Facebook comment 18032025

It pays to have a short memory and to try to do good at first.
There have been a number of scientific studies on interpersonal and transactional relationships, many starting from a simplistic point with pigeonholing, and trying to build from that.
When I was studying statistics at university in the 70’s I sort of got drawn into psychology and computers and was exposed to this sort of thing that started me writing a text-based D&D game full of interaction, confidence and morale matrices. Never got around to finishing it. It was a very mixed community from all over the world and we discussed using symbolic logic to define personal interactions. I found psychology very woolly, so I was trying to make the psychology a bit more logical and mathematically formal so I could put it into a computer.

People are complicated and no two the same, so all you can end up with is a rough rule.
But one particular study that was based on total advantage came out with a few good rules that seemed to give an average desirable outcome over time. Some people can stand quite a lot of abuse before they face reality, usually when that abuse starts to affect loved ones, and maybe they find they could be the root cause of it.
People pre-decide based on a mixture of their environment, own history, and others they have met. If their history is of being sheltered they tend to take a naïve view.
It categorised people into mainly four types, the always good, the always bad, the tit-for-tat, but starting off good, and the tit-for-tat, but starting off bad.
A simplified version of the types may be good being those who will never do bad, even when faced with their own or families damage. A lot of very religious people think this way, but won’t defend themselves or their family if it means doing harm. They need to have this belief that they will face or reap future rewards for being virtuous. The default is good or forgiving.
The bad being those who see no deity or virtue driven reward, so they can do whatever they can get away with, only looking out for themselves. Some extend this to their own immediate relations and friends, but usually not as much as themselves. The default is bad and never forgiving.
The tit-for-tat people only really look at what was last done to themselves or family to give a response, but are divided into pessimists and optimists and further into time of opinion.
This is the most complicated as the time for a change of opinion could be one transaction, or through mistrust, many.
The rules were: the good always did good, the bad always did bad, the tit-for-tat initially good, but returned the next transaction similar to those there were presented with, and the tit-for-tat bad initially bad, but similarly returned the next transaction similar to those there were presented with.

Basically, the system was played out and came up with a set of totals.

The main outcomes of the transactions were:
The good always did good, so when faced with good always did well.
The good when faced with bad always did badly.
The good when faced with tit-for-tat good always did well.
The good when faced with tit-for-tat bad at first did bad, but then did well.
The bad when faced with good always did well.
The bad when faced with bad always did badly.
The bad when faced with tit-for-tat good firstly did well, then always did badly.
The bad when faced with tit-for-tat bad always did badly.
The tit-for-tat good when faced with good always did well.
The tit-for-tat good when faced with bad firstly did badly then always did badly.
The tit-for-tat good when faced with tit-for-tat good always did well
The tit-for tat good when faced with tit-for-tat bad firstly did badly then alternated between good and bad.
The tit-for-tat bad when faced with good always did well.
The tit-for-tat bad when faced with bad always did badly.
The tit-for-tat bad when faced with tit-for-tat good firstly did good then alternated between good and bad.
The tit-for tat bad when faced with tit-for-tat bad always did badly.

The groups were evenly split, which might not order properly in something like a nation under stress, and individual groups may have particular obsessions, hates and baises, but accumulating the outcomes came to:

The tit-for-tat good did best
The tit-for-tat bad did a bit less well
The good had an average of good and bad
The bad had a slightly below average return

The memory part of it was how many transactions before tit-for-tat people would change, 1, 2 or 3, which signified in some way a form of immediate response to insult, duty, and how easy going people were. The best outcome came from the immediate response rather than a delayed one.

The impression that I ended up with was the first choice was to be good, but to do to others as they do to you. So, first do no harm. But don’t be a door mat. Don’t attack, but only if you are attacked. If they stop doing harm, you stop doing harm. Demanding long term assurances or periods means it won’t work and degenerate into harm for both sides.