Killercod1 t1_jawqhhz wrote
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.
Cryptizard t1_jawsm5f wrote
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.
IshiharasBitch t1_jawu1tk wrote
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.
corrective_action t1_jawx8n2 wrote
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.
Killercod1 t1_jawyhv0 wrote
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.
kagamiseki t1_jax2y8k wrote
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.
WhittlingDan t1_jaxxunv wrote
>It's like letting your employer continuously steal the fruits of your labor.
Glad to see you are at least opposed to capitalism.
CondiMesmer t1_jax0e2u wrote
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.
throwaway901617 t1_jay1t58 wrote
You may misunderstand. You default to cooperation and then respond if you are harmed but self correct to avoid it spiraling out of control.
See this simulation for details.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments