One of the core problems I struggle with in human relations is, effectively, the prisoners dilemma of kindness: we are all better off if we are kind to one anot

One of the core problems I struggle with in human relations is, effectively, the prisoners dilemma of kindness: we are all better off if we are kind to one another. However, a "better" (and I recognize that is a fraught word) state, for me, would be you being kind to me, but me not being kind to you, especially when the stakes are high. This leads to a situation where the sociopaths thrive by convincing the clueless that "we all must be kind" while, themselves, adopting Machiavellian ruthlessness, including publicly shaming the people who point out their hypocrisy: "How can you be against kindness! Shun the outsider!" My working theory is that in small enough groups where, and this is key, the groups are largely self-autonomous/autarchic, the game can remain stable in the "all kind" state. From personal experience, I have seen that simply having small groups, but arranged in a power hierarchy, allows the sociopathic element to win the game by appeals to the remote, functionally indifferent master. Can a company (or, indeed, a country) be organized this way? Can it prevent the Gervais Principle (http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...) from winning out? Dunno. Gonna try to find out.