Today we’ll talk about how to achieve negative learning in wargames. Because who says more #wargaming is always good? [1/8] Negative learning is “the acquisition of erroneous conceptual and procedural knowledge and understanding from unwarranted information, which leads to faulty mental models and reasoning." A lot is needed to "unlearn such misconceptions or biases.” [2/8]
plato.uni-mainz.de/definition/

Check out Hedgemony. Marine Corps University has ordered three copies and will be #wargaming defense strategy in their professional military education (PME). The rule book, player guide, and abbreviations & glossary are also free as downloads. [1/6] rand.org/pubs/tools/TL3… Hedgemony gets to a strategic level while many other games stay at the operational level. This means many operational & tactical details are abstracted out, but the point is to be able to talk about deterrence and bigger picture issues. [2/6]

An important milestone towards using AI in the force: DARPA’s AI beats a human USAF pilot in a dogfight. There are caveats to be sure, but this is consistent with the unmanned future many have predicted. [1/9]
breakingdefense.com/2020/08/ai-sla… What questions does this already raise for deterrence and escalation? One is the potential deterrent value of simply having such tests and publicizing them. The “Hollywood effect” means many U.S. adversaries overestimate U.S. tech dominance. [2/9]

All right everyone, it seems we need to revisit the dangers of launching a large & complex computer modeling effort. Don’t do it without first understanding the phenomena and asking if a computer model is even appropriate for the phenomena. [1/8] During Iraq & Afghanistan, we built complex computer models on counterinsurgency. Common sequence of events: 1) quickly build prototype as proof of concept without actual experts, 2) use it in a wargame, 3) ask for more money, 4) assume you’ll add real social science later. [2/8]

War is an extension of politics. But let’s be honest: wargames can also be extension of politics. So today we’ll talk about how to deliberately mislead with wargames. [1/8] Let’s say you want to advance funding for a magical widget (MW). One way to mislead is to deliberately conflate the players learning how to play the game with the benefit from said MW. [2/8]

I’m running the working group at this year’s Connections Wargaming Conference on Enhancing Wargaming through AI/ML. (AI = artificial intelligence, ML = machine learning). Here are some thoughts about the topic. [1/9] Why this topic to begin with? DoD’s focus on introducing AI into operating forces & concepts + DoD’s renewed emphasis on #wargaming makes this a natural subject of interest. Currently there is very little ML in defense wargames. [2/9]

Wonder how they wargamed logistics in the old days? Here are the instructions for Monopologs, a 1957 logistics game that RAND ran for the Air Force. Report written by Jean Renshaw and Annette Heuston. [1/6]
rand.org/pubs/research_… Monopologs was developed by the RAND Logistics Department. The game system is a simple simulation of one depot and five bases. Players practice inventory management and gain insight into inventory control problems. [2/6]

Tired of pandemic baking? Looking for things to do while you pretend to pay attention in Zoom meetings? Here’s a reminder of #wargaming resources around the web. [1/6] Visit PAXSims, the de facto front page for the #wargaming community. It’s run by @RexBrynen at McGill University and has the latest and greatest. Today’s post discusses actual research showing that miniatures wargamers are not anti-social misfits. [2/6]
paxsims.wordpress.com

How do you know what workshop or gaming approach to use? It depends which problem solving stage you are at. [1/7]
asq.org/quality-resour… Stages to problem solving [2/7]:
1. Understand the problem
2. Identify potential solutions
3. Evaluate potential solutions
4. Implement chosen solutions

What I’ve been thinking about: Although adjudicated wargames are valuable for gaining insights into a topic, it takes a lot to execute one game. As a result, you can only examine a few scenarios at best. [1/7] Yet it would be useful to look at a much wider scenario space. Is there a way to reduce the fidelity of each wargame but cover many more scenarios? I believe the answer is yes. [2/7]

Here is a podcast of me on Fed Access, discussing our report: Deterrence in the Age of Thinking Machines. [1/4]
federalnewsnetwork.com/fed-access/202… We conducted a wargame to see how conflict between countries with AI and autonomous systems might play out. Chapter 5 describes the wargame. [2/4]

Thought of the day: We don’t actually have proof that #wargaming works. We BELIEVE it works, but that is not the same as having evidence-based research that it accomplishes what we believe it does. [1/7] As professional wargamers we believe that wargaming helps generate new ideas, challenges assumptions and biases, improves understanding of a problem, promotes learning, and leads to better plans. [2/7]

Some thoughts today on what it takes to become a professional wargamer. Professional wargamers are those involved in running games for decision making purposes in topics like ranging from defense to pandemics. [1/7] What background do you need to become one? Many current professional wargamers had their start in hobby #wargaming. Board games such as Harpoon have currency in defense wargaming. [2/7]
boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1143…

What are some good, practical how-to guides for professional defense wargamers? A good place to start is with the classic by Peter Perla, The Art of Wargaming. There is a reason this is used as a textbook in #wargaming classes. [1/7] Peter covers designing, developing, playing, and analyzing wargames. He also covers integrating them with operations analysis and exercises. There is a wealth of practical advice. [2/7]

I previously tweeted that I do not find game theory helpful for defense policy problems because it abstracts out too much organizational context. What then do I think is useful? [1/7] For complex problems where cause-and-effect is unclear, consider problem structing methods like general morphological analysis (GMA). Aka the “Zwicky morphological box,” US astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky developed it for non-quantitative modeling. [2/7]
swemorph.com/pdf/gma.pdf

Today someone asked me my thoughts on the utility of game theory for national security #wargaming. My thoughts are that there is none. Also, anyone who conflates the two is a danger to themself and others. [1/8] #Wargaming is valuable for policy making because it surfaces important real-world context and organizational difficulties. Game theory abstracts too much context away to help with actual policy problems. [2/8]

When everyone is stuck at home, how do you #wargame? One option for distributed games is matrix games, a narrative-based format invented by U.S. social worker Chris Engle. [1/6]
amazon.com/dp/B07FN2ZZZP/… In a matrix game, actors are played by players, who make arguments. On their turn, one player makes a credible argument why something will happen in the game. [2/6]

Newly published article by my colleague @RexBrynen at McGill University on how digital war is reinvigorating analog #wargaming. If you’re surprised by this, read his article. [1/7] Agree with Rex that analog #wargaming is “more flexible, creative, and responsive than their digital counterparts” even when addressing digital issues. I have found this true in my own wargames of future AI & autonomous systems. [2/7]

What could we borrow from the field of social cognition for a better social science understanding of #wargaming? Lots. It covers how we perceive others and the mental processes involved in how we think about and attend to others. [1/4]
verywellmind.com/social-cogniti… A social-cognitive view of #wargaming would help us more formally understand the attitudes, perceptions, and decision making that wargame players experience. [2/4]

It’s been quite interesting briefing this report. We’ve had very engaged audiences with many questions. We’ve had great questions on Twitter as well. [1/9]

https://twitter.com/RANDCorporation/status/1227425090192781313

Some of the Q&A.

Q: If a country set their systems on “full auto” to signal resolve, how would you be sure?
A: You wouldn’t be sure. It’s an attempt to signal but credibility probably depends. [2/9]

Trying to develop robots and AI for military use is not as new a concept as we may think. Check out this National Research Council report done for the U.S. Army in 1983. [1/8]
nap.edu/catalog/19457/… This 1983 report recommends the Army fund an automatic tank ammunition loader, a surveillance/sentry robot, and an intelligence maintenance and repair systems. [2/8]