Tit for Two Tats

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.

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.

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

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

I thought this was a good response to Žižek's recent commentary. I was pretty disappointed with his lack of a well developed argument.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Ah, I don’t have any book recs. But I wish you the best! Somatic work is definitely worth trying. Good luck on your path :)

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.

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

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

>no argument was made that the self isn't important.

No it's worse, it's arguing that the self is an illusion.

>From the Buddhist perspective, the idea of ‘individual self’ is an illusion

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.

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

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.

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.

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

I can't help but feel this is projection. Perhaps it's rare but some people are able to be (more or less) fully honest with themselves and live authentically.

>Buddhism also has a lot to say with regards to the illusion of the self

agreed.

and i find the reactions to the OP interesting from an allegorical standpoint: when the Buddha was under the tree seeking enlightenment he was constantly beset by jealous gods that didn't want to let him into their realm. they each plied their talents tempting him and challenging him to remain in the material world.

so here's the OP posting a little bit of truth with some Buddhist flavor to it and he is instantly barraged by people claiming that the self is all-important and that he doesn't know what he's talking about and that we shouldn't be trying for anything beyond sheer materialism.

so i guess Kali and Shiva et.al. have gone digital now lol.

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

Sounds like the perils of Emotionality: On

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