TOTAS: Game Theory, Religion and the Evolution of Morality

Today we are exploring how an exercise in game theory may explain a counterintuitive strategy for cooperation and forgiveness - a strategy that ends up reflecting some of the moral codes that religion has evolved over time.
Troy Leavitt joins us again for a discussion about religion as an evolutionary living framework for action, ideals, tradition and heritage.
Resources:
Ncase: Evolution of Trust: ncase.me/trust/
Primer on Green Beard Altruism: • Simulating Green Beard...

[@rodneysylvester8249]

Streeter, I love your stuff. When I watch other podcasts or channels sometimes I get frustrated with some of the fallacies being used to make arguments that aren't necessary, but you seem to always be very based in reason. I'm glad you're posting again.

[@whitesalamander]

Appreciate this dive into brains, science, religion, and evolution. It seems I’m more of an automaton than the free thinker I naively prided myself to be. I’m my own master deceiver.

[@LifeAfterBelief]

Great video. This really made me look at my family members who are TBM and my old self with more understanding. There seem to be deep evolutionary forces at play.

[@latterdayskeptic]

Thanks for the video! Love the topic. I made a video on this same game a while back based on a Veritasium video!
Here are a few thoughts:
- I am glad the commenter pointed out that tit-for-tat (copy cat) is NOT the Golden Rule. If anything it is much closer to "an eye for an eye". I think the Golden Rule or "turn the other cheek" is much closer to Always Cooperate, which is a bad strategy. I understand your point that on the initial interaction you want to cooperate which could be seen as the Golden Rule but the actual Golden Rule does not say that you can retaliate after someone cheats you.
- I think this game shows why Christians (and most people) do not actually follow a true Golden Rule/turn the other cheek strategy. Limited forgiveness is a better strategy and that seems to be how most Christians operate. Maybe we should stop pretending that the golden rule (always cooperate) is the proper strategy.
- To me, this game shows that moral systems pre-date the religions that utilize them. The moral system emerges as a result of the way nature is (for whatever reason, cooperation tends to pay off), not as a result of religious teachings. So when you leave religion, it is not obvious to me why you need to reinvent your moral system. The moral system has a scaffolding that holds even after you remove the superficial exterior justification.
- I really liked the part about why we might be losing trust today because of a high degree of miscommunication. Very thought provoking.
- Lastly, Steve cracked me up with the testimony meeting analogy lol.
Thanks again!
My video - ruclips.net/video/lN9s_k4SoXY/видео.htmlsi=QuPP1IHOjQNC3xos
Veritasium Video - ruclips.net/video/mScpHTIi-kM/видео.htmlsi=9LbuvrVYeCSixNOq

[@TroyLeavitt]

I don't think the Golden Rule represents Always Cooperate. The Golden Rule is reciprocal ethics: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is the affirmative, but the idea can also be phrased as a negative - as is the case for the Hindu expression, "One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one's own self."
Because of this reciprocity, the Golden Rule is often called "Tit for Tat" which was represented by the "Copycat" in the game. The Golden part is the assumption of cooperation from the get go - that is, that we are enouraged to act as Cooperators from our first contact because we would prefer that everyone else also did the same thing with us. We assume a modicum of trust in others because we want others to assume a modicum of trust in us.
However, note that a pessimistic copycat that started each interaction, not by being "Golden" and starting with an intent to cooperate, but rather with an attempt to cheat first wouldn't do much better than an "Always Cheat" strategy because it would trigger retribution in most of the other players - including copies of itself - and therefore lose out on the benefits of cooperation.
So, Always Cooperate seems closer to "Turn the other cheek" than to a Tit for Tat. As we saw, Always Cooperate does just fine when surrounded by other cooperators, but gets exploited badly by cheating strategies. This is because Always Cooperate has no sense of justice or payback. It'll "Turn the other cheek" until you've slapped it's face off.
Both Copycat and Copykitten do have a sense of payback. Copycat's sense of justice is an "eye for an eye" with no mercy, whereas Copykitten's allows for limited forgiveness, - it'll turn the other cheek once - but not so much that it'll get exploited like Always Cooperate does.
Which, to me, is part of what makes this excercise so interesting. It suggests that some of our moral sentiments - like our sense of mercy for those who seem genuinely repentant - isn't a weakness or an abdication of justice - but rather might be a perfectly rational strategy for long term success and, hence, may also be a perfectly natural way to feel even though it conflicts with our other natural desires to see justice served. We have BOTH kinds of sentiments baked into us by our biology.
Our local culture or religion will tend to amp up or mute down those emotions depending upon their own value propositions. We will be much more inclined towards mercy for someone we view of our own tribe, for example.