> With talk cheap, the only way to find a traitor is to study who is murdered and banished. One way of solving such a game is known as the “perfect Bayesian equilibrium”.
Great, more propaganda to push pseudoscientific neoclassical economics and neoliberalism policies.
What a load of horse shit. It’s a game. Nothing more. Nothing less. No economic lesson here.
Economist is nothing more than a neoclassical, “trickle down economics” propaganda machine.
I agree. In a short, finite game with limited number of observations -- observation and logic is of little help. Rationally, when presented with unfair/unwinnable rules, the logical thing is to "cheat" or break the rules.
I am interested in what ways players have tried to cheat the game. For example, if I am a faithful, I would mandate that will be no private conversations to minimize the ability of the traitors to communicate and plan. I would enforce a rule that everyone must stay within eyesight of everyone else as much as possible. When people sneak out to have conversations, I would use that as data on who the possible terrorists are.
> With talk cheap, the only way to find a traitor is to study who is murdered and banished. One way of solving such a game is known as the “perfect Bayesian equilibrium”.
Great, more propaganda to push pseudoscientific neoclassical economics and neoliberalism policies.
What a load of horse shit. It’s a game. Nothing more. Nothing less. No economic lesson here.
Economist is nothing more than a neoclassical, “trickle down economics” propaganda machine.