photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52647513_10157010566322264_810926486

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52647513_10157010566322264_8109264868961419264_o_10157010566307264.jpg Bill JoslinAnd generous tit-for-tat doesn’t imply unbound forgiveness, but rather occasional deviations from tit-for-tat towards generousity (forgiveness). It essentially resets the game for cooperation when cooperation has failed.

Eye-for-an-eye in most things with an occasional “turn the other cheek” to re-establish trust and Cooperation (which would be a second order reciprocal exchange – offering forgiveness now to secure the opportunity to be forgiven in the future if you screw up later) – otherwise known as incremental supression (I see incremental supression as attempting to achieve an optimum between forbearance and prosecution)Feb 24, 2019, 2:39 PMGreg HamiltonI don’t know Freyr is a pretty good role model…Feb 24, 2019, 5:49 PMPaul BardDidn’t Axelrod find the optimal strategy was exhaustive forgiveness, because tit-for-tat may be wrongly triggered by poor or mistaken information about your trading partners?

In other words, we can’t be sure the other isn’t doing their best to reciprocate, but we can definitively use force to oppose the other from doing harm.Feb 24, 2019, 9:52 PM