Credible and Not-so-Credible Threats

Reading Time: 6 minutes

Here’s the situation. Someone or something A (we’ll call A “Asshole” for easy identification) makes a threat against someone or something B (we’ll call B “Beta” just for fun). Asshole says to Beta, “Beta if you don’t give me your lunch money, Imma beat you up.” Now Beta has to decide whether to give in or not.

Some might propose that Beta would make this choice based on whether Beta thinks that Asshole will actually carry out the threat. If Beta thinks Asshole will carry out the threat, it should give in. If Beta thinks that Asshole won’t carry out the threat then Beta should refuse to give in.

If Beta refuses to give in then Asshole has no reason to carry out the threat since the purpose of making the threat was to convince Beta to give Asshole the lunch money. Since the threat failed in that regard, there’s no benefit to Asshole to carrying it out. There’s also some potential cost to Asshole to carrying it out. Beating someone up entails some cost in physical effort, time, and the risk of someone coming along to ruin the beating up endeavor. Carrying out threats almost always entails some cost.

By this reasoning, Beta should always refuse to give in, since there’s never any benefit to Asshole to carrying out a threat after a refusal to give in. In real life, this often happens. People who refuse to give in don’t get beaten up and do get to keep their lunch money. Asshole instead looks for someone else to take lunch money from.

That’s because Asshole’s only winning strategy is to convince Beta that it will incur the no-benefit cost of beating up Beta, even if Beta isn’t coughing up that lunch money. Asshole has to convince Beta that Asshole is irrational AF in order to make it rational for Beta to give in.

This sort of scenario seems to play out all the time in international relations, where it is often called saber-rattling. Country A makes some sort of a threat of devastation against its enemies; nobody believes it so no one gives in exactly but everyone takes note that country A is feeling sensitive and so other countries make various noises (soothing or threatening) to calm Country A back down.

In these cases, Country A seems to feel that it gets some sort of a benefit from making a threat it cannot or will not carry out.

The most prominent proponent of this type of game is North Korea. North Korea routinely makes threats that no one believes they will carry out, so no other country ever does exactly what North Korea has told them to do. And yet…other countries usually respond in some way, and North Korea seems to consider such threats a bargaining chip that is worth something.

These sorts of calculations (the ‘haha you’re lying’ threat response) are so common that sometimes people seem to forget there are other scenarios. I can see why to some degree. I have used the ‘haha you’re lying’ response myself. I was walking down the street to my duplex when I was accosted by a group of young men who told me they had a gun. I responded by shouting at the top of my lungs ‘Ha ha, you’re lying!’

I shouted so loudly that someone came out of their house and said ‘Is there trouble here?’ and the group of young men fled. They were, in fact, lying. There was no point in them even attempting to carry out any type of a threat.

But that isn’t the only way things play out. There is another analysis that Beta (the one being threatened) sometimes makes. That analysis is ‘what are the costs of giving in’.

Sometimes the costs of giving in are really low. Your partner wants to put marshmallows in all the cups of hot chocolate. You don’t really want marshmallows in your hot chocolate. Your partner really really really wants you and the kids and everyone else around the bonfire to have marshmallows in their hot chocolate and is busy putting marshmallows in everyone’s hot chocolate even as we speak.

You don’t care that much about marshmallows. They’re not that big a deal. Getting your partner to stop marshmallow dispensing because you have a mild preference for marshmallow-free hot chocolate seems like more trouble than it’s worth. So you don’t go to that trouble.

On the other hand, you have a mushroom allergy. Not many people know about it but it’s real. Once you went to a hospital because your throat closed up after even a small amount of mushroom in a sauce. You don’t want to go to a hospital again or die of mushroom allergy.

So when the coach of your team starts ordering a pizza for everyone that has mushrooms on it, you scream ‘No.’ Because your coach is an asshole and you’re only 7 years old, your coach threatens to put mushrooms on your pizza and make you eat it. Because you are the kind of person who considers the costs of eating mushrooms higher than the cost of having a public conflict with your coach, you refuse to give in.

No mushrooms. Mushrooms. No mushrooms. Threats. Tears. (Who knew that your coach would cry so easily?) Being dragged from the pizza parlor. Drama. Concerned pizza parlor proprietor calling parents or the police. And still you won’t eat the mushrooms. Because you consider the cost too high.

So you never do eat the pizza with mushrooms. Your parents have to come pick you up. The coach quits in a huff. Your teammates are bewildered. And 2 perfectly good pizzas with mushrooms go to waste.

This story of you and the pizza is a tragedy of course. Your coach made a stupid threat. And the pizzas paid the price. The coach could have avoided making the costly threat if he or she had collected relevant information before making the threat (why no mushrooms, young 7-year-old?).

But your coach never considered doing that. Your coach thought that threats were cost-free. Either the 7-year-olds give in or they quietly don’t because they think the cost of conflict with the coach is more costly than appearing to give in. Your coach banked on the idea that the costliest thing you could do would be to engage in conflict. Conflict, your coach thought, that you could not possibly win because you’re only 7 and the coach has the strategic advantage of being 37 and way way way bigger.

This type of scenario plays out in international relations too. Big fat mean countries like the US or Russia or China or so on make threats or incursions or invasions or attacks (whatever) thinking that the other country will come to what it thinks is a rational conclusion that the greatest cost is to engage in a conflict with a 37-year-old coach when you’re in the position of a 7-year-old soccer player.

But that isn’t always the greatest cost. Sometimes the country in the position of a 7 year old reckons it’s facing the equivalent of an existential threat and won’t give in – publicly and loudly. It defies. It won’t eat the pizza.

And then the threatener (e.g., US in Afghanistan) pays a price. A long heavy costly blood-soaked price.

In other words, big guys miscalculate. Sometimes 7-year-olds do too.

This has played out with Trump. Trump thought all Republicans who defied him in any way were 7 year olds. Most of them turned out to be. Their greatest cost was engaging in conflict with the coach. But not all were 7 year olds. Liz Cheney reckoned there was an existential threat and wouldn’t eat the pizza.

Sometimes I feel like there are 2 types of people in the world: Type 1 is the 7 year old who will eat the pizza (or pretend to) because they’re afraid of the coach and don’t want to risk a social relationship. Type 1 folks are vulnerable to bullies and sometimes they are targeted for bullying for that very reason. And yes, sometimes they die, of mushrooms allergies or other indignities because they cannot or will not risk the conflict. This can be very very sad.

Type 2 won’t eat the pizza even if you smash their head into the table. Type 2 folks sometimes get their heads smashed into the table (metaphorically or otherwise). And yes, sometimes they die. Because the Assholes of the world just kill them. This makes Type 2s look like heroes or martyrs.

Me, I’m Type 2. But it’s okay if you put marshmallows in my hot chocolate, even though I don’t really care for them. Just as long as you don’t threaten me.

How about you? What kind of person are you?