rirjdjkagsi

I think Ad Hominems are sometimes a trivial instance of this. The idea being that you have said this or that which apparently contradicts what you've just said and, basically, you wouldn't want to disagree with yourself, do you? (the Granfalloon). Which is infuriating on multiple levels. One is that the person sometimes shifts from asking a question (but then why did you say...?) to an accusation (but you've said...!), as if they knew your thoughts better than you. But the other is that, sometimes, I do actually change my mind and, as a matter of fact, I don't judge others for doing so.

The other instance would be those debates where the only bipartisan position is that that non-partisanship is not an option. As if people couldn't find both sides stupid and think if either side got their way, they would get us all killed, because they're idiots.

From the perspextive of evolutionary game theory, right? I don't remember exactly what was Schelling's approach, but "game theory", without qualifiers, usually refers to games between given rational players as opposed to say populations with predetermined strategies.