The second I started watching I was thinking "Darn, he's going to get them to solve multiple prisoner's dilemmas, isn't he?" and at the end I was actually getting out my lecture material from my international relations class to look up what sort of game theoretic concepts they were going through. And this game had everything, from preference falsification, reversion point movement and repeated game dynamics to absolute/relative wins, mutli-round negotiations and trust building. The team that designed this was truly genius. I applaud you, Tom Scott!,(reply>), @habu__u <br>Ah, ty for that timestamp. A civil discussion on the internet with direct evidence backing up statements.<br>What a world we live in. Wait, what?,(reply>), @kindlin yep no worries," I totally see how that can be interpreted. it's only at <a href=""https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJSI7QTAt_o&amp;t=1h01m47s"">1:01:47</a> that Tom does specify using the words majority and atleast.",(reply>), @habu__u <br>Thanks for that clarification. I guess I just took his statement too literally (I do this surprisingly often...):<br>"For the deal to go through, three out of the four of them must vote yes"<br>To me, that use of such strict language doesn't allow for 4 out of 4. There needs to be an <i>at least</i> or similar in there somewhere,(reply>), @kindlin the requirement was for the majority to vote yes. since there were 4 people voting that meant atleast 3 needed to agree. whether the fourth agreed or not doesn't matter. the 3 out of 4 is just the minimum for the deal to go through,(reply>), I agree with everything you said and love the video. But can anyone please explain how they won at the end there," when no one selected reject? I'm confused as didn't <i>one person</i> (and only ONE person <a href=""https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJSI7QTAt_o&amp;t=1h00m37s"">1:00:37</a> ) have to select REJECT for everyone to get the money? Everyone accepted the 1200$."