Why did John kill Edgar in “Hijack?”
Table of Contents
In the suspense-filled season finale of "Hijack," one particularly jaw-dropping moment was the death of the enigmatic Edgar Janssen. To those familiar with the series, Edgar's scheming was the embodiment of pure greed, a deep dive into the abyss of moral decay. But was there more to the story? Why did John, his erstwhile associate, turn against him? Can the rationale behind their decisions be explained in a way that bridges the chasm of fiction and reality?
To understand this, let's pivot from the world of scripted drama and suspense to the realm of economics and game theory. Game theory, fundamentally, is the study of how people make decisions when the outcome depends on the choices of others. By analyzing the climactic scene using game theory, we might unlock a new understanding of these characters' motivations.
The Prisoner's Dilemma: A Quick Refresher
One of the most renowned concepts in game theory is the "Prisoner's Dilemma." Imagine two prisoners, A and B, separated and unable to communicate. Each prisoner is given the option to betray the other or remain silent. There are three possible outcomes:
If A and B both betray each other, they both serve 2 years in prison.
If A betrays B but B remains silent, A is set free, while B serves 3 years (and vice versa).
If A and B both remain silent, they both serve only 1 year.
From a purely selfish perspective, it's always in each prisoner's best interest to betray, even though both would be better off if they cooperated and stayed silent.
Edgar and John: A High-Flying Dilemma
Returning to "Hijack," we can set up a similar framework for Edgar and John. As we know, their plan was a "bear raid" – leaking the hijacking to the media to crash Kingdom Airlines shares and profit off the plummeting stock. The more catastrophic the outcome of the hijack, the more they stood to gain.
However, a problem emerged when it came to dividing the spoils of their nefarious scheme. Let's break down their situation:
If Edgar and John both stick to their agreement, they share the profits equally.
If Edgar double-crosses John and takes the majority of the profit, Edgar becomes substantially richer, while John's gains diminish (and vice versa).
If they both double-cross each other, the plan unravels, and neither gets any profit.
For Edgar, the allure of bigger gains tempted him to delay responding to Amanda's desperate texts. Each passing second saw the stock plummet further, increasing his prospective fortune. To him, holding out was the equivalent of betraying John in the Prisoner's Dilemma.
John, realizing that Edgar's insatiable greed jeopardized not only their agreed-upon split but the entire operation, decided that the optimal strategy was to eliminate Edgar. By shooting and killing him, John was attempting to regain control of the operation and secure his share of the profit, similar to how a prisoner might betray to secure a more favorable outcome.
Lessons from the Sky
Beyond the pulse-pounding tension and emotional rollercoaster "Hijack" took us on, it presented a timeless tale of ambition, betrayal, and the often unpredictable nature of human behavior. By viewing Edgar and John's dynamic through the lens of game theory, it becomes clear that even in the direst of situations, individuals often act based on rational self-interest, even if those actions lead to mutually assured destruction.
It serves as a reminder that, be it in the world of finance, international relations, or high-stakes hijackings in television dramas, understanding the decisions of others can often be a game in itself - with winners, losers, and sometimes, tragic consequences.
