Take Tit-For-Tat Approach To Solving Conflicts

I’m reading a book titled “Complexity” by Mitchell Waldrop. It is primarily a book on economics, but it asks many more important questions, such as: In a world where nice guys often finish last, why do humans value trust and cooperation? And, every democratic society has to assure the common good, but how?

In Germany, everybody watches everybody else out the window. People will come right up and say, “Put a cap on that baby.” In England they have this notion of a body of wise people at the top looking after things. “Oh yes, we’ve had this Royal Commission look into it. We’ve taken all your interest into account and there will be a nuclear reactor in your back yard tomorrow.”

The United States has a different ideal, maximum individual freedom, John Wayne and the gun closeby. But it may not produce the best of all possible worlds.

This book reveals the economics of behavior in complex adaptive systems, like societies. In a nutshell each of us is in an environment produced by interactions with the others in that environment.

We must constantly act and react to what others are doing, whether it is with the drivers on the road or a neighbor complaining. Because of the constant actions and reactions of so many individuals, essentially nothing in our environment is fixed. This flux, especially for those who demand order and control, generates conflict.

Waldrop writes of attempts to predict behavior and resolve conflict given this constantly moving environment. The results are a well-known model in game theory called TIT FOR TAT developed by Anatol Rapoport of the University of Toronto. In any conflict an individual following this model would cooperate at the first stage of a conflict, but from there on would do exactly what the other person has done the previous step.

This translates that the best policy is to be nice at the first stage of conflict, to always cooperate if the other person cooperates, but to be tough if they escalate the conflict and be clear about what you are doing. You start from the premise of “nice,” but are willing to be tough. There is always a second chance to resolve the conflict because the model requires forgiveness, if they switch to nice as their next step.

I had often heard the phrase “tit for tat” as a child, but I was concerned about what a “tat” was so I didn’t understand the aphorism. I was taught to be nice, nice, nice, nice. I didn’t learn forgiveness and never, as a female, toughness. Clarity was considered a little dangerous.

Why is this relevant, you may well be asking? Because this conflict-resolution model says that nice guys can finish first, but only if they are nice, forgiving, tough and clear. Just nice, and they get beat every time. Just forgiving, when the behavior of the other person hasn’t warranted it, and you lose. If you do not respond with tough after their tough move, you lose. If you are not clear, they can never react appropriately to your behavior.

Through all of your negotiations, you must be clear so the other person realizes that your responses are predictable. If they are nice, you are nice; if they are tough, you are tough; and there is always a chance to start over.

Conflict is so hard for most of us - it certainly is for me - and I want to understand why. Whether we think of nations or co-workers, living systems never really settle down. We all need to be clear in our responses - nice, forgiving, tough and clear. I’ve been trying it out as a mantra and it seems to be working.

The book, of course, applies economic theories to much bigger ideas, such as how the world works. The book’s model for reducing global conflict is challenging. It says human society must undergo six transitions within the next few decades if we are to sustain any sort of economic balance: a demographic transition to a roughly stable world population; a technological transition to a minimal environmental impact per person; an economic transition to a world where people pay the real costs, including environmental costs, of goods and services; a social transition to a broader sharing of income, along with increased employment; an institutional transition to a set of supra-national alliances that create a global problem-solving approach to global problems, and an informational transition to a world in which education allows larger numbers of people to understand the nature of the challenges they face.

To get from here to there requires us to renounce or transform our traditional behavior that out-breeds, out-consumes and conquers our rivals with force. Our behavior must better reflect the reciprocal model of “tit for tat.”

So, for the rest of the day, save the world by working on one of the six transitions - or at least your neighborhood - by repeating after me: Be nice, forgiving, tough and clear.

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Jennifer James The Spokesman-Review