Thinking outside the box

After an analysis of my last post, I realized there is at least one major flaw. It is actually brilliantly illustrative to have been a flaw so here it is....

''Michael Kinsley, Washington Post Op Ed Columnist and former student of Schelling's, summarizes the professor's Reorientation of Game Theory as follows:

"You're standing at the edge of a cliff, chained by the ankle to someone else. You'll be released, and one of you will get a large prize, as soon as the other gives in. How do you persuade the other guy to give in, when the only method at your disposal -- threatening to push him off the cliff -- would doom you both?"''

And he even goes on to provide an answer in violation of the original assumptions.

''"Answer: You start dancing, closer and closer to the edge. That way, you don't have to convince him that you would do something totally irrational: plunge him and yourself off the cliff. You just have to convince him that you are prepared to take a higher risk than he is of accidentally falling off the cliff. If you can do that, you win."''

The original assumptions assert the only method at your disposal is to threaten to push him off the cliff when in fact the method actually employed is one of showmanship with an implicit reliance on the "him" of being a "pussy" :)) There is reliance on being more brave than the other when showing your seemingly foolish display of dancing ever closer to the edge. What if instead of being afraid of this bizarre act, the other decided to take a leap into the unknown bound to your fate? Your little dance would seem pretty silly on the way down.