Tit for Tat

Game theory and psychopathic engagement

Let’s talk a little bit about game theory and the proven strategies that win. Or rather one that does, as the rest fall apart in comparison to its results. The above illustration is of “The Prisoner’s Dilemma”.

Back in the seventies Robert Axelrod wanted to dig into what human interaction had the best long term payout results. Using the basis of the prisoner’s dilemma, he constructed a competition in which different game theorists from around the world submitted computer programs that would compete against one another to find which strategy was the most beneficial in the long run.

There was a Russian mathematician and biologist named Anatol Rapoport who constructed one called TIT for TAT, and it is exactly what it sounds like. What the other side does instructs what it will do in return. So long as the other side behaves in a way that is beneficial to the program, it responds in kind. The moment that the other side takes the self beneficial route that harms the program, it will also respond in kind.

Guess what I employ in my life? That’s right, TIT for TAT. It’s logical and it is clean. I won’t bother with a person if they are leaving me alone. If they interact with me positively, I will respond in kind. If they decide to behave in a negative way towards me, then I am going to be inclined to reciprocally respond.

Most of the time TAT is something small. Usually it is simply removal of that person from my purview. Quora is an excellent example of this. I run across answers all the time that tout nonsensical views of psychopathy, and often disparaging things about psychopaths in general. I don’t care. Write what you are going to write, people will decide for themselves what to believe. However, when those things are specifically directed at me, such as in my comment section, I will report that person, block them, and remove their commentary.

This is also what I do in my life with people that I meet. Everyone starts at zero. I assume no ill will, and I assume no good intention. They will tell me what they are interested in through their words, their actions towards myself and towards others, and most importantly their thinking. I listen to people carefully because the way they think and interact is fraught with clues. 

Once I have clues as to their thinking and intentions, I wait for their opening gambit, and based on that, they are defining their interaction with me until they change it. TIT for TAT means that the other person is largely in control of our interactions, and that’s fine with me. If they are kind, considerate, and helpful, I am moreso. If they are difficult, irritating, and argumentative, I will simply not interact with them unless I have to. 

We all have people that we have to interact with that are not the most pleasant people to be around. How we handle those situations can have long term lasting effects in our lives. There are always going to be busy bodies, there are always going to be control freaks, there are always going to be people that think that they know more than you do in a field in which you are an expert. In that case, unless you are specifically inclined to give them your time and reeducate them, it is probably best to not bother. 

Ego is a big part of these types, and not getting their way can make them infinitely more intrusive and persistent. Arguing with someone’s ego is not going to get you anywhere. They will get defensive, irrational, and go for personal attacks. This is especially true when they don’t actually have an argument. They will accuse you of everything that they themselves are doing, because there is nothing that they can say that makes a dent in the evidence. 

I deal with this a lot in comments sections, and often my lack of engagement is interpreted by this sort to be me being personally offended. No, I simply have no time to deal with a nonargument. I have better things to do, but all the same, this sort of thing is common:

John Phaqname commented on your answer "What is with all the questions about whether or not we feel fear, or what we fear?...":

Quit making thing up. All of you freaks on Quora need to stop promoting your mental illnesses like their normal or acceptable.

This person was reported, blocked, and their comment was deleted. Their account was removed by Quora for being a fake name/sock puppet. So they decided to do this;

John Phakkenane replied to your comment on "What is with all the questions about whether or not we feel fear, or what we fear?...":

And it's true anyway. All you do is hurt people. Pure evil, can't even care about others

John Phakkenane replied to your comment on "What is with all the questions about whether or not we feel fear, or what we fear?...":

Don't you people have anything better to do with your day then to laugh at “trolls "?

Reported, blocked and deleted again. Same action was taken against the account by moderation, so they tried again;

James Phaqnene replied to your comment on "What is with all the questions about whether or not we feel fear, or what we fear?...":

Fuck you. By the way, a real psychopath wouldn’t keep blocking me. They wouldn’t care what I say, so you’re a liar.

I am using this as an example of someone that you should be able to recognize straight away is not worth your time. TIT for TAT. He came with an agenda, and I didn’t want to partake. Blocking without any engagement is the only way to manage this sort of person. 

This behavior is very common in political discourse currently, which is why I have a hard and fast rule, one that I think far more people should adopt, and that is to not discuss politics. If you are dealing with someone emotionally invested in their opinion, you aren’t going to have a conversation, you will have an argument. Disengagement is the best strategy. 

Now, back to game theory, and how this shapes up in my personal life with those I am closest to. 

Frankly, I suck at meeting people’s needs on a regular basis unless I know what that person’s needs are specifically. I don’t do well with hints. Complaining in front of me about how hard something is will not get me to offer my help. Things are hard, I do them anyway, and I would never think to complain to get someone to volunteer their services. Instead I just ask them for their assistance. I prefer direct, and clear communication. 

This is not how most neurotypicals operate. They put out hints and want you to pick up on them, without directly asking you. Perhaps in their minds, if it puts you out, that’s okay, because you offered to help, instead of the onus being on them. To me this is a poor strategy in dealing with me, and friends may well not feel that I am particularly helpful. 

Ask me directly, and I will help. A friend was sick, she had been for days, and when I asked her if there was something I could do for her, she (apparently jokingly) asked for a meatball sandwich. I immediately looked for, found, ordered, my SO picked up, and delivered said sandwich. She asked, and we delivered. She was very happy, but also felt badly, because according to her, she wasn’t exactly serious. Serious enough to eat the sandwich and enjoy it completely however, but she wouldn’t think to directly, and seriously ask, because it would be putting us out.. 

A direct ask equals action. Hints equal me ignoring you, because unless you ask me, I figure you have it covered, and are just complaining about not wanting to deal with it. I get that, I have to do things I don’t want to do all the time, I just don’t complain about it. 

Have you ever heard the phrase, you train people how to treat you? A lot of people think that this is a rather derogatory thing to say. That you are thinking of people as dogs, or some other trainable animal. I don’t see it that way. You do need to train me how to treat you. What you do for me, I will assume is what you want done for you. If you bring me something like a bunch of flowers, I will assume you like surprises. If you cook for me, I assume you would like to be cooked for. 

However, if you argue with me on a regular basis, I will assume you like chaos. If you stand me up when we have plans, I will assume that those plans are not important to you, and I will hold them in the same regard, likely standing you up in the future. You set the tone, not me. 

This however, is where I break a bit from most NTs. If someone messages me, it may well be that they would like me to message you on a regular basis to check in, but I will be straightforward about this one. 

I won’t. 

It isn’t meant as an essay on my thoughts towards you, I just don’t reach out. Not to you, my SO, my parents, no one. I just don’t do it. I can say that I will, but I will be lying to you. I simply won’t. If I am invested in you, and you ever need me, I’m there, no problem, no worries, no concerns. I will put everything on hold to help you, even at three in the morning. However, if you expect me to message you first, except in exceedingly rare exceptions, it isn’t going to happen. 

In this case, TIT for TAT fails, and it seems, after many years of being this way, thinking that perhaps I should try to change it, and failing to do so, I have come to the conclusion that it is either not possible for me to change, or the disinclination is so much that is simply will never happen. 

Going back to TIT for TAT, and consequences in regards to higher stakes. Immediate repercussions are great… for a computer program. There are no real world consequences to that choice. When you are dealing with people, perceptions, and actual fallout, it is wise to restrain your TAT for a time when it isn’t going to reflect negatively on you as a person. The investment in this response doesn’t change, it just needs to be timed a little better.

In those situations it would have to be an egregious action by the other person. Remember, treat me poorly, and I will treat you worse. Whatever happens would be an earned and also proportional response to whatever trespass that person committed. It is simply a balancing of the scales and delivery of justice.

What you put into the world, you get back. That is the contract that you make with those close to you, society in general, and with the law as well. It applies to all of us, and often the world itself delivers justice beyond what anyone else independently can pronounce.

People speak about karma dismissively oftentimes, but it is a very real thing. It is just what I said above, you get out what you put in. If you are continually putting into the world negativity, you have only yourself to blame when you can’t shake it out of every aspect of your life.

When you allow the other person to dictate terms about your interactions, when it goes off the rails, they have no one else to blame but themselves. You are able to walk away with a shrug and without a further thought. At least, I can. I don’t have the emotional aspects that might color that situation as a neurotypical might. 

The comments above apparently would be pretty upsetting for most people to get. They aren’t for me, and sometimes, when I am particularly busy, I look forward to them as they take far less of my time. Answering comments can be time consuming, and sometimes I have a ton of things to get to. When you have comments that are fifteen paragraphs long, but the summary of it is, you suck, I hate you, you’re a liar, and not a psychopath, I get to immediately disregard, report, delete, and block that person. As opposed to comments that are fifteen pages long, have no punctuation or paragraph breaks, but have good intention, those are going to eat into my day if I am going to respond to it. 

What does not happen is me getting upset. My response is either, “that’s pretty funny,” or, “good, I don’t have time to answer fifty comments today, and if twenty of them are from the same person losing their minds on my answers, or my posts, that shaves off a lot of my time. It might be a lesson to take from me. Someone spouting off at you about something, does not mean they are worth your time, your effort, or your upset. Do you know them? Probably not, so why care what they think.

Shouldn’t you first need to respect a person before you give their opinion about you any weight?

The world is a game, and engaging with it should be done with the idea in your mind to get the best outcome for you in the long run. How that outcome looks is for you to determine, but if you want to be treated well, expect others to treat you well. If they don’t, or they did but stopped, TAT might be an appropriate strategy. You absolutely do need to train people how to treat you.

Instead of that being a game of control, think of it as a game of mutual gain, or loss. If you are both losing, then there really is no further need to continue. If one of you is winning, and the other one is not, and you are on the losing end of that, see if further engagement is worth your time. If it is the other person losing, you might be toxically manipulating them, and that is a conversation you are going to have to work out for yourself. If you are both benefiting, then it sounds like you hit your stride.