3 ms·
It's both because it's good policy. I "want" insofar as I would expect any government to maximize our position via basic game theory. It's inevitable because th
by Supermancho 6y ago
It's both because it's good policy. I "want" insofar as I would expect any government to maximize our position via basic game theory. It's inevitable because those who maximize their position are going to be the dominant player over time.
- jbay808 6y ago(I posted a similar comment elsewhere but it's short, and relevant here too). That's not what game theory says. Defecting against everyone you meet is a losing strategy in an iterated multi-actor prisoner's dilemma. Tit-for-tat does much better. Establishing and maintaining mutual trust, to cooperate with those who are willing to cooperate with you, is in a nation's interests.
- Supermancho 6y ago> Defecting against everyone you meet is a losing strategy You are changing the topic, subtly and importantly. Maintaining an operative network to support an information network and flexible operations (either to help or hinder a nation-state) is THE winning strategy. > Tit-for-tat does much better. That is incorrect, in context.