This result doesn't seem all that impressive. In the end it's just an example of the advantage of being able to pre-commit to a strategy. The linear algebra par

This result doesn't seem all that impressive. In the end it's just an example of the advantage of being able to pre-commit to a strategy. The linear algebra parts are entirely unnecessary (although interesting). For example, suppose we're playing the iterated prisoner's dilemma. I pre-commit to a strategy: if you've defected in the last 5 games I will always defect, otherwise I will defect unless I haven't cooperated in the last 4 games. In this situation your optimal strategy is to always cooperate, even though I'm taking advantage of you. Punishing me won't change my strategy, I've pre-committed to it. The rational strategy, and the one evolution would eventually settle on, is to always cooperate with me. I think the main thing that bothers me is how the result is characterized as "theory of mind" beating evolution. As if evolution couldn't stumble on such simple strategies, and pre-commitment had no cost or associated risk of going extinct.