What does this prove or suggest? I am not arguing for the Nash point. I am arguing rather that the appeal of the Nash point to a game theorist (as introspective game player) may be the reverse of the sequence I have just run through. It may be the focal quality of the Nash-point in the pure coordination game—the unequivocal usefulness of a uniquely defined symmetry concept, when no nonmathematical impurities are available to help—that makes it a controlling influence in the tacit and terribly cooperative boundary-line variant of the game; that in turn makes it a reliable guide in the less demanding tacit bounded-area variant of the game; and that in turn takes the heart out of any player in the explicit bargaining game who might hope that expectations could focus anywhere else.

Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, loc. 668