3 ms·
> The central puzzle is this: the payback idea does not make sense. Whatever the wrongful act was – a murder, a rape, a betrayal – inflicting pain on the wrongd
by conartist6 2y ago
> The central puzzle is this: the payback idea does not make sense. Whatever the wrongful act was – a murder, a rape, a betrayal – inflicting pain on the wrongdoer does not help restore the thing that was lost.
My understanding is that the "tit for tat" algorithm explains why anger can make sense as a game theory strategy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM
- ahartmetz 2y agoI mean sure. Anger (revenge) is purely destructive in one isolated interaction, but its possibility may prevent actions against you next time (or at all). Its "irrationality" makes such a response more likely even if you might rationally (or out of timidity etc) decide against it, which increases its scope of protection. It all makes a lot of sense.