I sometimes think of game theory as being roughly divided in three parts, like Gaul. There's competitive zero-sum game theory, there's cooperative game theory, and there are games where players compete but also have some shared interest. Except this third part isn't a middle ground. It's actually better thought of as ultra-competitive game theory. Zero-sum settings are relatively harmless: you minimax and that's it. It's the variable-sum games that make you nuke your neighbour.

Could you clarify that last bit for me? You seem to have a valid point but I don't think I can glean it from that wording. I can imagine plenty of scenarios in which competitive zero-sum game theory will suggest that I nuke my neighbour. The most obvious example being if I kill them all and take their stuff and I think I can get away with it. Common interests appear not to be necessary.

Another thing to consider: if you are correct, then to speak of one group of people as subjects and one as objects naturally gives the subjects higher status than those that are the objects. In the case of the typical PUA community talk, the male is the subject and the female the object.

This particular problem can be avoided by speaking of both as objects (as in the case of scientific study) and distancing one self from the subject matter.

I will just shortly pick up the pick up artist part of the article. I'm wondering whether there is any useful understanding about human cognition to understand - and whether that lesson is more gender neutral than people seem to believe.

I have a hypothesis that many of the things advocated by pick up artists work towards both sexes and that one of the primary issues is human as hierarchical and social animal and the allure of those above your perceived status.

Do we give different weights to opinion depending on the status of the one saying things? How much does this affect our rationality?