Non-cooperative Game Playing Theory in the Context of Rules Designed by Criminals Behind the Scenes

Probably many people would be shocked to find out they are living a game made up by criminals.  The criminals are rich and can buy off almost anyone.  They set up life to pretend there is a way to win.  Be a hard working person contributing to society.  Sounds tough, but straight forward.  It is a lie designed by people who want to enslave you.

I have been in this stupid “game”, “experiment”, or whatever it is labeled for you.  Most people think it is just “middle class living”, “working poor living”, or maybe defined by your age.  If you are in your 20s, you are just starting out.  If you are in the middle age category, you might think it is just part of the generation you were born in.  If you are elderly, you think it is just hard because of your age.  None of that is true.  These people can set up any kind of definitions they want to, but the truth is that it is all rigged.  There’s no reason to really try.  When you inevitably fail, your blamed because of age, race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc.  That is what the rich jackasses behind the scenes are looking at.  They want good little sheep, who will march everyone single filed into a pit like the leader demands.  They want cult followers.  Being the person who takes chances and thinks differently, you might get some outward praise, but they are going to tear you down.

I’ve been watching old “Survivor” episodes.  At the end of one the host, Jeff Probst, says to look into “non-cooperative game playing theory”.  I looked it up.  Here’s a taste:


In game theory, a non-cooperative game is a game with competition between individual players, as opposed to cooperative games, and in which alliances can only operate if self-enforcing (e.g. through credible threats).

The key distinguishing feature is the absence of external authority to establish rules enforcing cooperative behavior. In the absence of external authority (such as contract law), players cannot group into coalitions and must compete independently.

Contents

AnalysisEdit

Non-cooperative games are generally analysed through the framework of non-cooperative game theory, which tries to predict players’ individual strategies and payoffs and to find Nash equilibria.[1][2] It is opposed to cooperative game theory, which focuses on predicting which groups of players (“coalitions”) will form, the joint actions that groups will take, and the resulting collective payoffs. Cooperative game theory does not analyze the strategic bargaining that occurs within each coalition and affects the distribution of the collective payoff between the members.

Non-cooperative game theory provides a low-level approach as it models all the procedural details of the game, whereas cooperative game theory only describes the structure, strategies and payoffs of coalitions. Non-cooperative game theory is in this sense more inclusive than cooperative game theory.

It is also more general, as cooperative games can be analyzed using the terms of non-cooperative game theory. Where arbitration is available to enforce an agreement, that agreement falls outside the scope of non-cooperative theory: but it may be possible to state sufficient assumptions to encompass all the possible strategies players may adopt, in relation to arbitration. This will bring the agreement within the scope of non-cooperative theory. Alternatively, it may be possible to describe the arbitrator as a party to the agreement and model the relevant processes and payoffs suitably.

Accordingly, it would be desirable to have all games expressed under a non-cooperative framework. But in many instances insufficient information is available to accurately model the formal procedures available to the players during the strategic bargaining process; or the resulting model would be of too high complexity to offer a practical tool in the real world. In such cases, cooperative game theory provides a simplified approach that allows analysis of the game at large without having to make any assumption about bargaining powers.

See alsoEdit

ReferencesEdit

 

Alright….  Just think about what you just skimmed over.  That was a Wikipedia entry.  It’s not even a good description of the game theory, but even the links at the very bottom of the entry looks like a perfect description of my work life.  “Tit for Tat”, “Trigger Strategy”, “Intra-household equilibrium”, “Grim Trigger”, and “Assured Destruction”.  You can put all that together and describe my entire work life from beginning to end.

Out there in our real lives and even in our private lives, people with money and power are playing games to see how they can get outcome to all be in their favor.  This means your public and private lives are just pieces on a game board for these criminals.  They murder, lie, cheat, steal, toxic gossip, and etc.  They constantly interfere with the “game” or as “Survivor” claims, a social experiment.  There is no one to hold accountable.  Have you noticed that?  As life progresses there is no one to take responsibility for anything?

When I was a kid they still had pictures of Pres. Truman sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office.  On the desk was a plaque that said, “The buck stops here.”  He took responsibility for everything.  We were taught to own up to anything we were responsible for, be it major or minor.  Now everyone gets trophies for just trying?  It’s just the opposite.  At work everyone just keeps shifting blame.  In socializing no one is responsible for anything.  If they shoot you, then the gun just went off.  It was just an accident.  Where used to a person would say that they shot you even though they didn’t mean to.  The community would still be understanding about it.  No one would blame an inanimate object.  That’s insane.

It’s weird to watch these “Survivor” episodes.  At the beginning everyone is responsible for everything.  By the end everything is just some kind of cosmic accident.  As long as you put for any kind of effort, then all is ok.

Both extremes drive me crazy, but I hate the latter the most.  When they destroyed me in Alaska, they would just say that it happened because I didn’t fit in there.  Well, they don’t let me fit in anywhere.  I am blacklisted and it “just happened because she doesn’t really fit”.  That is unthinkable to someone who was raised like I was.  Maybe rich people have always had that and are not forcing that cowardly way of mixing with other people on this planet, but that is not how I was raised.  I don’t even understand how not fitting is can be a reason to force me out of my job.  I have always believed if someone doesn’t fit that you should put forth extra effort to help them connect to everyone.

I believe everyone has something they are good at.  Maybe obvious like jocks, smart people, and even social people.  If you are strong, then you should help the weak.  If you are smart, then you should help people not as smart as you.  If you are social, then help the socially awkward.  In situations where I have found myself gifted at something that the people around me aren’t, I try to take up slack in that area.  At the same time I expect that person to be helping extra in areas they are good at.  That is a good working society in my mind.

Just forming a society around everyone just showing up and putting forth some effort??? I don’t know.  I can’t imagine it really.  It makes my mind freeze to even try to imagine that.  The ultimate taboo is “not fitting in”.  I cannot put that together in my mind and come up with a strong society.  I think the toxic scum tend to find each other and gravitate around finding ways to hurt others and to get the others, who they hate, to do all the work for them.  If someone doesn’t go along, that element just left to exist there in tact will get rid of the strong, intelligent, socially responsible, and the determined.  It can only turn out to be a bad, toxic society.

Anyway, I have been drugged.  They put something on my clothes to make them smell like pot, and it made me dizzy.  I had to wash a bunch of clothes.

And the IdIoTTwins are most like Shane on “Survivor Panama”.  They shout out crazy stuff, pick fights over nothing, and spazz out all the time for reasons no one seems to have a clue about.  When I was around them, I thought I was helping them fit in the society of the store I worked in.  It turns out they basically owned the place.  In a weird way, that makes sense.  It makes all the stupid, insane, asinine things that happened to me while I worked there make some kind of sense.

I am just a piece on the game board.  They just try to use me to make money.  I don’t fit in with them, so they act like I am crazy.  The only people who fit in with them are sitting in psyche wards in straight jackets.  They never cared what my dreams were.  They only asked to work extra hard to make sure I didn’t get anything I want…because I am not a spazzing, psyche ward candidate.  It’s insane, but exactly describes my life.

If anyone can break the curse of the IdIoTTwins, good-on-ya!  You deserves eternal honor and gratitude.

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close