"When everyone is playing their best move to everyone ELSE's best move then no one is going to move."

Non-Cooperative Game Theory has to do with the best strategic action being NOT to cooperate with the majority opinion. This is not to say that a person OPPOSES the majority but rather simply does not act as one of the majority such that the majority of people do not look at you as a threat. If you take any position or opinion that appears to be against any other position or opinion then you pose a threat to that other entity and they will take steps to defeat you whether you are an actual threat or not. In the case of a corporation these steps are mostly unconscious and not the result of an actual human being using sentient capability to properly evaluate you or your thoughts and actions.

John Forbes Nash, a mathematician and professor at Princeton University in New Jersey, came up with what has become known as, "The Nash Equilibrium." Everything has a tendency to seek a state of equilibrium. All opposition will receive opposition in return so the optimal state-of-being is to understand all points of view such that you do not feel any need to oppose them. If you feel that a particular point-of-view is destructive or sub-optimal then it is advised that you present additional information that might help to improve that other point-of-view and make it more integral.

A Non-Cooperative Game Theory-oriented game of chess would most likely end in a king versus king draw where all of the pieces have been removed or taken and you are left with only the two kings on the board. In this scenario at least one player chooses not to win the game but also chooses not to lose the game either. Winning the game puts the other player in a "less-than" position with a potential need for revenge. Whereas, by tying or drawing the game with neither player having any point advantage leaves both players with a sense of equality and safety.

We can see an aspect of this concept being played out in present-day politics where two major political parties are BOTH manipulated by a behind-the-scenes "non-participating" entity to make it appear that they are both close to each other in popularity such that which ever party wins the other party has a sense of, "Well at least it was close." This scenario is very obvious as of this writing in October of 2008 where the actual popularity of Barack Obama is so overwhelming that the people behind the poles manipulate both the poles and the interpretation of the poles in the media so as to make it look closer than it actually is. A similar situation happened in both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections except that the actual vote itself was manipulated to appear to be close ENOUGH that the other party chose not to enforce legal measures to reveal the deception.