In the classic game of chicken you have two players. In case of two tribes, you have many players, some of them with more complex preferences, such as: “I would prefer to live in peace, but if the war is inevitable then I would prefer my tribe to win”, etc.
Saying that it’s “just a classic game of chicken” is also a claim about which solutions are reachable (tribe 1 wins, or tribe 2 wins) and which are not (the peaceful members of both tribes may together find a system to keep their belligerent comrades under control).
Is reachability just a synonym for “this is complicated” then? Or is there some simple underlying dynamic that you are trying to describe other than the obvious defect/cooperate outcome matrix? “Both sides swerve” is also a potential outcome in a game of chicken.
I understood “reachability” as “according to how the problem is framed, this is a possible solution”. Either because other possible solutions are not even mentioned, or because the speaker insists that they are not possible.
Like, when I give you a false dilemma, I have described a situation which has two reachable outcomes.
The first example doesn’t seem like a game of chicken to me, since neither Alexi nor Beth can make a change themselves. It may be that they have “inherited” the debate from their political factions’ respective allies, who are actually playing a game of chicken. But Alexi and Beth are doing the classic political topic “talking past one another” and part of this seems to be that they’re treating different sets of actions as reachable, and only assigning should-ness to reachable actions.
It seems weird to frame arguments that “my opponents should change first” as being about reachability and not just a classic game of chicken.
In the classic game of chicken you have two players. In case of two tribes, you have many players, some of them with more complex preferences, such as: “I would prefer to live in peace, but if the war is inevitable then I would prefer my tribe to win”, etc.
Saying that it’s “just a classic game of chicken” is also a claim about which solutions are reachable (tribe 1 wins, or tribe 2 wins) and which are not (the peaceful members of both tribes may together find a system to keep their belligerent comrades under control).
Is reachability just a synonym for “this is complicated” then? Or is there some simple underlying dynamic that you are trying to describe other than the obvious defect/cooperate outcome matrix? “Both sides swerve” is also a potential outcome in a game of chicken.
I understood “reachability” as “according to how the problem is framed, this is a possible solution”. Either because other possible solutions are not even mentioned, or because the speaker insists that they are not possible.
Like, when I give you a false dilemma, I have described a situation which has two reachable outcomes.
The first example doesn’t seem like a game of chicken to me, since neither Alexi nor Beth can make a change themselves. It may be that they have “inherited” the debate from their political factions’ respective allies, who are actually playing a game of chicken. But Alexi and Beth are doing the classic political topic “talking past one another” and part of this seems to be that they’re treating different sets of actions as reachable, and only assigning should-ness to reachable actions.
If neither Alex nor Beth can make a change, then it’s not a game at all.