1d ago

Tit 4 Tat +10% is like a proof that the moral high ground is the most successful long term strategy in life

::: spoiler 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat :::
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

6 comments

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think tit for tat was written from the perspective of nation vs nation decision-making.
It assumes you have roughly equivalent power, i.e. person vs person or business vs business.
I don't think it applies in person vs boss, or mom 'n pop shop vs international conglomerate.
- It depends on how you abstract. I believe that small patterns are strongly indicative of larger patterns. My life experiences have largely reflected this pattern. All of my worst business encounters were with people that cheated on their partners in their personal life. They ultimately showed the same types of behavior in business. The best people I have worked for were exactly the opposite. This includes both while running my own business for years and many people I have worked for as an employee.
  The concept is also an extension of my realization that anyone that likes to talk about everyone else negatively at work when one on one, is doing the exact same thing with every other individual when I am not around and is saying the same negative stuff about me. Such a person appears to be everyone's friend on a personal level, but is actually stabbing everyone in the back equally to elevate themselves and increase their own awareness of weaknesses they might highlight or play against others. The act of talking negatively about everyone else is a strike or vector that will later manifest if given the opportunity or under pressure.
  I am metaphorically applying Newton's premise that an object in motion tends to stay in motion, to the probability of future human behavior. If the person indicates a certain vector of thought that causes damage, they tilt the scales of future interaction and are therefore some degree more likely than not to produce a suboptimal future compared to others with a more positive track record, character, and ethics.
  
  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.

Especially if you are Tat.

6 comments