Psychology and Diplomacy:

Using Integrative Complexity to Predict Stabs

Brahm O. Dorst

A while ago I compiled the Improve The Way You Play Diplomacy Web page. This page included a Dip Tip section of short, one sentence tidbits of advice. I began with a bunch of my own tips, and gradually added tips from others as they were submitted, until a substantial list of tips was formed. When I lost Internet access early this year, the page was taken over by Thad Black, and the Dip Tips section was lost. The page has since been integrated into The Pouch.

One of the Dip Tips said something to the effect of: "Complex logic is a sign of good will." (I believe this was one of my own tips, but if I'm mistaken, for heaven's sake, whoever submitted it should contact me and I'll give you your due credit.)

I've always felt somewhat insecure about giving advice. For each solo victory, I've suffered three eliminations, but most games end in a draw. By no means am I a Diplomacy master, and have no real right to be a guru. Nevertheless, I wanted to voice my opinions. The Dip Tip list granted me safety in numbers. I figured that however bad my advice is, if enough people submitted, someone was bound to give a tip that was worse than mine.

Earlier this year I discovered War, Peace, and Integrative Complexity. I was redeemed. Here was a study published in a reputable journal, supporting at least one of my dips tips scientifically. After reading the whole article, I was thrilled to discover how much of it was directly applicable to Diplomacy.

The first important thing about the study, is that it is not merely attempting to explain things after the fact, but rather it introduces a hypothesis which may be used to predict a conflict before it happens. This is of obvious relevance to Diplomacy players. "Speeches from war years used in the study were all made in the months previous to the outbreak of major hostilities. Thus, complexity scores of these speeches are predictive of imminent war rather than being responses to concurrent conflict." (pg. 434)

Secondly, it is important to make a distinction between conceptual complexity, and integrative complexity. Conceptual complexity is a personality variable, whereas integrative complexity concerns "aspects of information processing, which may change as the situation changes." (pg. 431) What this means for Diplomacy players, is that it is the change in complexity which indicates a possible future aggression. Low complexity by itself, is not a valid predictor, because different players have different levels of conceptual complexity. This is an important distinction pointing out the flaw in my dip tip, because it considers only the level of complexity, not the change. Someone who always communicates at a moderately low level of complexity, may be less dangerous than someone who drops from a high level of complexity, to a moderate level of complexity. It is the change of complexity that is important, so you may find it useful to save old messages for later analysis and comparison.

By now you are probably wondering, "What the hell is 'integrative complexity'?" Seudfeld can probably explain it best. "The current study was based on the scoring of archival materials for integrative complexity. This variable is derived from the conceptual complexity dimension of personality...Information processing at the lower end of the scale tends to be rigid, all-or-nothing, routinized, and based upon only a small segment of the total information available. At the high end, information-processing is flexible, combinatorial, probabilistic, and information-orientated. The level of conceptual complexity of a particular individual is a function of three components..."

"The first of these is discrimination, a term that refers to the individual's ability to identify difference among stimuli along a particular dimension. For example, the ability to distinguish between black and white would be a much lower level of discrimination than the ability to identify a large variety of shades of gray between the anchor points..."
"The second component, differentiation, is defined as the ability to perceive multidimensionality in a stimulus array. On the perceptual level, for example, an individual who can group stimuli on the basis of hue, saturation, and brightness is differentiating at a higher level than an individual who uses only hue as the basis for categorization..."
"The third aspect, integration, refers to the way in which the differentiated aspects of the information array can be used in decision-making. Highly complex integration involve a relatively large number of interconnected schemata, which can be used in various combinations, modified or abandoned if that seems to be desirable, and which are subject to change as new information is sought and obtained. Thus, an artist may integrate the three dimensions of color perception quite flexibly, emphasizing different combinations of the three main continua to achieve the desired effect, and possibly combining them with other dimensions such as shape or size. In contrast, a designer of traffic signs whose important goal is salience might always strive for a combination that maximizes contrast with the background, thus using three dimensions in a relatively stereotyped way."

The graph below was photocopied from the article, and touched up with some color, in order to improve clarity. Red dots indicate the integrative complexity of United Arab Republic (combined data from Egypt and Syria), while black solid lines indicate the complexity of speeches made by Israeli representatives. Data was obtained by analysing various speeches made in the UN General Assembly and Security Council. Dates of major conflict are emphasized in Blue.

1948 - "The combined Arab attack on the newly established State of Israel."
1956 - "The Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of the Suez Canal zone."
1967 - "The Six-Day War."
1973 - "The October War."

The change in complexity is quite noticeable, in the months prior to war. In every case, the outbreak of war was preceded by a marked drop in levels of integrative complexity. One notable exception occurred in 1956, involving a surprise attack by Israel and allies against unexpecting Arabs. "The strike against the Suez Canal zone was not preceded by the usual levels of mutual preparation for war, no decrease occurred in speeches made by delegates of the Arab countries. This would imply that a unilateral sharp decrease may presage the initiation of hostilities by that country." (pg. 438)

Interestingly, one will note from the graph, at the time the article was written, Arab and Israeli speeches were declining in complexity. With the advantage of hindsight, this provides an interesting test-case for the theory. "The low level of complexity characteristic of Israeli and Arab speeches during 1976 may indicate the escalation of the Lebanese civil war or may be a predictor of a major outbreak of hostilities in the near future." (pg. 427) Personally, I'm convinced, but judge for yourself:

"...In the summer of 1975 all-out civil war broke out between the Muslim coalition allied with Palestinian groups and the Christian-dominated militias. In April 1976, an uneasy cease-fire was forced upon the two sides when Syrian military forces intervened at the request of the Lebanese president, Suleiman Franjieh and with the approval of the Arab League of States. Nevertheless, sporadic violence continued, and in 1978 Israel invaded southern Lebanon in an attempt to eliminate Palestinian bases." - Arab Net

As I say, I'm convinced. The complexity peak in 1974, followed by a drop in complexity, most likely predicted the 1975 civil war since Israel, in the interest of crushing Palestinian terrorism, provided support to the Christian Lebanese. This was only the first step in an escalation of conflict, that would continue to escalate while complexity declined, eventually culminating in the 1978 invasion of Lebanon.

While this method successfully predicted an escalation in hostility, a more sophisticated analysis would be needed to predict the nature of this escalation. It seems that integrative complexity is an accurate indicator of an imminent conflict, but used alone, may be unable to precisely locate the countries in which the impending battle will take place. Keep this in mind while playing Diplomacy. Decreasing complexity is an indicator of increased hostility, but for greatest precision this technique should be combined with other techniques, and your own intuition.

Conclusions

Changes in the integrative complexity of other players indicates an imminent escalation in hostilities.
Efforts should be made, "to maintain a high level of differentiation and integration even during periods of crisis." (pg. 440)
"Be aware that in such periods the officials of other countries may in fact be processing information at a lower level of integrative complexity than normal- a possibility that could affect the strategy of those countries." (pg. 440)
In a related study, "the integrative complexity of the communications of major decision-makers [was found to be] significantly lower during crises that eventually culminate in war than during crises that are resolved peacefully." (pg. 431) Therefore, if you seek peace, try to increase the level of complexity of discussion. Ultimatum type yes/no, black/white discussions are less complex, and are therefore more likely to culminate in war.

Reference

Seudfeld, TetLock & Ramirez; "War, Peace, and Integrative Complexity", Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 21 No. 3, September 1977, Sage Publications, (p. 427-442)

Brahm Dorst
([email protected])

If you wish to e-mail feedback on this article to the author, feel free to use the "Dear DP..." mail interface.