A mathematical model that looked at the sudden collapse of empires or states was created, with an intent to look at why social disorder can appear from an apparently stable state (an example cited is the Arab Spring in 2011). Factions within a state make choices described by game-theory about whether to accept the political status quo, or to attempt to better their circumstances through costly rebellion.
We find that a small amount of dissatisfaction is typically harmless to the state, but can trigger sudden collapse when there is a sufficient buildup of political inequality. Contrary to intuition, a state is predicted to be least stable when its leadership is at the height of its political power and thus most able to exert its influence through external warfare, lavish expense or autocratic decree.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 14 2014, @05:50PM
Carried to its extreme, the leader is only safe when imprisoned in a cell in a bunker.
And once he's imprisoned he's a fixed high value target (whoops, sucks to be him) or his underlings can rebel by feeding him a stream of pure refined BS, at which point as long as the cognitive dissonance holds everyone not locked up in the bunker is free.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday May 14 2014, @07:29PM
That reminds me of a Far Side cartoon.
"Sorry, your highness, but you're really not the dictator of Ithuania, a small European republic. In fact, there is no Ithuania. The hordes of admirers, the military parades, this office - we faked it all as en experiment in human psychology. In fact, your highness, your real name is Edward Belcher, you're from Long Island, New York, and it's time to go home, Eddie."
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.