What Game Theory Has Revealed To Me About Group (Gang) Stalking with Electronic Torture
This post has been edited for grammar and sources listed 11/15/2021; 10:02 AM EST
(1) It’s possible to have multiple players constitute one player (Brams, 2012, Burger and Blackmun, pg. 130) when opponent choices are aligned with high probability statistics revealing similar outcome choices, they can form one common player. This is because when players always vote similarly to one another, game play becomes axiomatic. This also helps explain the presence of veiled players in a game that are unbeknownst to an opponent player like in games of espionage and stalking games. In particular, stalking games that utilize proxy accomplices. This is the academic information rooted in game theory that is required to support the existence of a conspiracy theory.
(2) There is something called Deterrent Threat Outcomes (DTO) in game theory. DTOs are defined as the threat of force required to discourage an opponent from taking an unwelcomed action or move. This can be achieved through deterrence by punishment. In my case, electronic torture or ET. Or it can be achieved through deterrence by denial which is the amount of force required to prevent your opponent from achieving his/her goals in “the game" (Brams, 2012, pp. 159–183). As such, electronic torture achieves both aims of punishment and denial and thus, when utilized in a game, can be considered a DTO (guaranteed best possible outcome for a dominant strategy in the game). I specifically gleaned this information from Brams' analysis of Frustration Games in literary plays. When you think of electronic torture think of service theft deterrent systems installed in today’s modern automobiles. Except with electronic torture, they are installed in human bodies. Thus, they are a DTO that guarantees a dominant player’s best possible outcome by utilizing this particular dominant strategy in “the game.”
(3) Although emotions are often considered not to be the product of rational calculations, Brams made a formal analysis showing how emotions enable a person to move to an inferior state, if only temporarily, in order to effect a better final state, thereby allowing them to render a rational expression of judgement. The key analysis here is “emotional state" which equals “inferior state”. Emotional manipulations by unconscionable people (psychopaths) aware of the inferior state and inferior power of emotions allow such person’s to create for themselves what is known in game theory as “threat power" or “dominant threat power", see also “compellent threat" and “deterrent threat" (Brams, 2012, p. 155, states his analysis on emotions focus on the role of how they play out on an individual level). This information in game theory aligns itself with the phenomenon’s common narrative as to the perceived goal for utilizing electronic torture in game theory which is “to move targeted people into therapy or to move them toward a classification of “disabled/mentally ill” with the goal of acquiring cash grant benefits and government subsidies (Sheridan, 2020).” In game theory, the term “comply” (C) or “defy" (D) are used respectively.
If one considers the historical purpose behind acts of torture it has always been used as a dominant strategy by authorities (people with political power) to turn people’s free will, test loyalty, to induce long lasting psychological damage, or to kill (Murphy, 2012; Brams, 1980, pp.78–89, see Games of Protracted Conflict). In regard to “The Lesser Tradition of Specialized Torture” the outcome leaves no physical evidence. That is no physical scars or markings, but rather it can create long-term psychological damage in victims suffering its ill effects.
Furthermore, since humans are often passionate (and passion requires emotions) in their personal pursuits, it seems one of the goals to the phenomenon of electronic torture is to undermine achievements made by the target opponent and/or to undermine more common place goals of the target opponent such as well-being, safety, mental health, and general health.
(4) There are distinct “structural features” in the analysis of “Frustration Games” labeled “conflict games" which psychological theories say little. In these games, a player’s lack of control provide the “advantaged player” with dominant strategy that inflicts the two worse outcomes on the “frustrated player.” The game’s title gives its definition away. It is defined as follows, “a player’s frustration arises from being prevented from accomplishing a purpose or fulfilling desire. In a two-person game of frustration, the frustrated player is aggregated by a “freely acting agent" who blocks the frustrated player’s preferred choices (Brams, 2012, pg.156). A slang term for this is also called “cock blocking". This theory in game analysis also provide logical, reasonable, and rational proof that another player’s calculations, in the theory of moves (TOMs), could quite possibly be the result for another player’s electronic torture (suffering) and not the result of that player’s “mentally ill imagination.” Recently, the use of electronic torture has come under scrutiny by concerned individuals who have placed their disabled children (autistic) in residential education facilities (see the following articles: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/22/its-illegal-to-torture-prisoners-and-animals-but-not-disabled-people/ AND https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2019/06/5-tools-of-torture-which-need-to-be-banned/).
(5) Theory of Moves (TOM): In most real-life games, they do not start with simultaneous strategy choices but instead “commence at outcomes”, which represents the status quo. The question then becomes by departing from an outcome, “can a player do better” not just in an immediate or myopic sense but, rather, in an extended or nonmyopic sense in game outcomes and payoff matrix. This becomes crucial in understanding the abuses at work toward “inferior players” who lack “advantage" in frustration games (games of conflict) and the strategy of the dominant player which is “to move the frustrated/inferior player into therapy or toward a state of “disability” so that the frustrated player can receive cash grant benefits and state sponsored hand outs” (Sheridan, 2020) and/or, quite literally, move them completely out of their established place of residence. In other words, if the frustrated player refuses to depart from an outcome, they are electronically tortured into a state where the choice to apply for benefits (Comply) becomes that frustrated player’s “best possible outcome” in “the game.”
(6) In TOM, play starts at an outcome called the “initial state". The players then take turns at game play and can switch strategy at anytime, thereby changing the “initial state" into a “new state" (Brams, 2012, pg. 58). For targeted individuals suffering electronic torture, the question becomes, “What caused the “initial state" of game play?” and “Will a change from the “initial state” of game play to a “new state" of game play (ie: new strategy) stop the electronic torture?” In addition, proving not to complete a “move” and “comply" with the initiates request to “play the game" continues and perpetuates the “initial state” of torture. It is for this reason many targeted individuals make radical choices in their TOM choosing to change their place of residence, change jobs, leave family behind, and even enter themselves for treatment in hospitals to try and relieve their suffering. Thus, game play becomes a series of moves and counter moves (TOMs). In my opinion, people suffering the effects of electronic torture are still positioned in the “initial state” of their game play and have not made a move consistent with a “better outcome” (or the dominant player’s wishes) which will be represented in the games payoff matrix as (D) for “defy". This suggests the dominant player, as well as the game’s creator, possess expectations that support the probability a “rational calculation" by the inferior/frustrated player would be to choose compliance or (C) as their best possible outcome (Brams, 1980, pp. 21–24, see Temptation Games). Whatever that expectation may be; divorce spouse, sell home, quit job, leave mistress, quit drinking, quit drug use, abandon family, etc, the “expectation” can be just about anything depending on the facts associated with each individual case.
The importance of studying game theory for the purpose of psychoanalysis becomes clearly evident. In particular for couples therapy, because married or joined couples can often become stuck in a rut of protracted games of conflict were the games are zero sum in a 2 x 2 grouping of ordinal game of comfy in generic frustration games. Brams has stated there are 78 distinct 2 x 2 ordinal games, 21 of which have a mutually best outcome for both sides that are unlikely to create frustration for either player. The remaining 57 games Brams calls “games of conflict” (Brams, 2012, pp. 157, see Plays: Modeling Frustration and Anger).
Brams, Steven J. (1980). Biblical Games: a strategic analysis of stories in the Old Testament. Cambridge, Massachusetts. MIT Press.
Brams, Steven J. (2012). Game Theory and the Humanities: Bridging Two Worlds. Cambridge Massachusetts. MIT Press.
Murphy, Cullen. (2012). God’s Jury: The Inquisition and the making of the modern world. Boston, Massachusetts. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Sheridan, Lorraine; James, David V.; and Roth, Jayden. (March 12, 2020) The Phenomenon of Group Stalking (’Gang Stalking’): A Content Analysis of Subjective Experience. International Journal of Environmental Research Public Health. 17(7), 2506
Brown, Lydia. (July 22, 2014). It’s illegal to torture prisoners and animals, but not disabled people. The Washington Post in PostEverything/Perspective. Retrieved online November 14, 2021. Link cited in article.
5 Tools of Torture Which Need To Be Banned. (June 26, 2019). Amnesty International in Press Release. Retrieved online November 14, 2021. Link cited in article.