I can see where you’re coming from on the whole matter of scale, yeah. It does broaden the subject’s surface area a lot, and there’s no way to really say you have a control group at that point. So, I think you’re right that the variables in a national coalition are possibly too blurry for a direct mapping. Maybe?

I guess I’d say that I can still see the mapping holding, but I suppose it’s just in an aspirational sense. The puzzle’s framing does hold pretty well for coalition negotiation w/ representation, and so it seems to me like that’s a big thing missing here and that’s a big point in your favor.

I think, given cohesive, known/defined members in a coalition, even if they’re rough models, you get some utility out of the dilemma.

But, I don’t think we have that kind of self-aware cohesion, do we?

I think in any case it kind of feels like, to me, your point is just illustrating how badly the folks in charge botched stuff. It’s exhausting, honestly. It’s always been very nebulous who we are and what we’re striving to do, but right now we don’t even have those rough models to understand our own coalition. No wonder we can’t get anything done.

It’s a varying application. It usually models opposing groups during diplomatic tensions, but it can also apply to groups within coalitions who face the same problem together but disagree how the coalition should proceed.

In the process of applying things, you have to consider the outcomes and think of the prisoners as “trapped” by the circumstances of the decision they face. Trapped here means that inaction triggers consequences, so it explicitly models inaction as a choice facing the circumstance.

Usually during negotiation that follows this kind of pattern, the prisoner’s dilemma is applied to figure out the best way to articulate the circumstances at hand and the choices everyone has. It’s a way to connect the cause and effect of everything to everyone in the negotiation, and to illustrate how their actions flow into those consequences, in a way that frames everything as less a “you vs me”, and more of an “us vs the problem”.

And that’s where the logic part comes into play: here it works as a mechanic to introduce cause and effect group logic to humans, and connect the notion of it all to their emotional needs. It helps demonstrate that negotiation and compromise are hard but valuable, logically and emotionally.

If you haven’t read it, “Getting to Yes” is fantastic. I highly recommend it, and although it doesn’t speak about the dilemma directly, the entire thing is about navigating compromise tactically in situations where everyone may be very correct, yet still have a hard time with each other.

The thing about the dilemma is that you need to realize that the prisoners are rational, feeling people. They have good reasons to do what they do, often enough. Often their goals are good ones, compassionate ones.

They aren’t trying to scheme or sabotage one another. But they wind up doing that, because the only success condition is mutual cooperation.

That didn’t happen for us, and the outcome is boolean, pass or fail. Any move except sticking to the coalition and acting to cooperate would have doomed the effort completely, and we didn’t do that. So, here we are.

The vote wasn’t between genocide and genocide lite. It was between genocide lite and genocide, plus additional genocides, some domestic, plus economic sabotage, plus the emergence of a new evangelical southern Baptist military regime.

I don’t think that narrowing the scope of the voting gap to just you is helpful, so I don’t want to use this as a moment to level scorn. I just want to be very clear that the premise you presented is wrong. Very wrong

Yes it is and it’s such a good example of logic that its archetype is now a formal part of game theory in the prisoner’s dilemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

This is most of it. And there’s obviously some sock puppet stuff too, but the Lemmy community is so small they probably never targeted it. But mostly it’s because getting coalitions to infight has always benefited the people who took power a few weeks ago. Now they have nothing more to gain by promoting it and everything to lose by making people think it’s still a problem. So…

lol yeah it’s only been two weeks

Yes, I am saying we get played when these things are going on all the time but it only gets reported on when politically expedient for the people who own most of the organizations doing the reporting. I am saying that.

Since I jabbed at you in the other post, I want to hop in and fully agree with you on this one. This is spot on.

“Haha the protests didn’t stop, the media just stopped reporting on them haha!” is the most violent unwitting agreement I’ve seen. You we got played.

It’s really just that there isn’t much point in desperately courting people who do nothing. Over and over again. With no real evidence of anything different ever happening.

If you can’t show up, that’s awful. If you don’t show up, that’s on you. If people notice you don’t show up and plan around you… that’s your fault. You weren’t there. You’ll probably never be. It becomes more sensible, eventually, to work with those who are.

Smugness is blaming them for accepting your intransigence. It’s not anyone else’s fault. It’s just you.

Well… no real loss then, huh?

Regardless, it’s a good idea. How many things worth doing should be thrown out because they’re hard to do?

Yes okay what will they do to us? More nothing? Oh well.

I suppose they also say “Froderick”

He made sure the strike succeeded, and ended the strike as well. It’s a pure optics fail, which does not contradict your point at all, but does make it more poignant.

As for the groceries: that’s a genuine failure of Biden’s administration. He kept going for student loans but he should have gone for the grocers raising egg and dairy prices - no Republican court in the world would have survived the fallout from blocking that.

Yes, it was extremely Trump’s win. His first legitimate full win. There’s no EC shenanigans. Simply a majority of the votes and in a majority of the states.

This seems to me like a signal that Democrats are formally cementing as a conservative / neoliberal party. Which makes sense. I guess maybe the upside is that maybe it will carve out room for an adjacent political body to the left as well, sort of like what happened with the tea party.

What actions does that involve? Which treaties would that break? Which other treaties can we then be ready for others to assume we’ll break? How will we respond to that in a way that prevents cascading trust collapse? Is there any way to guarantee to other allies that we won’t turn on them when expedient? How can we guarantee peace is even on the table if we’re suddenly regarded by the whole world as a betrayer? As even less reliable than we’ve already become?

One of the options is “unilaterally subject another country to our will”. I take it that’s what you want?