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.

You see, minorities are small groups, so anything set up to protect them in any way is "disproportionate". But seriously, it's actually the opposite. There are a ridiculous amount of anti trans bills coming out the last few years. We're the new wedge issue conservatives use to rally their base with hate.

>This is so patently false, the rest of his commentary is brought into question.

I'm not sure you can blame him, it's what all the articles about Tavistock were saying, and it doesn't seem like they have retracted or corrected it.

I mean it sounds crazy, but isn't that why the Tavistock clinic was closed down?

​

>Puberty blockers were given to almost all children sent for assessment by Tavistock clinic
>
>
>
>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/20/puberty-blockers-given-almost-children-sent-assessment-tavistock/

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

are you.. replying to the op as tho they wrote the article they are posting?

would you provide an example of the "disproportionate amount of influence over policy"?

>Puberty blockers were administered to almost all children sent for assessment at Tavistock

This is so patently false, the rest of his commentary is brought into question.

[deleted]

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.

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.

[deleted]

(Japan has entered the chat)

Seems to me like his only mistake is levelling reasoned criticism against the quite aggressive trans rights activists that seem to have a disproportionate amount of influence over policy...

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.

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.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion in your second sentence. It's simply illogical outside of major assumptions, in a vacuum.

Your second paragraph also does nothing to support it. In fact, it borders on countering your initial conclusion.

Maybe you're getting tripped up on the word "controls" though. Reality is a set of various systems that come together to produce something. What I'm saying is that hormones, which are known to be tightly controlled to emotions, have an equal or sometimes greater input than raw, real-time senses.

Now, if you want to call memories "senses", or learned behaviors "senses" (not sure why you would), then there might be some play there. But the way the words were stated that I initially responded to, I fully disagree that sensory input is the lone, key driver of how we interpret reality in the moment, and react the next.

Even our human-built computer systems are not that naive.

You should put this newfound revelation on your resume.

Or, Mutual Aid by Kropotkin

I could do a better test of mental stability than any machine. I could sit in a dark room with my eyes closed and watch what happens internally. You, me and everyone else on earth can do it for free, everyday. After doing it for a bit you will find that the self you identify with may not be as concrete to your functioning as you may of been led to believe!

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.

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.

[deleted]

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.

I would hesitate to say that any chemical "controls" our emotions. If it was so simple depression would be a thing of the past.
Truth is we barely know anything about how the brain functions. The belief that we do is based on pure hybris. The replication crisis in medicine and psychology can attest to that.

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.