You must log in or register to comment.

Diaphanouz t1_jawq99k wrote

This is a great game that explains the concept beautifully and interactively


porncrank t1_jax63p7 wrote

I remember playing this and there are situations where you can make a large group of bad actors come out better than a greatly outnumbered group of (or individual) tit-for-tat — and if you just look at that group, you might think their bad philosophy “won”. However it is interesting to note that in that case they still all come out behind a similar sized community with a sufficient number of tit-for-tat.

I think the takeaway is that in a consistently lousy environment a lousy person might do better than a nice person. But they won’t do better than a nice person in a nice environment. Or even a lousy person in a nice environment. Said another way — it matters a lot who is around us no matter our strategy. We are not going to maximize life in isolation.


corpusapostata t1_jayl116 wrote

This gives an interesting slant to city planning, social services, and policing. If environment has that great an effect on outcome...


SeriousGoofball t1_jays2k1 wrote

Or political parties. Or even politics in general. If everybody in office is out for themselves then only the strongest Lucifer will win.


Oh-hey21 t1_jb13mtl wrote

Or just life. This can be viewed on so many different levels. I know this is rather vague, but where does this not hold up in any relationship?


BeardedZorro t1_jazej81 wrote

Wow. Way to go deeper. I need to learn to do more of this.


TryingTruly OP t1_jawt8rh wrote

It's referenced at the beginning of the article - but it's always great to plug it! Truly perfect.


Diaphanouz t1_jawzmm3 wrote

That's what I get for just skimming the article thanks to the overconfidence that game gave me over the topic. My apologies!


TryingTruly OP t1_jax05fv wrote

Haha it just means that you were spot on with your reference! Should be proud!


Tahoma-sans t1_jawstn4 wrote

I remember playing that long ago and really liking it. First thought while reading the article.


Substantial-Can9805 t1_jay2qxo wrote

Pretty good game. I only cooperated if I had an advantage and that resulted in every character coming out with more than they started


DepressedUser_026 t1_jayybee wrote

This is awesome. I learned something early in the morning because of you dude, thanks for sharing.

Good Morning!


Fmatosqg t1_jaytlmq wrote

Doesn't work on phones 😭😭

If I use on portrait I can't read. Landscape won't scroll so I can't see the buttons.


karnal_chikara t1_jb11e5n wrote

I played it on phone mam


Fmatosqg t1_jb1z7h6 wrote

You must have the eyesight of a hunting bird


[deleted] t1_jawilww wrote

I learned this in my course on Negotiation for my MBA. It works, but the hardest part is "not having a memory". It's very tempting when they co-operate after not co-operating to say "F you" and not co-operate with them, but that defeats the entire purpose.


Pauldb t1_jay60m7 wrote

Or, another way to view it in real life, forgive


Shield_Lyger t1_jaw11vl wrote

RadioLab covered this topic back in the day, and they have a pretty good description of the research:

(Edited, because I suck at early-morning typing.)


TryingTruly OP t1_jaw77tz wrote

This is amazing! They do a brilliant job of covering the Axelrod Tournament (along with the obligatory Christmas Truce story when mentioning GTFT).

Would have loved to see them do the deep dive into the differences and similarities between the tournament's conditions and real life (and how each one affects the game theory calculus in real world decision making).


acfox13 t1_jax2edp wrote

There's also an option to "not play" and walk away, which is often the only viable strategy when dealing with someone strong in narcissistic tendencies/behaviors. (Depending on the power structure involved. If someone has power over another, it means they may not have the agency to walk away. Power-to, power-with, power-within also exist and can change how much agency the "players" have.)

With human interactions, I find choosing trustworthy, re-humanizing behaviors that build secure attachment, actually build secure attachment over time (shocker!). Whereas, untrustworthy, dehumanizing, behaviors are disconnecting and destroy secure attachment (aka devolve into normalized abuse, neglect, and dehumanization - for example, emotional neglect is normalized and widespread across the globe). I continue to interact with others that choose trustworthy re-humanizing behaviors and I stop interacting with people that choose untrustworthy, dehumanizing behaviors as the patterns emerge.

These are the trust metrics I use:

The Trust Triangle - authenticity, empathy, logic (what we say and how we say it)

The Anatomy of Trust - marble jar concept and BRAVING acronym

10 definitions of objectifying/dehumanizing behaviors - these erode trust

I take each trust metric and ask myself:

Am I allowing others to be authentic? Are they allowing me to be authentic? (aka no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc)

Am I being empathetic towards myself and others? Are they reciprocating empathy or are they being abusive, neglectful, and dehumanizing?

Are they using logic, science, data, etc, or are they lying, being coercive, manipulative, etc? (No verbal abuse, emotional abuse, no coercive control, etc)

Am I setting and respecting reasonable boundaries? Does the other person respect boundaries or do they need to be protected from bc they ignore boundaries?

Etc, down the line through all twenty trust metrics.

I had to escape an abusive family and culture of origin. My perspectives on trust are heavily biased by my experiences in the world, having endured child abuse. I needed guidelines for which behaviors actuality build trust bc I had terrible examples to compare to. And most people say they're trustworthy, and choose untrustworthy behaviors on the regular. Often it's unsafe to be authentic bc of the implication of "or else!" The toxic system feigns "niceness" as long as you conform. As soon as you do something they don't like (aka don't take the abuse like a good little prisoner) the implied threat of "or else!" kicks in, sometimes literally. The toxic person/group will then abuse, neglect, and dehumanize the target to coerce them back into the toxic rules of the system. In many cases, the safest option is to stay quiet, fly under the radar, and plot an exit strategy. Abusers aren't gonna change, and they most definitely don't play fair or act in good faith. The only thing we can do is separate ourselves from them. It's like war games. When it comes to abusers, the only way to win is not to play. If the people with positional power are the abusers, well leave that group, plot an escape, go undercover and underground. It's a waste of time, energy, and effort to engage an abuser.

Books on attachment theory - what helps us thrive as human mammals, and communication skills/strategies:

"Becoming Attached - first relationships and how they shape our capacity to love" by Robert Karen. This is a deep dive on attachment theory.

"Hold Me Tight" by Sue Johnson. Communication strategies based on adult attachment theory research.

"NonViolent Communication" by Marshall Rosenberg. This is a compassionate communication framework based on: observations vs. evaluations, needs, feelings, and requests to have needs met. Revolutionary coming from a dysfunctional family and culture of origin.

"Emotional Agility" by Susan David and books by Stephen Porges and Deb Dana on polyvagal theory, regulation skills, and window of tolerance. Often abuse occurs when people are outside their window of tolerance and lash out.


Froggyloofa t1_jaxljsq wrote

Nonviolent communication is life-changing, when you can train yourself to frame things in that manner. It's made all my relationships, both personal and professional SO much better. Not easy, but absolutely worth the time to learn.


throwaway901617 t1_jay803r wrote

This post is fantastic and I'll come back to it periodically for a refresher.

One thing I do notice though is nearly half of the original 7 objectifying behaviors are fundamental to how we operate as a society. If I hire a plumber I'm focused on the sociological role rather than them as a person and its likely that I'll to some extent treat them as an instrument (I hired you to do a specific job), as fungible (I can hire another if you aren't working out), and to some extent as if they have no autonomy or agency, and even not much concern for their feelings.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think of them as people and won't consciously treat them these ways. But the plumber or electrician is in another room while I'm working on something and I'm not interested in his personal life I'm interested in my needs which is why I hired him. I'll still treat him with respect but at the end of the day they are hired to do a job, not to tell their life story or decide halfway through the job they don't want to finish and instead want to wander around or something.

This is in line with the gemeinschaft vs gesellschaft evolution of society though so I think to some extent this role based treatment is necessary for society to function. So objectification seems to be context dependent I suppose.

The trick is to always remember they are human and not actually treat them like objects or servants, but rather as very skilled professionals who are providing us with valued services. And some people forget that unfortunately.


acfox13 t1_jayd5m5 wrote

You're talking about having healthy Boundaries, which is the "B" in the BRAVING acronym in "The Anatomy of Trust" video.

I have a professional relationship with my therapist, which has professional boundaries that we are both agreeing to engage around. It's a real relationship, the boundaries of which are more strictly defined as a way to manage both of our expectations, so we can coordinate together with fewer "trust wobbles", as Francis Frei puts it. There's also an agreed upon decorum for healthy conflict between us. All of which fall under boundaries.

eta: the authoritarian follower personality is more likely to think of respect in a twisted way:

>Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes they use “respect” to mean “treating someone like an authority”

> and sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say “if you won’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “if you won’t treat me like an authority I won’t treat you like a person”

> and they think they’re being fair but they aren’t, and it’s not okay.

Those are the folks we need to separate ourselves from as they are often abusers, enablers, and bullies.


WhittlingDan t1_jaxvudx wrote

From what you shared personally and hour sources I want to say two things, I am sorry for what you went through growing up and the problems it caused as your life continued as an adult, and the other is I want to commend you for the work you have and are putting into being a better person. I have experienced a lot of trauma and it is so hard to climb out from the mess. I grew up in a small town and kinda managed to live in a bubble until almost 30, even as an alcoholic. Both parents suddenly died 18 months apart with no warning. Mental health tanked, drugs were added and final homelessness where I saw the worst of the worst and honestly some of the best of the best. But the bad burns itself into your mind and eventually that "scaring" hides the good things and all that a left is fear, mistrust, and a sense of helplessness. If you can implement these things into your life where the real challenge is and where I struggle and fail. I really wish I could be as naive as I once was, ignorance isn't necessarily bliss but it allows for much more contentment with however things are currently going.

Thanks for sharing all this, I got a lot from it and its clear you shared it because you did as well. Ill be watching/reading your links over the weekend.


acfox13 t1_jaxxdn3 wrote

Feel free to browse through my comment history. I've been working on my healing in earnest for the past four years (since the fog of denial finally shattered). I've collected a bunch of resources and got lucky with a very knowledgeable and experienced trauma therapist. I'm actually seeing progress from implementing healing strategies and modalities based on neuroplasticity, polyvagal theory, and attachment theory.


Silly_Objective_5186 t1_jaxc7r3 wrote

wow, thank you. appreciate the effort in your comment (i saved it to keep as a good pointer to those references).


[deleted] t1_jaxy1cr wrote

Acfox13 this post of yours is an incredible gift. Thank you. I'm so sorry to learn of what you endured.


80percentrule t1_jayoblv wrote

Have absolutely no idea what any of this means and believe I am doing fine.

Is there a TLDR? What's the synopsis


acfox13 t1_jayolf9 wrote

Learning how to learn pays dividends over your lifetime.

Four Stages of Competence


80percentrule t1_jayovm1 wrote

Decent I'll have a look. I tend to move in the realms of practical over theoretical after spending a lifetime of theoretical and getting mediocre results (till I switched).

Edit: yes I know about the 4 levels just via business and audiobooks.


80percentrule t1_jb1rie7 wrote

Yes the above still remains gobbledygook but if you trace through to the game theory 'game' someone else posted, then look at Nicky Case's page (who programmed the game) her YouTube video "How to Explain Things Real Good" is excellent.

Glad the above is working for you! I'll stick to practical advice but will keep an open mind some of the above may be applicable in future


Mymarathon t1_jawbb08 wrote

My HR department said that's no longer allowed.


_ANOMNOM_ t1_jawinqg wrote

I showed you my tat, where's my generous tit?


sometimesimscared28 t1_jawbtj5 wrote

This is fucking genius. How many scientist worked on this?


TryingTruly OP t1_jawcade wrote

Right?! It's the culmination of hundreds of experts' research over decades, but what shocks me is that the Axelrod Tournament was held as early as the SIXTIES! Why isn't this being discussed more?

Even better - the more you spread the word about the Strategy the more it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If more people know about it, more people will be inspired to ACT like it, creating wonderful positive feedback loops.

This should be so high on the educational agenda!


[deleted] t1_jaxynhf wrote

Take a look at the work of Philosophy professor Lee Bowie in Massachussetts. He's the gentle teacher of many.


brainwater314 t1_jawi54h wrote

It is discussed weekly throughout the world. It's called church.


[deleted] t1_jawivbn wrote

Don't disagree, but they don't say it this way, so the actual message gets lost. They always talk about 'turn the other cheek', not 'paste him back if he hits you'. All carrots and no sticks is just as ineffective as all sticks and no carrots.


ariehn t1_jax2w50 wrote

Not the tit for tat part: what they say is that it's beneficial -- even essential -- to reset when the other guy seems to have discarded his aggressive ways. Or to borrow from the article,

> you can always make the choice to generously give someone the benefit of the doubt, relinquish a justified retaliatory response, or most gently of all, simply decide to forgive.

> Why? All for the sake of valiantly fighting to keep the option for peace and collaboration open at all times, lest it get closed off forever to everyone’s mutual detriment.

It's absolutely central to the whole faith. And this part, too:

>In the long run, the cost incurred each time you attempt to co-operate and get exploited, usually pales in comparison of the cost of never trying at all.


Adventurous-Text-680 t1_jaxj83x wrote

However it's not central to religious faith.

Why do more religious communities have more retaliation against things like gays?

People want to marry and love who they want but religious people have decided they can just others be happy if it doesn't follow their world view. Same with dressing in drag. Nothing that impacts them but they feel the need to aggressively pursue ending the happiness of others by trying to create laws to make it illegal. They also don't care about other religions.

If highly religious people were really forgiving and wanted to cooperate they would never try to discriminate against the LGBTQ community. Hell they push ideas like conversion therapy which goes fully against the idea of letting people be.


kagamiseki t1_jax1197 wrote

Some moderation makes sense -- like you said, all carrots, all sticks, neither of those approaches will work.

You can't turn the other cheek every time, but you also shouldn't be pasting him back forever.

At some point, somebody needs to turn the other cheek. Somebody needs to be the one to forget past grievances, and give another chance. And of course, hit back again if they squander that opportunity for reconciliation.


porncrank t1_jax7dj5 wrote

I went to church my entire youth and this was not what was discussed. And when they did talk about being nice they didn’t get the dynamics right - infinite forgiveness, for example. Or the rationale — “if you don’t fall in line you will be tormented forever”. In any case it was always presented as a vague thing without understanding how or why it worked. Which left a lot of church people not following it consistently.

If wasn’t until I read about this decades later that my natural desire to be nice with boundaries made perfect sense.


thirdbrunch t1_jaxtfye wrote

Eternal punishment in hell doesn’t seem like being generous and giving people a second chance.


Wireman29 t1_jawjmn3 wrote

No shit. All I see here is the golden rule plus a simulation.


TryingTruly OP t1_jawmo18 wrote

Golden rule + Retaliation if you're being exploited + Self-Correction mechanism to cut negative feedback loops


-Rixi t1_jawts7j wrote

How does this apply to the boss employee dynamic. Tit for tat would surely get you fired instantly


TryingTruly OP t1_jawv7gl wrote

That's where the word "generous" comes in! You can't go head to head in an office setting. What you CAN do however, is attempt to co-operate as much as you can, while doing your best to firmly maintain your boundaries.

As it says in the beginning, you can't negate the need for some form of strength. Whether its your leverage as a valuable employee / having alternative employment options / a boss's fear of the cost of replacing you should you quit / or whatever other form of a-symmetrical strength you have at your disposal - there's usually some form of bargaining power (strength) you can have.

If you truly have no cards, and your boss treats you miserably, you should be working to acquire some form of leverage, or leave the miserable bastard and pick your battles elsewhere!


fencerman t1_jaxdzgh wrote

All games of this type are based on both parties having some power to affect each other. If one is powerless then their preferences aren't going to matter.

Which coincidentally is why more egalitarian systems breed more cooperation.


[deleted] t1_jaxzbb5 wrote



fencerman t1_jay5ue5 wrote

> My answer is: no human being is ever truly powerless.

That's nice in theory, but anecdotal examples aren't the same as practical reality for most people.

MLK, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela only had "power" because of massive international pressure, cold war balance of power issues and a large, potentially violent movement behind them. They weren't individuals and pretending their actions didn't benefit from real hard power is erasing history.

In a similar vein, Ukraine is surviving in large part to massive foreign military aid making it possible for them to resist an otherwise vastly more powerful military.

And most people, especially in western society, don't have the backing of foreign military powers or an armed resistance movement behind them.


emelrad12 t1_jb00d7n wrote

That is not really true when comparing 1:1. Besides when we say powerless it means that the power they have is disproportionately going to bring negative consequences.


Sawses t1_jaz4jdx wrote

You'd be surprised.

Sure, I can't be too blunt about it, but if my manager makes my life difficult, then I'm not going to do the thousand little things I usually do to ease their path.

One example not too long ago was that a task wasn't communicated to me by my manager so my manager skipped about 3 levels of authority to tell a high-level manager that I wasn't doing my job and that was why her projects were doing poorly.

So I just...stopped smoothing over her breaches in policy and picking up her slack. I didn't do anything, I just stopped doing things she'd never asked me to do, and never knew I did. It ended with her losing major points with the people she'd talked to about me, having another resource allocated to her projects (because I was already 100% booked), and her having to take on all the blame for the stuff she screwed up on.

Tit for tat isn't always as straightforward as it sounds.


gromolko t1_jaxg00c wrote

I thought tit-for-tat - strategies were shown to be powerless against swarming the competitions with master / slave bots, where the first few exchanges are a code to establish whether an alliance exists and the slaves are programmed to destroy non-allied participants regardless of the cost to themselves and to give points to their masters. That would explain why cults seem to be doing really well in reality right now.


SNRatio t1_jaxt7ik wrote

In some of the tournaments described in the thread, after each round winning strategies reproduce and take up more seats in the next round. Losing strategies get fewer seats in the next round. I would guess that the slave strategies would quickly fall out of the competition. How would the masters fare against generous tit for tat without slaves? Instead of cults, this could be a model for tribalism.


gromolko t1_jaziow5 wrote

I imagine it would be possible to programm a multi level hierarchy so that "point providers" (although probably not the "suicide bombers" ) can still give an advantage to their higher-ups in later iterations of the tournament. Also, I imagine having a lot of offspring from the first iteration gives a statistical advantage to the "masters" , especially since they just can use a forgiving tit for tat strategy when their opponent doesn't identify as a member of the cult.


emelrad12 t1_jb008lk wrote

Masters become slaves to keep a ratio of 70%.


Boobslappy t1_jawxcmm wrote

I loved my evolution class in undergrad and the topic of altruism and genetic selection for the trait in group evolution. Look up nurse bats it's fascinating.


TitusPullo4 t1_jayskas wrote

So generous tit for tat

>Rule 1 - Be nice (technically meaning always co-operate on the first round).
>Rule 2 - From then on just copy what the other player did in the previous round (meaning an eye for an eye and a hug for a hug).
>Rule 3 - After you retaliate, always try to co-operate again in the next round.


destructor_rph t1_jb5t3yn wrote

I think the site said you have to forgive the first time they screw you over, then retaliate if they screw you twice


TitusPullo4 t1_jb74zme wrote

Thank you. GTFT Rules:

>Start with cooperation: The first move is always cooperation, regardless of the opponent's move. This establishes goodwill and creates a cooperative environment.
>Reciprocate cooperation: If the opponent cooperates in the previous round, then reciprocate by cooperating in the current round.
>Forgive one-time defections: If the opponent defects in a single round, forgive the defection and continue to cooperate in the subsequent rounds.
>Punish repeated defections: If the opponent repeatedly defects, then retaliate by defecting in the current round, but then return to cooperation if the opponent cooperates in the subsequent round.
>Be clear: Communicate your strategy and intentions clearly to your opponent to avoid misunderstandings and build trust.


>Studies have shown that GTFT can outperform TFT in certain situations where the costs of defection are high, and there is a high likelihood of occasional mistakes or misunderstandings. GTFT can also help to prevent "death spirals" of mutual defection that can occur in TFT when both players defect repeatedly.


Ham1ltron t1_jayct79 wrote

But hey, that's just a theory


thunder-thumbs t1_jax2jwp wrote

Isn’t this the same as regular tit for tat when people don’t betray two rounds in a row? Just alternating betrayals, taking turns, until the end of time.


Initialised t1_jax18yf wrote

Tit for Two Tats


McPhage t1_jax8dka wrote

Generous Tit for Tat (as described) isn’t the same thing as Tit for Two Tats. Tit for Two Tats will cooperate after the first defection, then defect after the second. Whereas Generous Tit for Tat will defect after the first defection, but then always cooperate the next step. So for 2 defections in a row, they behave opposite.


Fmatosqg t1_jazsly0 wrote

Nitpicking. After 100 steps they're indistinguishable.


distortionwarrior t1_jax6gav wrote

This is how to win in a military war, and keep it won long term. Buy them out with overwhelming kindness, mirror their response ad nauseam until they break.


mdotca t1_jax723y wrote

(Japan has entered the chat)


BernardJOrtcutt t1_jayfbyu wrote

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.


BeardedZorro t1_jazee57 wrote

I don’t know if this is a different study or a different explanation. But I was taught this in reverse.

  1. Tit for tat.
  2. Occasionally cooperate.

[deleted] t1_jazf6kb wrote



BernardJOrtcutt t1_jazlg62 wrote

/r/philosophy does not allow the posting or advertising of any Discord (or similar software) channels.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.


Surfer-Rosa t1_jb0047p wrote

This is all a fancy way to say “travel fast? Go alone. Travel far? Go together.”


Smrtihara t1_jb05s6q wrote

Yes. Generous tits is a good motivator.


srona22 t1_jb05uga wrote

Material used in the upcoming John Wick 4?


bildramer t1_jb0nql8 wrote

There exist some really cursed IPD equilibria, like those involving zero determinant strategies. You can unliaterally extort other players, i.e. force a linear relation between your scores. See e.g. here.


[deleted] t1_jaz1b0d wrote



BernardJOrtcutt t1_jb1i1hn wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.


Killercod1 t1_jawqhhz wrote

I actually hate this. This sort of philosophy would enslave you just for the sake of coexistence. Any sort of group that is anti-social would continuously step on the "generous" ones.

Why should everyone try to tolerate each other? There's some that are so morally and politically far from you that granting them the opportunity to tread on you, would lead to the worst outcome for you. It's like letting your employer continuously steal the fruits of your labor. Letting your abusive partner continuously abuse you. All so that the relationship you have doesn't split apart or escalate. You become the sacrificial lamb to maintain the unjust order.

Why is conflict inherently bad? It's the fundamental result of differences. To be anti-conflict, makes you a hypocrite.


Cryptizard t1_jawsm5f wrote

It might help if you read the article at all. Hint: look for the “tit for tat” part to see why everything you wrote is wrong.


IshiharasBitch t1_jawu1tk wrote

There is a key caveat in the article OP shared:

> So long as you possess the strength to defend yourself, you can always make the choice to generously give someone the benefit of the doubt, relinquish a justified retaliatory response, or most gently of all, simply decide to forgive.

Then the article expands on that notion:

> Even when facing a “stronger” player, who says you have to engage with asymmetric strength symmetrically? There are many kinds of rewards, and one form of strength can be completely negated by another (think of the difference between Tank vs Tank and Tank vs RPG). Furthermore, since Uncertainty: On, outcomes are always unpredictable for both sides - each one could potentially outmaneuver, attrition, shift vectors, or just plain luck out vs the other, regardless of the perceived reward matrix.


corrective_action t1_jawx8n2 wrote

A lot of people responding that you haven't read the article, without acknowledging that this article hand-waves this issues towards the end in the "critical mass of Luciphers" section. So I think it's a fair criticism to make. Probably an accumulating bias towards retaliation (in the event of continued experienced betrayal) would be a reasonable edition.


Killercod1 t1_jawyhv0 wrote

Yes. That's what I was critiquing. About 3/4 of the way into the article.

Although, it does kinda redeem itself at the end by including the "be kind > retaliate > forgive" algorithm. But there definitely needs to be accountability for repeated, predictable offenses. It assumes all behavior is unpredictable. Which is partially true. But even a 99% chance of something is technically unpredictable because the 1% could happen. Any logical conclusion made, would assume that their behavior is mostly predictable.


kagamiseki t1_jax2y8k wrote

Much of philosophy is case studies of extremes. I don't think the benefits of stoicism, for example, means that any real human should act as a strict stoic.

Rather, philosophical debate is to me, a means of assessing the two ends of a sliding scale, and giving us tools to decide how far we want to stand on various scales of human behavior.

In this case, of course you don't endlessly forgive an aggressor. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is insanity, as the saying goes.

I think the important point of this is to realize that if you want to reverse a situation with two bad actors, then somebody needs to forgive. That people are dynamic, and if you do have the leeway to be generous and give a second chance, then you should consider whether there is a reasonable possibility of the other person reciprocating in kind. Key point being like you said -- whether the bad faith behavior is highly predictable.

Just as generations of Japanese cannot forever hate all Chinese or Americans, or Jewish and Germans, or Americans and Russians.

Applies to things like romantic relationships as well. Everybody starts off with an open heart, and closes off if they are hurt by someone else. But you can either stay closed off and in pain forever, or allow yourself to be vulnerable in the hope that the other person reciprocates.


WhittlingDan t1_jaxxunv wrote

>It's like letting your employer continuously steal the fruits of your labor.

Glad to see you are at least opposed to capitalism.


CondiMesmer t1_jax0e2u wrote

Read the article first lol. Also this reveals a lot of your personality, which is disappointing. I'm gonna guess you think people betray you all the time and you don't know why.


throwaway901617 t1_jay1t58 wrote

You may misunderstand. You default to cooperation and then respond if you are harmed but self correct to avoid it spiraling out of control.

See this simulation for details.