Thus tit for tat can be an equilibrium only if both players believe the other will abide by it, otherwise other equilibria are just as possible and selfconfirming. To show that trust is really not at stake, Axelrod should have shown that whatever the initial move and the succession of further moves, the game tends to converge on tit for tat. What he does do is express a powerful set of reasons why —- under certain conditions and even in the absence of trust generated by friendship, say, or religious identity — a basic predisposition to trust can be perceived and adopted as a rational pursuit even by moderately forward-looking egoists. We learn that, tentatively and conditionally, we can trust trust and distrust distrust, that it can be rewarding to behave as if we trusted even in unpromising situations.

Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking…, loc. 2814