wiki
Tit for tat is an English saying meaning “equivalent retaliation”. It is an alteration of tip for tap “blow for blow”, first recorded in 1558.
Tit-for-tat has been very successfully used as a strategy for the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. The strategy was first introduced by Anatol Rapoport in Robert Axelrod’s two tournaments, held around 1980. Notably, it was (on both occasions) both the simplest strategy and the most successful in direct competition. Few have extended the game theoretical approach to other applications such as finance. In that context the tit for tat strategy was shown to be associated to the trend following strategy.
I’m abstracting and expanding how I interact and analyse other people in this thought. Like if a person, business, or boss takes actions that are not in line with Tit 4 Tat, I expect them to be unsuccessful and counterproductive in the long term. It is an implied strike on their part and therefore requires an equivocal response or else I am not maintaining my own requirements for success under said strategy.
Anyways, it was an actual shower thought
As long as they punch down and kiss up to the right people, assholes can usually reduce “tit for tat” to “tit for slap-on-the-wrist”.
I agree you that they are more likely than not to produce a suboptimal future.
I just disagree with the premise that “winning less” is the same as tit for tat.
I totally respect anyone that chooses to limit their perspective scope.
For me, everything in life is a messy statistical abstraction. I would not go out of my way to make decisions or inconvenience myself in instances where I see vectors of negativity and small errors in ethical disposition. These are simply elements I passively note, and when faced with a choice, such past occurrences will weigh into my decisions.
For me, I struggle to recall specifics like memorized trivia, instances of certain behaviors, or even people’s names in conversational real time. I can recall most of this information if I try, but I must focus on it to do so. I instantly have access to my abstracted thoughts and oversimplifications that exist on something like a three dimensional roadmap. When I note these types of behaviors, it is like I am painting a picture of what driving down a familiar street feels like, and I remember that picture and place well, only that imagery is the actions of the person. It takes me a while to think about all the features that make up that place, but I know where I am and what that means just by visiting. The person is not any feature but an ambiance that exists in my mind. It is their identity to me. I may not recall the name feature well, but this is not who they are to me; they are an abstraction like everything else; a likely set of probabilities, but one where I’m always curious how they evolve or add new features. No one is static after all, unless they are dead. Still I weigh negative vectors into those statistics objectively and make predictions based upon them.
Fair enough. I get overwhelmed by all the ethical questions that come with being in the real world.
My partner outsourced most of that mental work and focused on trying to be a good person from moment to moment. I think she would’ve broadly agreed with you from a karma standpoint.