Consider the game among a couple and their male marriage counselor. The problem for the marriage counselor is to prove that he is unbiased. It is common-knowledge at the outset that the wife worries that a male marriage counselor is biased and will always blame the wife.
Indeed if 10 weeks in a row they come in for counseling and talk about the week’s petty argument (how to stack dishes in the dishwasher, whether it matters that the towels are not folded corner-to-corner, etc.) he everytime sides with the husband, eventually the wife will want to find a new counselor.
So what happens after 9 weeks of deciding for the husband? Now all parties know that the counselor is on his last leg. He must start siding with the wife in order to keep his job, even if the husband is actually in the right (i.e. even if throwing out the 3-day old soggy quesadilla in the refrigerator was the right thing to do.) But that means that he’s now biased in favor of the wife and so the husband will fire him.
We have just concluded that if he decides for the husband 9 times in a row he will be fired. So what happens on week 9 in the rare event that he has decided for the husband 8 times in a row. Same thing, he is strategically biased in favor of the wife and he will be fired.
By induction he is biased even on week 1.
(NB: my marriage is beautiful (no counseling) and there is nobody who can fold a towel faster than me.)
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 2, 2010 at 12:45 am
Agent Continuum
This assumes that what counselors do is to “side” with one or the other. That’s bad counseling.
June 2, 2010 at 3:07 am
Ryan
It seems that by the same logic, the husband will fire him on week one, i.e. not hire him. Yet in the real world, couples also use male counselors.
Can you show (perhaps using constructive logic) that there is a certain amount of bias that would allow the counselor to be hired (and keep his job)?
June 2, 2010 at 7:26 am
michael webster
Doesn’t this have the same logic as the surprise examination paradox?
June 2, 2010 at 7:36 am
John
This isn’t right.
His decision-making can be fuzzier and less time-determinate than this!
June 2, 2010 at 9:13 am
Bill Petti
Why are we assuming a finite game? This is only true if we know how many rounds the game will last at the outset. The way around this is to make it an iterated game with no predetermined end point from a time perspective, no?
June 2, 2010 at 11:24 am
kerimcan
bad reputation!
June 2, 2010 at 11:58 am
Brad L
Nice. This post has a very similar flavor to Stephen Morris’s paper on political correctness, which happens to be one of my favorite papers of all time.
June 2, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Dr. Harris Meyer
Are you suggesting this is commonplace?
August 15, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Discovery Counseling
I agree with Agent, it is not the role of the counselor to take sides and judge whose story is right. Would it not be better if the counselor used these day to day activities to help the couple work out a communication patterns and conflict resolution means to solve the problems?
The counselor needs to stay out of the role of being the judge.