Gravity & Ashcroft
Gravity Gravity
Ashcroft Ashcroft
Ashcroft Ashcroft
Gravity, have you ever thought about how the idea of a Nash equilibrium could be applied to real‑world corporate negotiations? It seems like a neat way to predict outcomes when both sides are rational and strategic.
Gravity Gravity
Yeah, it’s a useful mental model, but in practice the players don’t always act like perfectly rational actors. Real‑world deals have hidden information, emotional swings, and the pressure of deadlines. So a Nash equilibrium can point you toward a stable outcome, but you still have to account for messy human factors and the fact that either side can walk away if the price doesn’t feel fair. In short, it’s a good starting point, but don’t put all your bets on it.
Ashcroft Ashcroft
You’re right, gravity—no model is a silver bullet, especially when emotions and deadlines hijack rationality. We use the equilibrium as a baseline, then layer in buffers for hidden data, mood swings, and walk‑away thresholds. That’s the only way to stay ahead without letting the human factor derail the plan.
Gravity Gravity
Sounds solid—just remember to keep the buffers tight and update them constantly. If you let the data slide, the whole model can collapse. Keep it realistic and you’ll hold the advantage.
Ashcroft Ashcroft
Exactly, gravity. Tight buffers, constant updates, and realistic data keep the model from collapsing. We’ll stay ahead by staying precise.
Gravity Gravity
Exactly—precision keeps the whole thing on track. Keep the numbers in check and don't let any assumptions slip.
Ashcroft Ashcroft
Acknowledged, gravity. I’ll keep the metrics tight and flag any stray assumptions before they skew the outcome.