Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Game Theory, Tit-for-Tat, and Golden Balls

In Game Theory there is what as known as Tit-for-Tat. "An agent using this strategy will first cooperate, then subsequently replicate an opponent's previous action," said Wikipedia. "If the opponent previously was cooperative, the agent is cooperative. If not, the agent is not."

Robert Axelrod wrote a book about it, the above-mentioned The Evolution of Cooperation.

A lot of it is common sense. In a job I had after college, employees walked off the job, sabotaged the employer, sued them. Some in management tried to take credit for what their employees had done. What does this say? It says the employer (who was a clueless MBA out of a top-tier school) didn't know what he was doing, treated his employees poorly (and didn't know it), so they did the same to him.

A lot of money and employees were lost, and some sections of the business went under. It was Tit-for-Tat. "You treat me like shit and I'll treat you like shit." It's revenge, really.

On the hand, treat the employees well and almost all will be loyal. Again, Tit-for-Tat. "You treat me well and I will treat you well."

In biology, this is known as "reciprocal altruism." It's also known as "behavioral assimilation," a "process in which they tend to match their own behaviors to those displayed by cooperating or competing group members. Therefore, if TFT begins with cooperation, then cooperation ensues. On the other hand, if the other party competes, then TFT will lead the alternate party to compete as well. Ultimately, each action by the other member is countered with a matching response, competition with competition and cooperation with cooperation."

Again, this is common sense and has for known for a long time, as in "Do to others as you would have others do to you." The bad aspect of that is "Do to others as they do to you," or "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."

Now let's apply this to the Manosphere. In a number of cases (that number being large enough to be noticeable) men are supposed to cooperate but women are trying to cheat. That's when you get this:

The man gives and tries to cooperate and the women cheats. He tried to do "Do to others as you would have others do to you" and she did not cooperate.

Some may call what she did due to women's "hypergamy." I prefer older, more accurate terms: she's selfish and greedy.

Now take what she did to him and write it large: men give and women take. Not in all cases, but enough to be noticeable. What will happen, and is happening? Cooperation is going to break down, and is breaking down.

Women expect men to give but don't expect to reciprocate. When there is giving but no return of it, what will happen is withdrawal and/or revenge. "You treat me like shit long enough, and I will treat you like shit in return."

Some year ago (I was 27) I told a older, retired man, "Women expect all the advantages of being a man and a women and none of the responsibilities." The woman listening said nothing. I wondered what she thought? From her later behavior I don't think she agreed.

Feminism (which is still alive in women's behavior if not in articulated ideas) is about take but not give. Or perhaps, taking a hell of a lot more than is given.

The Manosphere is the reaction to feminism. The Tit-for-Tat. It's not cooperation. It's become a particularly nasty competition.

Obviously this isn't going to end well. It's going to end up in a Hobbesian "nature red in tooth and claw" when civilization starts to collapse, as it is doing now. Both sides come to think of themselves as innocent and acting in self-defense, and their opponent as either evil or too stupid to learn to cooperate. And so we end up in a Death Spiral.

3 comments:

Ron in CO said...

Bob, you have a great deal of knowledge. Please consider doing an occasional podcast.

I'd do what I can to get it to a wider audience.

Thanks for your work!

Chris said...

If another man had cost me 50 thousands pounds simply by being a greedy bitch, I'd do my level best to kick his ass. She deserves to be beaten to death with that ball.

Glen Filthie said...

Yes to all that, Bob. It's true as far as it goes.

But to me, as an old world man in a solid marriage looking on at all this - all I see is sheer stupidity. What in hell is wrong with these morons?

Classical Christian marriage is a great deal for everyone: Partners divide labour and pool resources, kids get a stable home to grow up in, and with a little give and take you've got a lifetime of memories to look back on as you sit on your death bed and ponder the Great Divide ahead.

Divorce? The f-knuckles pushing it should be fired out of a cannon. When you divorce your bills effectively double and your income is halved: you will both have to pay more for housing, raising kids, and your own bills - and you won't have your spouse's income to deal with it!

Single parenthood is so obviously a bad deal for women yet they will jump into it and write off their marriages without a second thought.

Game theory? I call it idiocy.