4 ms·

This has been studied in game theory terms. The best strategy seems to be to give people the benefit of the doubt initially, being kind and altruistic without

This has been studied in game theory terms. The best strategy seems to be to give people the benefit of the doubt initially, being kind and altruistic without reservation. But as soon as they don’t respond in kind, you update your strategy immediately and stop extending any generosity beyond baseline courtesy. The ball is in their court now. If they switch from selfishness to altruism, then you can match them. Otherwise, don’t let yourself be exploited. I’ve found this approach has simplified many social decisions for me. Even things like whether to say hi to a neighbor passing on the sidewalk. I used to not always be sure of the best way to handle these situations. If you give a hearty greeting and are ignored, you feel lame and rejected. If you ignore them and it turns out they are friendly, they could see you as unfriendly, or they might also be on the fence, waiting to see what you do, and by ignoring them you miss out on establishing a friendship that could be valuable to both of you in the long run. Now it’s easy: I say hi the first time I see someone and treat them warmly. If they aren’t friendly back, I don’t worry about it. I simply ignore them now unless they make an effort to change the dynamic (happens more than you might think, actually). This way you don’t miss out on the good people, don’t sweat the bad/manipulative people, and remain flexible in case someone was just feeling shy or having a bad day. Game theory ftw!

layoutIfNeeded 6y ago
(This strategy is called “tit for tat”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat )
bonoboTP 6y ago
I don't have a link now, but if there is a chance for miscommunication, the good strategy becomes more "forgiving". So you can keep being cooperative and kind for more than one iterations to be sure they really want to defect. Then you can defect too, until they cooperate.
- m16ghost 6y ago
  The Evolution of Trust[0] is a fun walkthrough of those game theory strategies. It adds the twist of miscommunication towards the end. [0]https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/
  - bonoboTP 6y ago
    Thanks! That's the link I meant!
bumby 6y ago
If you’re applying game theory here, I’m curious what the objective function would be? (What are you trying to maximize/minimize?) I think a potential flaw is assuming people are static beings. Consider if you passed me shortly after my dog died...I may not be in a mental state to even notice you said anything. If we passed weeks or months later I could be in a completely different state but we’re still not connecting because you’ve already concluded it wasn’t worth the effort. I feel like there is a fundamental issue if people look for interactions to be transactional marketplace. It’s completely different than deliberately acting from a place of compassion
- danenania 6y ago
  The goal is to maximize how much of your social time and energy is spent on mutually rewarding interactions and relationships relative to one-sided or exploitative interactions and relationships. A constraint is wanting to remain open to potentially rewarding new relationships (so not simply closing yourself off to people who aren't already in your circle). Another constraint is remaining flexible for when people update their behavior (in either direction). Which I think answers your objection? If you were in a bad state because your dog died, that's completely understandable. But now it's up to you to salvage the dynamic, not me, as I already went out on a limb once. If you do that, then the first encounter would be water under the bridge and I wouldn't hold it against you. Giving compassion is wonderful, but life is a lot better when you reserve most of it for people who will respond with compassion in kind, rather than milking it for their own benefit and giving nothing in return. Sticking up for yourself doesn't mean being transactional--it just means that you extend compassion to yourself as well as to others.
  - bumby 6y ago
    While I can understand your perspective and probably would completely agree in the past, it still strikes me as rooted in a transactional expectation. “I did something so now it’s incumbent on you to do something.” My definition of compassion doesn’t encompass giving compassion only if I have the promise of receiving it in return. I also think you can be non-transactional while still having boundaries. Not saying hi back is probably a boundary we’d disagree on. I found it only feels wrong because I expected something. So the problem is as much in my expectation as their behavior and based in a faulty assumption that interactions are a zero sum game. I don’t always embody non-transactional compassionate behavior but having tried both approaches, once you can get past the expectations of what people can do for you, I find it a better way to live.
greatwhitenorth 6y ago
I can't thank you enough for how much this helps me. I've become very guarded when it comes to strangers. You lay out a good strategy on how to deal with people. This would help one get acquaintances, friends, and weed out the bad ones.

layoutIfNeeded 6y ago

(This strategy is called “tit for tat”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat )

bonoboTP 6y ago

I don't have a link now, but if there is a chance for miscommunication, the good strategy becomes more "forgiving". So you can keep being cooperative and kind for more than one iterations to be sure they really want to defect. Then you can defect too, until they cooperate.

m16ghost 6y ago
The Evolution of Trust[0] is a fun walkthrough of those game theory strategies. It adds the twist of miscommunication towards the end. [0]https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  Thanks! That's the link I meant!

bumby 6y ago

If you’re applying game theory here, I’m curious what the objective function would be? (What are you trying to maximize/minimize?) I think a potential flaw is assuming people are static beings. Consider if you passed me shortly after my dog died...I may not be in a mental state to even notice you said anything. If we passed weeks or months later I could be in a completely different state but we’re still not connecting because you’ve already concluded it wasn’t worth the effort. I feel like there is a fundamental issue if people look for interactions to be transactional marketplace. It’s completely different than deliberately acting from a place of compassion

danenania 6y ago
The goal is to maximize how much of your social time and energy is spent on mutually rewarding interactions and relationships relative to one-sided or exploitative interactions and relationships. A constraint is wanting to remain open to potentially rewarding new relationships (so not simply closing yourself off to people who aren't already in your circle). Another constraint is remaining flexible for when people update their behavior (in either direction). Which I think answers your objection? If you were in a bad state because your dog died, that's completely understandable. But now it's up to you to salvage the dynamic, not me, as I already went out on a limb once. If you do that, then the first encounter would be water under the bridge and I wouldn't hold it against you. Giving compassion is wonderful, but life is a lot better when you reserve most of it for people who will respond with compassion in kind, rather than milking it for their own benefit and giving nothing in return. Sticking up for yourself doesn't mean being transactional--it just means that you extend compassion to yourself as well as to others.
- bumby 6y ago
  While I can understand your perspective and probably would completely agree in the past, it still strikes me as rooted in a transactional expectation. “I did something so now it’s incumbent on you to do something.” My definition of compassion doesn’t encompass giving compassion only if I have the promise of receiving it in return. I also think you can be non-transactional while still having boundaries. Not saying hi back is probably a boundary we’d disagree on. I found it only feels wrong because I expected something. So the problem is as much in my expectation as their behavior and based in a faulty assumption that interactions are a zero sum game. I don’t always embody non-transactional compassionate behavior but having tried both approaches, once you can get past the expectations of what people can do for you, I find it a better way to live.

greatwhitenorth 6y ago

I can't thank you enough for how much this helps me. I've become very guarded when it comes to strangers. You lay out a good strategy on how to deal with people. This would help one get acquaintances, friends, and weed out the bad ones.