this culture of victimhood

#1. examinations and competitions in general serve mainly to separate the winners from the losers. this is be called 'screening'.
#2. pooling equilibria are not easily sustained, because winners always try to distinguish themselves from losers.
#3. everyone who fails examinations and competitions are, i) losers ii) challenged iii) wimps iv) weak, according to dixit and skeath.
#4. you should defect (from cooperation) so long as your future payoff < current payoff. think tvm and the discount factor
#5. rational or credible irrationality or the reputation for being irrational can or is actually better for you.
#6. tit for tat is the champion strategy. it is no good to be evil and follow the grim strategy, and its also no good to be charitable, cos fuckers would take advantage of you.
#7. kindness is always a signal of weakness. signals of weakness always invite invasion, because defenders get good payoffs from acting weak players like you.
#8. khrushchev was just a wimp. simple as that. a tough soviet would have brought about complete nuclear war. khrushchev backed down. khruschev's a wimp and kennedy's a winner.
#9. preparing for examinations is akin to an all pay auction, cos only 1 person hits the 100th percentile and everyone else just gets pussied. in such cases everyone should bid less, ie, study less. i dont know why this isnt the case, even for game theory.
#10. in finite games, just defect from the start. theres no relationship to talk about, according to rollback equilibrium.