"Beyond the entertainment value: How did the Dread Pirate Roberts win in such a climate?"

Wheels within wheels thinking like this is what makes 5GW appear to be conspiracy theory. As an example of 5GW thinking this qualifies because Roberts has manipulated the game so that his opponent is only able to act in one of two ways, both of which Roberts has control of and have outcomes that he desires.

I am trying to avoid further Obama sucks, no mcain sucks posting and comments.

As far a Hamas and/or North Korea doing 5GW, I don't know. If we except that 5GW is new-ish and therefore assumed to risky (e.g. Will it really work), I think it would be more likely that underdogs like North Korea and Hamas would experiment and use it. I think they would try it on small things at first and build up slowly while trying lots of variations.

Those on the weaker side (not the US side) have strong incentives to try new/different approaches to conflict.

Arherring,

I agree, and this ties in with your consideration of 5GW chess.

I had been thinking that Roberts had spent years making himself immune to the poison. In the days that have passed since posting this, I've also been seeing his opponent and generally 4GW in mindset; Roberts uses his opponent's normative assessment -- he's a genius surpassing Plato, Aristotle, Socrates -- against him. Roberts won when his opponent:

1. Agreed to the challenge, assured of superior intellectual advantage

2. Through arrogance, let Roberts choose the game and provide/apply the poison.

In a way, the poison is a kind of 2GW/3GW force capability, which Roberts' opponent Vizzini is certain he can move around thanks to his superior intelligence (as he has many times when confronting superior strength and maneuverability.) Additionally, the Sicilian not only switches the cups around, he waits to see how Roberts will "move" before drinking his own cup. So essentially the 4GW force decides his own move on the basis not only of his arrogance and dichotomous normative framework but also on the basis of an assumption of Roberts' character/intelligence (re: the Sicilian's voiced argumentation) and on Roberts' own moves -- to his detriment.

Purpleslog,

Generally agree. But wasn't Prince Humperdinck the one to attempt 5GW? He had Vizzini kidnap the princess in order to blame his opponents in Guilder and have a reason for going to war. The Prince in this story has all the military might and power of a nation behind him, but he uses these lesser players (particularly the unjustifiably arrogant Vizzini) to do his dirty work.

I had been thinking that Roberts had spent years making himself immune to the poison.

This can be a good example of resilience based 5GW campaign or, even better, a preparation of the battlefield.

Thinking more about it I am reminded of my 'Left of Boom' post.

5GW embodies an overwhelming focus on positional manipulation and shaping of the battlefield so that when kinetic action or the threat of kinetic action occurs the outcome is essentially predetermined. The opponent is, as a result, without resistance because the response is by the target’s own choice or follows a previously established pattern that is familiar to the target.

Roberts' effort to increase resilience in his 'system' before any particular threat became apparent can be seen as a preparation of the battlefield way to the left of the 'Boom' much as a 5GW organization will strengthen certain system/rule-sets so that when events occur the targets act in a favorable manner and the 5GW organization is able to reach its goals.

Arherring,

Yep, your Boom post also ties in.

Here's what's interesting: If we think of Vizzini as 4GWish, we see how in his waiting for Roberts to drink...if we think of the poison as a weapon or tool of Boom, then the 4GW force is made reactive and would be on the right of Boom. This is something I was exploring in my response to your post, in "X vs X".

I suppose then that Vizzini's arrogance leads him to believe that he is positional/proactive: His intelligence positions him to the Left, he would say. But Roberts, in coming to the battle far more prepared, is actually to his left.

Going back to the original question of the post I suppose all you can do in a 5GW environment is to continually increase the resilience of your preferred/essential systems, continually evaluate the quality of your information and understand the process behind your decisions and actions (study your automaticity).

In the end though you are always going to have to make a decision and take an action, just make as sure as possible (without analysis paralysis) that your response is in your own best interests.

Hrm, it seems zero-sum but does that mean that a 5GW campaign may in part be invisible because the effort to discover it really doesn't benefit those being manipulated because second and third (ect.) guessing is counter-productive, so they won't even try?

Letting Roberts unilaterally choose the game was the losing moment for Vizzini.

Funny how you concentrate on the DPRK and Hamas. Doesn't the U.S. government regularly deceive people about its intentions? I can see a case where the powerful have an incentive to do so, while the weak can not afford it.

If the weak have aims, and they don't express them, it will be hard for them to find allies to achieve them. They will, instead, find allies in their false aims. The Leviathan (and I don't argue that America is that, not at all), on the other hand, has no need of allies, and therefore can say anything it wants.

This is, of course, all relevant to the international community. The costs of deceiving one's own populace ("terrorists are an existential threat! sky is falling!") are different.

I don't like it when America meddles in other country's elections.

Prince Humperdinck as 5GWer? I can see that. I like the whimsy in an idea of explaining XGW through the Princess Bride.