4 ms·

This is a poor rule and I'll explain why. In Reciprocal altruism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altru

This is a poor rule and I'll explain why. In Reciprocal altruism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism there must be a way to detect "cheaters" otherwise you will spend your life breaking your back for others and have nothing to show for it except the feeling of being abused. Sure, if everyone did it, that would be great. But the more people who use the "Platinum Rule" the more advantageous it is for some to abuse the system - criticizing others for not doing enough for them while never doing a darn thing for anyone else. If you follow this rule, you are a total sucker, but hey you live like you want to live. It affects everyone else, however, because it creates an environment where unethical bullies and liars can thrive and gain power.

mightybyte 13y ago
I strongly disagree. The platinum rule as stated in the OP is not the same as reciprocal altruism. In the example, he would not be reducing his fitness by treating his wife like she wanted to be treated. Not all interpersonal relations are a zero-sum game. Your position assumes that your preferences are unambiguously best in all situations. I'm sure we all would like to think that is the case, but that's a pretty arrogant attitude. You can respect people and treat them the way they want to be treated without being a sucker.
- protonfish 13y ago
  I didn't want you to disagree with me!
  - mightybyte 13y ago
    Precisely my point! :)
    - protonfish 13y ago
      So your position is inherently hypocritical; evidence for my hypothesis that it represents a 0 sum game. A proponent of this rule is not egalitarian but means to treat those above him or her in the social hierarchy they way he or she thinks their superiors wish to be treated, while expecting those he or she thinks less of to treat him or her they way he or she wishes to be treated. Extrapolating from this, we can surmise who wears the pants in OP's relationship.
      - mightybyte 13y ago
        > So your position is inherently hypocritical; evidence for my hypothesis that it represents a 0 sum game. The position is not hypocritical. It just doesn't expect that one should mindlessly apply one rule in all situations. Life isn't that simple. People aren't that simple. Also, hypocrisy has nothing to do with whether something is zero-sum. > A proponent of this rule is not egalitarian but means to treat those above him or her in the social hierarchy they way he or she thinks their superiors wish to be treated, while expecting those he or she thinks less of to treat him or her they way he or she wishes to be treated. This is a straw man. Proponents of this rule can easily apply it equally to everyone regardless of authority or power. Doing so doesn't make one a sucker because they can easily decide to stop applying the rule to a particular relationship if it becomes apparent that the other party is using it to bully/manipulate. Just because it's not a black and white thing doesn't mean it's not egalitarian. > Extrapolating from this, we can surmise who wears the pants in OP's relationship. Funny how you pay lip service to egalitarianism while revealing your actual view of relationships to be far from equitable.
        protonfish 13y ago
        That fact that people are mired in a constant struggle of dominance and submission has very little to do with my own opinion of how things should be, it simply reflects my observations of human social interaction. Honestly if you see all human relations through the filter of pecking order, little of it seems mysterious or complex. War, inequality, charity, abuse, politeness, castes, genocide - they are all just displays of dominance and submission. Hypocrisy is not required for something to be zero-sum, but it is a common symptom. I said it was evidence, not proof. Zero-sum games always require a winner and loser and therefore a double standard - what is good for one is not good for the other. It's a stretch, I know. It's probably too weak to make a good case for. I don't think my argument is a straw man - I do believe that there is inherent inequality (and therefore hierarchical jockeying) when one moves from the treatment like oneself in the golden rule to the "special treatment" of the platinum rule. Again, I can't think of a way to make a strong case for it at this time. I vehemently disagree with your claim that it is simple to stop this policy if it is clear a person is abusing it. Because the test depends on the desires of another person, and that cannot be measured, it is not easy to know if they are being sincere or manipulative. Only after a many experiences could one make that assessment and by then you have lost so much or worse, married them.

mightybyte 13y ago

I strongly disagree. The platinum rule as stated in the OP is not the same as reciprocal altruism. In the example, he would not be reducing his fitness by treating his wife like she wanted to be treated. Not all interpersonal relations are a zero-sum game. Your position assumes that your preferences are unambiguously best in all situations. I'm sure we all would like to think that is the case, but that's a pretty arrogant attitude. You can respect people and treat them the way they want to be treated without being a sucker.

protonfish 13y ago
I didn't want you to disagree with me!
- mightybyte 13y ago
  Precisely my point! :)
  - protonfish 13y ago
    So your position is inherently hypocritical; evidence for my hypothesis that it represents a 0 sum game. A proponent of this rule is not egalitarian but means to treat those above him or her in the social hierarchy they way he or she thinks their superiors wish to be treated, while expecting those he or she thinks less of to treat him or her they way he or she wishes to be treated. Extrapolating from this, we can surmise who wears the pants in OP's relationship.
    - mightybyte 13y ago
      > So your position is inherently hypocritical; evidence for my hypothesis that it represents a 0 sum game. The position is not hypocritical. It just doesn't expect that one should mindlessly apply one rule in all situations. Life isn't that simple. People aren't that simple. Also, hypocrisy has nothing to do with whether something is zero-sum. > A proponent of this rule is not egalitarian but means to treat those above him or her in the social hierarchy they way he or she thinks their superiors wish to be treated, while expecting those he or she thinks less of to treat him or her they way he or she wishes to be treated. This is a straw man. Proponents of this rule can easily apply it equally to everyone regardless of authority or power. Doing so doesn't make one a sucker because they can easily decide to stop applying the rule to a particular relationship if it becomes apparent that the other party is using it to bully/manipulate. Just because it's not a black and white thing doesn't mean it's not egalitarian. > Extrapolating from this, we can surmise who wears the pants in OP's relationship. Funny how you pay lip service to egalitarianism while revealing your actual view of relationships to be far from equitable.
      - protonfish 13y ago
        That fact that people are mired in a constant struggle of dominance and submission has very little to do with my own opinion of how things should be, it simply reflects my observations of human social interaction. Honestly if you see all human relations through the filter of pecking order, little of it seems mysterious or complex. War, inequality, charity, abuse, politeness, castes, genocide - they are all just displays of dominance and submission. Hypocrisy is not required for something to be zero-sum, but it is a common symptom. I said it was evidence, not proof. Zero-sum games always require a winner and loser and therefore a double standard - what is good for one is not good for the other. It's a stretch, I know. It's probably too weak to make a good case for. I don't think my argument is a straw man - I do believe that there is inherent inequality (and therefore hierarchical jockeying) when one moves from the treatment like oneself in the golden rule to the "special treatment" of the platinum rule. Again, I can't think of a way to make a strong case for it at this time. I vehemently disagree with your claim that it is simple to stop this policy if it is clear a person is abusing it. Because the test depends on the desires of another person, and that cannot be measured, it is not easy to know if they are being sincere or manipulative. Only after a many experiences could one make that assessment and by then you have lost so much or worse, married them.