3 ms·

If I know that you are currently stronger and would ultimately win a war, I should logically concede now since I will lose anyway. If I know that you are curre

If I know that you are currently stronger and would ultimately win a war, I should logically concede now since I will lose anyway. If I know that you are currently stronger but we both also know that I can draw out a war such that I eventually become stronger, then you shouldn't go to war since you will ultimately lose.

vkou 5y ago
> If I know that you are currently stronger and would ultimately win a war, I should logically concede now since I will lose anyway. You'll often lose less if you fight to a loss. In fact, you often won't have to fight at all if you make it clear to your adversary that you will fight to a loss. If I'm a street thug, I'm not going to try to mug someone who clearly communicates that their response to a mugging is detonating their suicide vest. I will, however, repeatedly victimize someone who clearly communicate that they are a pushover. This is an iterative game, against the same players. Loss aversion is not a winning strategy to pursue in the long-term. Something resembling tit-for-tat is.