It seems like you can predict the behavior of any agent based on the system it operates in. This might seem reductionist (Homo economicus as a model for human behavior in a capitalist system ignores behavioral psychology, which is why game theory is largely inaccurate) but it's true enough to be useful.

Nations are agents in the system of Power. We can assume they will do anything to maximize power, from clandestine assassinations abroad that violate treaties to compartmentalized security-clearance, largely useful to keep the domestic population oblivious of violations of laws by its government rather thahen increase national security against foreign nations.

Machiavelli observed that "all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones failed." Rhetoric, law, treaties: none of it means anything without force backing it.

Nations are emergent phenomena in our intraspecies ecological system. In a forest, trillions of species fight at every level to stay alive and propagate. There isn't a single point of power, rather a network of power with each community relationship. Power rules, and the organism/group with the most power sets the rules via a network cascade.

It's easy to forget that when I've grown up in a society where everything is taken for granted. Food, health, and security are very scarce in much of the world. Americans shit on the CIA trading hundreds of foreign lives for a single American one until their family is taken hostage. The implicit feeling of security in your home, city, country, state, country is the result of trillions of dollars of defense spending per year.

The oligopoly of nations with the most power (many dimensions to it) set the rules, and that seems to roughly be America and China. Climate accords, the Geneva conventions — all noise for us, but not them.

Companies are agents in the system of Capital, so they'll make decisions that maximize money coming in. Since every company sells a product to a customer, we can look at those two things to figure out the agent's behavior.

Noam Chomsky's propaganda model looks at the media with this lens. Every media institution, from The New York Times to Instagram or Ben Shapiro's The Daily Wire has the same product and customer. Their product is people: people read the NYT, hitting an ad once in a while; students scroll IG in class, hitting ads; someone watches Ben Shapiro, hitting a mid-podcast ad. This drives money to the customers of media companies: companies (advertisers) selling a product to the demographic of people that watch the given media. Media companies select which editorials get published, what the algorithm presents on the For You page, and what guests they will have on their podcast, all of which impact the volume and conversion rate of ads, impacting how much money their customer gives them. The "manipulation" doesn't come from conspiratorial directives from the government (only sometimes, okay maybe a lot) but from the bounds set by advertisers, regulating the content enough to keep the public under a veil. So these media companies comply by staying within bounds.

This is evident in the media, even though it has become far more decentralized through social media. The fragmentation gives the illusion of free thought: there's no way Andrew Huberman is manipulating people... right? He's not under the power of the NYT editorial board. In reality, it's the same shit. As long as the media's product is people that is sold to advertisers, their publishing bounds are set. Huberman wouldn't post something out of the bounds of AG1, BetterHelp, especially not Yerba Mate. Someone with a Substack/Medium blog, who is paid directly by their users is slightly different (product = content, customer = subscriber). But their content would still be governed by what their users are comfortable with to not alienate their customer, adding some bias in the equation.

Individuals are agents in the system of something. This is something I'm still debating, it's hard to pinpoint it to one thing.

For example, Chomsky points out that anyone in a media company, from a reporter to editor operates in line with the company's incentive structure. Since companies operate in the capitalist system, that makes employees of media companies act capitalistically. Editors routinely don't cover certain stories if the story is out of their advertiser's bounds: if they reduce advertising revenue, they will be fired. And reporters tend to be under the power of editors. But they do occasionally revolt; during crises, the bounds get violated since many reporters are smart enough to understand how the system works and know when violating it doesn't lead to repercussions.

But I'd also argue individuals act as psychological egoists. If you save someone on a live train track (a seemingly altruistic act), you may be doing it for public recognition or to minimize personal regret when you go to sleep that night. Others argue everything people do is for sex, from making money to moving up social position to inventing the next hot startup. It's obvious individual behavior is a multidimensional equation, but understanding the system people operate in says a lot, from capital to social.

The governing mechanism of each of these systems isn't some centralized totalitarian force keeping its agents in check but each agent keeping the other one in check, reinforcing the formal and informal norms of the system.