It’s the tit-for-tat strategy that is applicable in a very wide range of situations. And animals follow it too. It is deeply ingrained in our biology.
first time you interact with a new person, you assume they are following the same strategy, so you cooperate.
if they don’t, then next time, you don’t either. But if they do, then you both continue cooperating until someone breaks the chain of trust.
Once broken, the guilty party must make amends to restart.
If broken, but neither party acknowledges guilt, a restart can be tried, but it will always be difficult due to distrust. So it works better if one party takes the blame, makes amends and restarts. (this is called ‘being the bigger person’).
Upvote for mentioning tit-for-tat. There has been a lot of research on the iterated prisoner’s dilemma, and as I recall the winning strategy determined by many experiments showed that over time, the ‘nice tit-for-tat’ strategy gets the highest score. It may lose out in an individual interaction, but over time, sticking to it is the best long-term strategy.
However this does mean if one is a grifter and fully expects never to interact with the other (victim) party again… there’s less incentive to use such a strategy.
It goes way, way deeper.
It’s the tit-for-tat strategy that is applicable in a very wide range of situations. And animals follow it too. It is deeply ingrained in our biology.
first time you interact with a new person, you assume they are following the same strategy, so you cooperate.
if they don’t, then next time, you don’t either. But if they do, then you both continue cooperating until someone breaks the chain of trust.
Once broken, the guilty party must make amends to restart.
If broken, but neither party acknowledges guilt, a restart can be tried, but it will always be difficult due to distrust. So it works better if one party takes the blame, makes amends and restarts. (this is called ‘being the bigger person’).
Upvote for mentioning tit-for-tat. There has been a lot of research on the iterated prisoner’s dilemma, and as I recall the winning strategy determined by many experiments showed that over time, the ‘nice tit-for-tat’ strategy gets the highest score. It may lose out in an individual interaction, but over time, sticking to it is the best long-term strategy.
However this does mean if one is a grifter and fully expects never to interact with the other (victim) party again… there’s less incentive to use such a strategy.