Cheating according to Game Theory: The paradox of cohesion and synchronization

Game theory is a theory developed in the mid-20th century by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, and later enriched by figures such as John Nash. In its simplest definition, it examines how people win games and how opponents strategize by taking each other's moves into account. However, game theory tells us something surprising: if everyone in a game strictly follows the rules, winning is almost impossible. The shortest path to winning is to violate the rules, that is, to cheat.

On the other hand, according to Professor Jiang Xueqin, cheating alone is not enough. The real advantage arises from being able to act together with others. As coordination increases, the chance of success grows. But the increase in coordination also turns into an "arms race." When two people cooperate, four people must unite against them; then five people form an even larger group. Even those who take the first step can lose in this race. Therefore, cheating—breaking the rules—is only effective when done secretly, because open cooperation is easily detected. The real strategy is to achieve invisible coordination. Throughout history, there have been different ways of achieving this secret cooperation. For example, family ties, shared religions, ethnic identities, common languages... These allow people to come together naturally. But these are too obvious, and opponents can use the same methods. This is where a more radical strategy comes into play: transgression (violation of rules/taboos). That is, the conscious violation of social taboos, norms, and laws. According to the theory, the more violations there are, the more cohesion emerges. And this cohesion gradually increases synchronicity.

Because when you break the rules, society wants to punish you; this forces you to keep the secret and protect the group. The shared secret turns into a powerful glue that binds the group together. That is why taboo violation is not only risky but also an attractive and addictive experience. A process that starts with a simple school prank can turn into increasingly larger violations. First, six friends fill the school classrooms with toilet paper as a joke, then the idea of stealing candy from a grocery store emerges. These violations create a stronger sense of unity in the group through the sharing of secrets. It is possible to see such mechanisms in the recent trend in our country of steering young children toward committing crimes.

We can see this paradox in many places in daily life. When traffic rule violations increase, drivers develop new reflexes, and pedestrians become more cautious. This does not increase safety, but it creates a fragile balance. The lynch culture on social media works in a similar way. When thousands of people target a post, a social norm is actually violated. But at the same time, thousands of people turning toward the same target creates a strong cohesion. Collective violation produces a temporary sense of unity.

Turkey's political scene is also instructive in this respect. During election periods, mocking or derogatory content spreads rapidly on social media. These contents may be considered violations in terms of political ethics, but they give birth to a strong sense of belonging among users who unite around shared anger and humor. Banned chants or profane slogans in football stadiums work the same way. Normatively, they are rule violations, but when they bring thousands of people together in the same rhythm, they create an enthusiastic synchronization.

The critical point in terms of communication is that violation is not only disruptive but also a mechanism that produces a new communication ritual. When rules are broken, people re-establish communication and develop new bonds. However, this cohesion is fragile. Cohesion built on violation creates short-term associations but erodes social trust in the long run. Traffic rule violations create new reflexes but eliminate safety. Lynchings on social media produce short-term solidarity but make polarization permanent. Slogans in the stadium provide unity but bring with them punishment and security problems.

In short, this paradox of game theory appears as a clearly observable phenomenon in the world of communication. The more violations, the more cohesion. But this cohesion is often temporary, fragile, and risky. The real issue lies in being able to transform this short-term cohesion and synchronization into a permanent, inclusive, and trust-based social cohesion.