I get that game theory might be mathematically interesting, but the entire Chicago school RAND funded emphasis is suspect to me. I get the sense that they are making a descriptive-normative shift assuming that because game theory models adversarial decision making, that all decision making should be made according to game theory. This strikes me as measurability bias for one, but worse, intentionally minimalizing or ignoring the possibility for cooperation. I remember doing a bunch of decision trees for a course on game theory, and it felt so stupid following them down to equilibrium points that were sub-optimal. Get the two or however many parties there are in a room, show them the superior/optimal point, and let them work together. Jesus, how hard is it to coordinate instead of compete? But noooooooo, that's not realistic apparently, and it's rude of me to keep bringing it up.

So anyway, now I'm a communist.