Game of Chicken / Hawk-Dove in Game Theory

This video explains the classic game theory game of Chicken (Hawk-Dove Game) and lists the criteria that makes a strategic game this type.

[@82sadegh]

Thanks. You are the best

[@crisdavis21]

Amazing content Ashley 🙌

[@K4moo]

thank you! this video helps a lot :)

[@cocoarecords]

Thx

[@ogregolabo]

Thanks

[@pasta8793]

I have one question regarding the semantics of the initial parameters of the game of chicken. I only ask because I believe it would help me apply it to real-world scenarios. So for the game of chicken, wouldn't the top left box for Stay-Stay, be -1 and -1? Because although they may both be disabled from the outcome, they willingly chose to participate in the game as a battle of who is stronger. If neither of them relent, then neither of them are "chickens" to an outsider. Although it's not advised for someone to approach this game and desire that outcome, in the context and rules of the game in a vacuum, they aren't really "losing." They only lose outside of the parameters of the game because they may be injured, disabled, or dead. For the bottom right box for Swerve-Swerve, couldn't one argue that the outcome would be -1 and -1 as well? Since again, within the parameters of the "purpose" of the game, they both are chickens, which is the negative outcome of the game. What I'm failing to grasp and figure out how I could apply this, is how within the confines of the game, the outcome of one situation (top left) is somehow worse than actually just losing the game, when the decision each made implies that they both won, for the purposes of the game. I obviously understand why dying is worse than being called a chicken. But within the confines of the game, neither of them are chickens, they both just died lol. They'd both still have the "honor" of not having swerved. It made more sense once you changed the analogy to Hawk Dove though, but just wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts.

[@kakasahebpople2561]

Where are you form teacher