Assuming that sums of (both win + you betrayed) and (both lose + you betraying) are equal, i.e no choice is obvious better than the other. We will play the game using probability. Assuming both players have never play this game before, then the only empirical data they have is their own choice. So if a player choosing a choice, it implys an increasement in the chance of other player choosing that same choice. Let c1, c2 respectively be player1, player 2 choose playing cooperate; and d1, d2 be player 1, player 2 choose playing defect. Let player 1 be you. We have:
This new insight imply that the choice of playing defect is worse, and playing cooperate is better than their initial assumtions. This conclusion always hold,as long as both players share at least one smilarity that influence their choice. Game theory educates playing defect as rational choice, which is wrong, and also a crime against humanity.
The jews have played game theorists like absolute fools!
This new insight imply that the choice of playing defect is worse, and playing cooperate is better than their initial assumtions. This conclusion always hold,as long as both players share at least one smilarity that influence their choice. Game theory educates playing defect as rational choice, which is wrong, and also a crime against humanity.
The jews have played game theorists like absolute fools!
