Doves, Hawks, and Transparency

The latest tragedy in my neighborhood proves that, sometimes, transparency is more dangerous to doves than are hawks. A dove flew hard into our across-the-street neighbor’s too-clean plate-glass window. The stunned—most likely fatally stunned—dove fell to the patio unable to fly while a hawk—possibly the same one that recently killed a live rabbit in my front yard—circled above. The neighbor, who had just returned from the hospital with a knee replacement, was destined to spend a sleepless night awaiting further developments on her patio.

I brought the dove to my garage and left it with bird seed and water with the door closed to hawks. Most likely, I will be the one lying awake tonight contemplating the interaction between doves and hawks and the complicating factor of too much transparency.

 

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Beverly Lewis says:

    Sure hope the dove makes it. Thanks for being a good neighbor. I knew all along you were a good guy. I guess too much transparency isn’t good especially if you are a dove.

  2. Nichole says:

    I wonder if Obamacare is like a large clear glass door, just waiting for everyone to run into a great idea. Only to be on the ground for four more years, waiting for a good neighbor to save the economy.

  3. Kyle says:

    Hmm.. so is the Fed a Dove or a Hawk?

  4. Robert says:

    This made me smile.

    Now I am sitting and contemplating the underlying meaning.

  5. August says:

    This is a chilling image. I see that transparency could suppress candid arguments but why would there be different impacts on differing side?

  6. Bob McTeer says:

    To August:
    Perhaps there aren’t different impacts on differing sides in monetary policy debates, unlike nature. However, if you read many blogs and blog comments, I think you’ll agree that the hawks are much more agressive, waiting to pounce. Unfortunately, the doves may be more vulnerable to gliding innocently into harm’s way. I don’t really know. Just food for thought. By the way, the dove didn’t make it through the night, but I burried it deep enough, I think, to keep the hawks from him.
    Bob

  7. Alex says:

    So less transparency can be better?

    I’m not sure I follow, Bob.

  8. August says:

    Thank you Bob, that makes sense. And it’s good you took the time to care for the dove.

  9. Paul Snickerson says:

    I think that this is an especially good principle for foreign affairs and national defense. The “hawk” could be critics (NYT) that are ready to undermine/jeprodize a specific military operation they disagree with, while the primary operator (soldier/operative)is the dove, hung out to dry in the name of transparency.

  10. Paula says:

    The classical hawk–dove game describes this process of conflicts between two predators. In the hawk case, the predator is always aggressive. When two
    hawks fight, they can get wounded. When two hawks meet, they share the gain on the average but also the cost due to injuries. When a hawk meets a dove, it always obtains the gain, while the dove retreats and gets nothing. Calculate for each tactic, the difference between the gain of each of them and the average gain of the population. It is assumed that the proportion of players of this strategy are going to increase if a tactic brings a better payoff than the average payoff of the population, the proportion of individuals playing this strategy is increasing and conversely. The hawk–dove game is fast in
    comparison to other processes.
    In absence of predators, the prey population grows depending on a logistic equation with an intrinsic growth rate towards a carrying capacity. The predator growth is assumed to be slow in comparison to the game dynamics. Few preys are captured each day but predators fight frequently to keep them or dispute them to other predators. Predator extinction occurs when all predators are hawk while there is
    coexistence when predators are mixed hawk and dove. Polymorphism is related to coexistence.
    Aggressive predators invade when prey densities are high. We could also view it in relation with group size. Hence, in low prey densities, group size of predators should be high and composed mainly with co-operative individuals (dove strategies), whereas in high prey densities individuals and aggressive predators (hawk strategy) should be favoured. Predator extinction occurs when all predators are hawk. I sure wish we had more doves to bad yours didn’t make it.
    I have seen lots of blogs where vile comments take over. The worst I have come accross was http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/chris-stevens-us-libya-ambassador-killed-142949456.html. A little bit of knowledge can inflame the masses. The transparency does not quite hit the mark, many of these hawks are to busy fighting over the guts and forgot to look at the meat.

  11. Bob McTeer says:

    To Paula:
    Thanks for that.
    Bob

    To Alex:
    In this case less transparency (a dirty window) would have been helpful to the Dove. You may not have seen my anti-transparency poem as applies to monetary policy:

    “Transparency is certainly a central banker cause,
    But it reminds me too much of sausages and laws,
    I think translucence, like my shower door, is a good compromise,
    It lets in the light, but keeps out the flies.”
    Bob