Please expand on the following dot points in relation to "Can we always overcome the Prisoner's Dilemma?"

• First mover advantage (response based on the initial actions of the other)
• Nash Equilibrium - concept in game theory that refers to a situation in a game where no player can benefit by changing strategies while the other players keep their strategies unchanged. Essentially, it's a state where every player's strategy is optimal given the strategies of all other players.
• Players may trust each other for some prior reason, willing to take risks, care for each other (family, friends, relationship), might not fully think situations through (irrational)
• In a one off prisoner's dilemma people typically act in their own self interests as there is no incentive to cooperate if there are no future interactions
• However behaviours are dependent on the context of such issues. Iterative prisoner's dilemmas are ones where you are expected to interact in the future thus rendering betrayal as unfavourable due to its long term adverse effects.
• One limitation is that the original dilemma assumes a one-shot, non-repeated interaction, whereas many real-world scenarios involve repeated interactions. Another limitation is cultural and contextual factors may influence decision-making. This means different people may choose differently based on many different, unpredictable reasons.
• Axelrod's Tournament: Tit for tat strategy
• One solution requires the call for collective good.

Please don't use chatgpt, thank you.