|
|
Immortalist wrote:
> sleepalot wrote:
> > Immortalist wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > Tit for tat theory paraphrased:- Be nice. If you suffer for it,
> > retaliate.
> >
>
> But give your partner the benifit of doubt during the first round
Yep, I got that bit. I characterized as "be nice". (The point of
doing that paraphrase was only so that I could make a large snip.)
>and then recipricate or give back the same response
>as he gives you next.
Yep. I said "retaliate".
> This way the game allows the growth of social capital or remembered
> trials and their outcomes.
>
> Maybe the Christian saying about "turning the other cheek" has
> something to do with some humans seeing this game in life.
Which I would charaterize as "Be nice. If you suffer for it,
continue being nice." It begs the question as to what you
should do when you've run out of cheeks.
> > > Entrenched troops spent their time shelling the enemy, thereby
> > > participating in a horrendous and strategically pointless slaughter.
> > > Against all orders, the troops on each side developed an etiquette of
> > > firing only to the side of enemy positions to minimize the loss of
> > > life.
> >
> > I don't see that as an example of "tit for tat". The transition from
> > peace to war would be, but the above example goes from maximising
> > death to minimising death!! :-/
You didn't respond to this bit.
|
|