4 ms·
I'm not sure you are following my point though, whether its blowing up a bridge or building a wall, if you look at the payout to the party that is blocking it i
by nautilus12 6y ago
I'm not sure you are following my point though, whether its blowing up a bridge or building a wall, if you look at the payout to the party that is blocking it is higher than blowing up the island. If you then use modal logic to analyze the opposite parties perspective of whether or not that party would actually go through with it then their threat seems much more believable.
- pdonis 6y ago> if you look at the payout to the party that is blocking it is higher than blowing up the island Ah, yes, you're right. I was only looking at the payoff for the other party. You're correct that for the party that is making the threat, they're much better off after blowing up the bridge or building a wall than they are after blowing up their own island, so the former is a much more credible threat. I think the "modal logic" thing confused me because I don't really see how modal logic in particular is involved here; but game theory certainly is, yes.