I think this is one of the hurdles human civilisation has to iterate over en masse and long-term. Game theory is distorted by a mixture of power dynamics and the abstract nature of "society" - i.e. determining risk v reward (professional, personal, financial, etc) comes down to the individual person or organisation, whereas "society" as a concept doesn't get a say in each transaction as it occurs, so a lot of discussion gets side-tracked there. Without a gestalt consciousness such instances of suboptimal outcomes will continue to occur, and since gestalt consciousness is technologically a remote prospect, present-day social hierarchies are at best a gross approximation of the ideal "average path" or "surfing on the bell curve of understanding", balancing individual freedom and satisfaction against fear of repercussion and ridicule with accuracy and efficiency (at a social scale).

I do think that modern technology can revamp antiquated systems of peer review and appeals to authority with more robust and deterministic / objective measures of quality - an evolving consensus repository of the sum of human knowledge where each pull request is a debate, each experiment a commit to a branch that may become a new foundation or a footnote. Yet we still see fit to define knowledge as property, ownership as power, power as success. Fear of the impression of weakness, or the threat of starvation and poverty seems to override all other priorities and for the most part, we toe the line.

It is what it is I guess.