Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

4

surreal wrote

isn't 'tit for tat' also part of social biology? i haven't reasearched mutualism enough, i have to do some reading.

4

Cheeks wrote

Also I think it's important to realize, as David Graeber repeatedly states in Debt the First 5000 years, that hard defined value economics is a relatively new phenomenon and is probably more closely related to private property than we could originally assume. 4 chickens only = 1 goat because money gives us an arbitrary unit of measument.

4

Cheeks wrote

Scientifically to an extent, philosophically very much so. Robert Axlrod did an extensive study on this in the early 80's and found that cooperating with an 'opponent' as long as they cooperate, and only retaliating when they were not cooperating, to be the only consistent stratagey to guarantee a victory. This is getting way beyond biology, and more so into gaming theory and ethics, but provides insight into the fundamental benefit of mutual aid over the bullshit pseudo science of Social Darwinism that dominates the collective brainwashed consciousness. But it is noteworthy to point out a lot of crackpot social theorists, most notably Ayn Rand, would use concepts like tit for tat to illustrate thier unfounded untested claims to further their philosophical validity.

4

Freux wrote

I don't like the "tit for tat" as people usually expect something in return for helping someone and that bother me a lot. Could even lead into currency of "this is a big favour I'm doing and you can't return such big favour so you have to do 3 favours for me!".