Tit for tat is a robust evolutionary strategy in finite, adversarial games where zero-sum is implicit. If the ecosystem is saturated with suckers, then other models will outperform it. But life is not a finite game, and game theory isn't an appropriate way to model it.
Recommending Alfie Kohn's, No Contest, the Case Against Competition for interesting related insights.
Tit for tat assumes an objective observer but to your point everyone is their own very subjective defense attorney. This is why demagogues are so good at playing both victim and aggressor, because what constitutes an ”attack” vs “defense” is almost completely intractable depending on your frame of reference.
Not sure I buy the soft alternative though. Establishing boundaries, clearly communicating etc, they are useful especially when all players already trust each other. Both they lack teeth.
In my experience the best alternatives to direct retaliation are:
1. Making the adversary your friend
2. Making friends with the aggressors friends and/or adversaries
3. Avoidance, if the adversary has an interminably stronger position. i.e., go play a different game.
2. Flirting with their friends to evoke jealousy and signal you have options.
3. Breaking up
Obviously flirting with friends is bad form in romances unless the partner approves, which highlights a weird asymmetry between colleagues/friends and romantic partners. Romantic relationships are generally conceived on the same spectrum as slavery, ie ownership of a person. Whereas friendships are usually “open relationships” 😄.
Tit for tat is a robust evolutionary strategy in finite, adversarial games where zero-sum is implicit. If the ecosystem is saturated with suckers, then other models will outperform it. But life is not a finite game, and game theory isn't an appropriate way to model it.
Recommending Alfie Kohn's, No Contest, the Case Against Competition for interesting related insights.
Tit for tat assumes an objective observer but to your point everyone is their own very subjective defense attorney. This is why demagogues are so good at playing both victim and aggressor, because what constitutes an ”attack” vs “defense” is almost completely intractable depending on your frame of reference.
Not sure I buy the soft alternative though. Establishing boundaries, clearly communicating etc, they are useful especially when all players already trust each other. Both they lack teeth.
In my experience the best alternatives to direct retaliation are:
1. Making the adversary your friend
2. Making friends with the aggressors friends and/or adversaries
3. Avoidance, if the adversary has an interminably stronger position. i.e., go play a different game.
So maybe what you’re calling “measured responses”
What's the analog for 1,2 and 3 in a romantic relationship? (Genuinely curious haha)
1. Courtship
2. Flirting with their friends to evoke jealousy and signal you have options.
3. Breaking up
Obviously flirting with friends is bad form in romances unless the partner approves, which highlights a weird asymmetry between colleagues/friends and romantic partners. Romantic relationships are generally conceived on the same spectrum as slavery, ie ownership of a person. Whereas friendships are usually “open relationships” 😄.
Wise & profound - very well written.