wrote:
> Tim wrote:
> On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 02:46 PM, Faustine wrote:
>
>> ...But the ones I really admire are the mathematician-analysts, the
>> hard-
> science analysts: they tend not to hog the limelight like some of their
> more voluble counterparts, but their influence is still enormous.
>
>> I'd be interesting in hearing whom you think are good examples.
>
> Herman Kahn, Thomas Schelling, John Nash. You already mentioned von
> Neumann, he was the first to come to mind.
Yes, we talk about these guys here. I read "On Thermonuclear War" in the
60s (well, I skimmed most of the "escalation ladder" details). Schelling
points figure heavily into many of our analyses, and Nash equilbria are
just that... (BTW, there's at least one good book describing Nash's
swerve into insanity and his road back.)
This said, I wouldn't advise _anyone_ to study "policy" (or its earlier
incarnations, "Operations Research." "Systems Analysis," or the utterly
execrable "General Systems," a la Bertanlanffy).
Guys like Kahn and Schelling and Nash were mathematicians who happened
to be in on the founding of a hot field in the 50s: game theory. Von
Neumann and Morgenstern actually founded it, but the heyday was when
RAND, Hudson, etc. were doing studies of nuclear war, disarmament, games
of chicken, and so on. This has all been pretty much explored now, and
these think tanks are pale imitations of their former selves. Certainly
they contribute very little to "policy" of the sort of interest to us.
(There may be applications...as we have talked about for many years. See
the archives, searching on "game theory." However, this will come from
someone versed in various kinds of game theory approaches who turns his
gaze to crypto games. Likely to come from a mathematically-inclined
person, unlikely to come from a sociology/poli sci/policy grad student.)
If there are Herman Kahns out there, thinking about the crypto
unthinkable, they are probably us. Not to put too fine a point on it.
> Given that most all the people on your list and mine are precisely what
> the
> author was driving at, I think the "Super Analyst" approach is certainly
> worth aspiring to. And as far as I've been able to tell, policy analysis
> PhD programs offer the most flexible way to pursue a multidisciplinary,
> scientific approach while striking a good balance between the
> theoretical
> and the practical.
Well, good luck. I disagree. I can't see someone coming out of a Ph.D.
program in "super analysis" being magically endowed with the skills to
influence policy.
An obvious point that perhaps needs to be emphasized: all of those
scientist-policy wonks we have discussed were first and foremost
brilliant scientists. Their discoveries gave them cachet, not a major in
"general analysis." Do the math, so to speak.
--Tim May
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list