Class Simulation 10/12

In class we did a simulation where we split into six countries and formed alliances/gained power similar to a real war. It appeared that most of the countries began by making as many resources as possible. Then groups 2, 5, and 6 decided to go to war against 4. Whether or not the reason behind it was because of economic power or Matt's hurt feelings, the end result would have been a defeat of group 4 because it seemed apparent that group 3 had no intentions of backing their alliance with group 4. In the debriefing today, many members of group 4 expressed discontent with the way the simulation went down. They openly criticized other groups for their intentions and went on about how world peace was the obvious choice all along. Tino made the argument that "actions speak louder than words," when referring to peace. However, group 4 only seemed to make these efforts for peace after they realized that they were the target of the attacks. This idea seems to demonstrate a little bit of hindsight bias, because had the situations been reversed, I don't think that they would have any problems with being on the offensive side.