How someone that believes in game doctrine is beaten.

[RandomThoughts]

It is follows the same pattern, it goes like this.

Some pattern is established, like a rule set. Some thing that can guide a direction, and those 'rules' work out pretty well, and a few rewards within that delusion occur. But each of those wins within that delusion are to get a person to accept some set of rules by some reward.

So set some rules
Give some wins to establish rules.

Then use those rules to beat someone. And if they took a delusional rule set as the way things work, then they can accept something as a loss.

That happens many times.


So those that think it is a game, or highlander, they would teach you that set of rules, then when you accept them use them against you. The acceptance of the rule set is to frame a later loss, and nothing to do with rules.


How do you defeat that? Don't accept any rules that do not make sense, and match what you think and feel is better, even if they offer reward, since that can be trying to buy you off to accept a rule set that will be used against you.

If you are in a place where some rule set you believed in is being used against you, know that is not the rule set, it was only said to you that it was to get you were you are when in turmoil from that rule set being used against you.

Know that even if you made a mistake, that does not mean that is the rules, but might have happened to get you to think you are in a bad place from that mistake if you accepted that rule set.

Rule sets from delusions are primers to get you to later 'think' you are lost, and stop claiming that you are not 'lost' Even having many religions sets up the idea that everyone can at some time be told they picked the wrong one. That is the biggest effect of many religions.

[pitohui]

1. if you don't know what game theory is no use espousing your ignorance

i guess you think it's just words, unfortunately game theory is based on math and throwing "words" and "beliefs" and "thinks" at game theory is just a waste of time

why don't you tell one plus one to stop adding up to two and see how far you get

sheesh

education today -- at some point, we need to be honest w. people and if they're completely math illiterate and obviously have no idea what they're talking about, let's do them a favor and just tell them

would you want to walk around with bad breath all day and i'm too "polite" to tell you that you're making an embarrassment of yourself?

[RandomThoughts]

2. I was not talking about game theory.

I was talking about game doctrine.

There are people out there that think the world is a computer game, or to a lesser extent a game in that you try to win for some team, everything about wining or losing. It removes why you do something, like someone in a disingenuous argument that believes winning the argument is what matters, not what the argument is about.



I was not being ignorant, we have different things loaded in the macro for the meaning of 'game doctrine' I could have explained it more, and did not mean to give you a different thought of the meaning. I have posted on the comment in hundreds of posts.

The game theory you are talking about was described basically in the movie a beautiful mind, and basically says the world can be where two sides negotiate for a win for both, not zero sum gain where any loss for one side is a win for the other. It is the differnce of getting to the top helping everyone up, and getting to the top stepping on people.

It is a concept I post on many times, everyone moving up together, by helping the bottom, and infusions of better on the way, not by gaining by someone else loss. I agree with game theory, I do not agree with game doctrine, or tron/matrix doctrine, or game as in 'players in a game' is what life is.

Game theory is actually almost opposite of game doctrines like 'players'. You hear many talk about themselves as players.


I actually agree with Game Theory, and Nash was not crazy, although he did get kicked around for putting out that paper, since it helps people alot. Nash really saw those things, but learned to ignore the bad parts, and he really did have a group of people advising him, not voices in his head. He was sane.

His name set was from bad side.

If you don't believe me about Nash actually seeing things that exist, during the interview with Ron Howard something jumped at him from a comment Ron made, watch the interview where he is at a black board, you might be able to see it. (not Ron's fault of coarse)

[siligut]

3. I like what you say here.

I see there was some "discussion" on what to call your theory, so I am just by passing that. What is interesting is what you figured out in terms of behavioral conditioning. Though one has to be aware and very present to recognize it.