Source
r/AskTrumpSupporters•
greyzcale

Do you agree with Trump's "if they screw you, screw them back 10 times as hard" philosophy?

Other

Source

Get even with people. If they screw you, screw them back ten times as hard, I really believe it.

-- DJT

Do you share this philosophy?

In game theory, explorations of the Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma show that the best overall strategy is reciprocation with forgiveness, i.e., in game theory, Trump is playing a losing strategy. Do you think this result is relevant in general life?

Posted May 4, 2018, 8:37 PM UTC

31141
Valid_ArgumentNonsupporter •

In game theory the most successful strategy is some variant of tit-for-tat, if you are assuming almost everyone is a rational actor trying to maximize their score, and you are comparing approaches over a long time against many opponents with a variety of strategies. That's basically Axelrod's tournament, which is itself basically a simplification of all human interactions.

Trump basically advocates tit-for-tat, or maybe for a variant called two-tits-for-tat, where each defection by an opponent is responded to with 2 turns of defection. This strategy would beat tit-for-tat against an uncooperative opponent but lose or tie against a cooperative opponent.

13
greyzcaleOPNonsupporter •

IIRC the best performing strategy in at least one IPD tournament was to punish defection by only one defection in return. Or am I misremembering?

17
Valid_ArgumentNonsupporter •

Basic Tit-for-Tat won in Axelrod's original tournament but there's been a lot of discussion since then about how small variations on Tit-for-Tat might be better depending on the conditions of the tournament. Basic Tit-for-Tat just repeats the opponent's last round, so yes, one defection.

3
greyzcaleOPNonsupporter •

rational

I just had another thought. One difference between an IPD tournament and real life is that you get to choose who you play against in real life. As in people can look at a belligerent punch-bach-ten-times-harder actor and say "never mind that asshole, I'll do business with someone else". In real life, doesn't having a disproportionately aggressive strategy mean you'll lose opportunities to engage productively with people?

11
Valid_ArgumentNonsupporter •

You choose in some ways but for the most part it's all random interactions in life too. You didn't "choose" your boss necessarily, although I guess you can leave and roll the dice again. Likewise you don't choose customers, or case workers, etc etc.

All-uncooperative strategies do about as well in IPD tournaments as in real life, which is to say, pretty poorly.

2
pappypapayaNon-Trump Supporter•

In game theory the most successful strategy is some variant of tit-for-tat

Are you aware of work on Generous Tit For Tat and Win Stay Lose Shift? Tit For Tat is a good stepping stone towards cooperative strategies, but is eventually replaced by GTFT which allows for forgiveness in the presence of mistakes (more realistic than the error-free Axelrod tournaments). Neither TFT or GTFT is stable in the long term, but Win Stay Lose Shift is both forgiving and stable in the long term.

9
Valid_ArgumentNonsupporter •

Against an uncooperative opponent GTFT loses an extra round in four rounds vs TFT, and a two-tits-for-tat strategy "ties" one extra round every round in four vs TFT and 2 more vs GTFT. So if you consider China cooperative, then you'd have a point, but that's a hard sell.

WSLS is kind of an "asshole" strategy because it will continue to scam a cooperative opponent over and over, and that's definitely not where we want to go with our foreign policy. Against an all-cooperative opponent it would be the same as TFT.

2
ButAleppoNonsupporter •

Do you share this philosophy? Do you think this is a good one to live by?

7
avidcocksuckerNimble Navigator•

Well, in game theory it works, which addresses the OP's question.

12
HonestlyKiddingNonsupporter •

Okay, but what if we step outside of game theory and talk about real life for a second. Is this a method that you live by?

16
avidcocksuckerNimble Navigator•

I'm not a real estate mogul, so no. But what works in one area of life might not work in another.

4
Valid_ArgumentNonsupporter •

I play generous tit-for-tat in real life but most of the people I deal with are nice and I don't run a large company or nation-state.

If I ran a company I'd probably play cooperative until first deception, then blacklist forever (never cooperate again). For a nation-state it's a very complicated question.

4
EnderESXCNimble Navigator•

It's good from a realpolitik/geopolitical standpoint. Projecting power through excessive vengeance is a good way to avoid getting fucked with, especially when you're a nuclear power. After all, would you fuck with the guy who's promised to kill your family if you look at him wrong? No, of course not, you're gonna try not to piss him off.

You have to balance being cordial with people who haven't pissed you off and being good to those who've done good to you so that you actually have allies at the end of the day, which Trump hasn't been as good at, but revenge needs to be guaranteed for it to work. It's the MAD principle in action.

"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." -Secretary of Defense James Mattis. (Here's more)

6
HonestlyKiddingNonsupporter •

What about the concept of soft power? The idea that you can get people to do what you want not because they have to or are afraid of the consequences of not doing so, but because they want to do what you want?

16
EnderESXCNimble Navigator•

Soft power has its place, but 1) I don't think Donald Trump is a subtle enough person to use soft power and neither are his appointees and 2) America is the strongest nation on Earth, we don't really need soft power except when dealing with a nuclear power, in which case we still have trade wars and other hard-power methods.

3
HonestlyKiddingNonsupporter •

I agree with your first statement.

In my understanding the whole point of soft power is 1) to avoid the need for a more expensive and destructive exercise of hard power and 2) to deepen international relationships and increase the chances of soft power working well in the future. So I disagree with the idea that we only really need it when dealing with another nuclear power. Hard power didn't really work out well for us in Vietnam, did it?

3
EnderESXCNimble Navigator•

That's a fair enough assessment, but I still think there's something to be said for having a "no better ally, no worse enemy" reputation.

As for Vietnam, that was basically a proxy war with the Chinese and the Soviets. Nuclear powers were involved so hard power got a little trickier. Also, the war was badly mismanaged in regards to keeping public opinion on our side, similar to Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s, which is why we lost. I don't think the fact we had used hard power is necessarily relevant to the effectiveness of hard power.

5
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
potnachosNonsupporter •

After all, would you fuck with the guy who's promised to kill your family if you look at him wrong?

I see what you're saying, but isn't it just as possible that you identify the guy who's making outrageous threats to you as a potential danger that perhaps should be taken care of? Especially when they seem unstable.

I agree with Mattis' approach, but that differs from Trump's obsession with image and status. Mattis' modus operandi is tactical, Trump's is all about satisfying petty, personal feuds.

1
EnderESXCNimble Navigator•

I see what you're saying, but isn't it just as possible that you identify the guy who's making outrageous threats to you as a potential danger that perhaps should be taken care of? Especially when they seem unstable.

I see the concern, but this is America, we're quite literally the strongest nation on Earth. Anything short of a coup d'etat/civil war would either doom the world (MAD), which is highly unlikely, or just be shrugged off.

2
potnachosNonsupporter •

this is America, we're quite literally the strongest nation on Earth

Pride goeth before a fall. Every fallen empire firmly believed that they were the strongest nation/monarchy/tribe of their time.

And I would also add that even if that is objectively true, then doesn't that power also come with the responsibility to never abuse your power? In other words, don't lead with the intention of "settling the score," but rather doing what's best for the nation and the world?

2
EnderESXCNimble Navigator•

Pride goeth before a fall. Every fallen empire firmly believed that they were the strongest nation/monarchy/tribe of their time.

We're half a world away from any major threats to us, the only way to invade by land is through Canada (who will pretty much never betray us because they know we could destroy them in a heartbeat), we have the largest armies and navies, making sea landings next to impossible, with some of the best equipment mankind has ever produced. There's a reason the last war we didn't win from military reasons was the War of 1812, which even then ended in a draw. We are the strongest military power on Earth, possibly the strongest that ever existed.

And I would also add that even if that is objectively true, then doesn't that power also come with the responsibility to never abuse your power? In other words, don't lead with the intention of "settling the score," but rather doing what's best for the nation and the world?

And Trump playing hardball with North Korea isn't abusing our power. We haven't set one single boot on the ground, we haven't put boats in their waters, we haven't flown planes over their skies, in short, we haven't done one single thing to them militarily. And I would argue that Trump's rhetoric actually was what was best for the nation and the world because it actually seems to have worked. Kim Jung Un believed Trump was crazy enough to do what he said, so he backed off. It's the geopolitical equivalent of ripping off your steering wheel and flooring it during a game of chicken. Either you call his bluff and die or you back down, which he did and now we might be on the verge of the end of the Korean War, which 50 years worth of presidents have tried and failed to end.

2
yoofee96Nimble Navigator•

Yes, absolutely. In my view, if someone’s hitting you in the face you can either sit there and smile while taking it, or you can start hitting back.

I’ll choose hitting back every single time

3
NrksbulletNon-Trump Supporter•

But that isn't quite what Trump was saying, in this analogy Trump was saying if they punch you in the face cut their head off. Right?

11
yoofee96Nimble Navigator•

The man loves to use hyperboles to get his general point across. I took it as don’t just keep taking the hits, but fight back as hard as you’re able to....not to literally hit back 10 times as hard

5
Wiseguy72Nonsupporter •

I took it as don’t just keep taking the hits, but fight back as hard as you’re able to....not to literally hit back 10 times as hard

But, he did say the 10 times as hard thing, and even emphasized that he really believes it.

I understand you've chosen to interpret him differently, but is there any real reason why he shouldn't be taken literally here?

5
yoofee96Nimble Navigator•

Because as I mentioned in the comment you’re responding to, the man loves to use hyperboles to get his point across. Do you take everything that you hear literally?

2
ImNoHeroNonsupporter •

if someone’s hitting you in the face you can either sit there and smile while taking it, or you can start hitting back.

How about just blocking their hits? Or dodging them? Or leaving? Just saying there's always more options than resorting to violence and lowering yourself to their level, right? Sometimes it's good to be the bigger man and lead by example.

4
yoofee96Nimble Navigator•

Yes, obviously make every attempt to be the bigger man and prevent a fight from starting, but once it starts I’m fighting back (which includes dodging and blocking their hits)

4
ComicSysNimble Navigator•

I screw people ten times harder by becoming more and more successful. The one thing that enemies hate isn't the people they've ridiculed getting even. It's having to freeze in the shadow of the person that they've ridiculed.

3
greyzcaleOPNonsupporter •

I like this interpretation :-)

?

2
AutoModeratorMODToaster•

AskTrumpSupporters is designed to provide a way for those who do not support President Trump to better understand the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.

Because you will encounter opinions you disagree with here, downvoting is strongly discouraged. If you feel a comment is low quality or does not conform with our rules, please use the report button instead - it's almost as quick as a downvote.

This subreddit has a narrow focus on Q&A, and the rules are designed to maintain that focus.

A few rules in particular should be noted:

  1. Remain civil - It is extremely important that we go out of our way to be civil in a subreddit dedicated to political discussion.

  2. Post only in good faith - Be genuine in the questions you ask or the answers you provide, and give others the benefit of the doubt as well

  3. Flair is required to participate - See the sidebar and select a flair before participating, and be aware that with few exceptions, only Nimble Navigators are able to make top-level comments

See our wiki for more details on all of the above

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1
lemmegetdatdickNimble Navigator•

He's right. In Art of the Deal he said something similar. He argues against turning the other cheek, and instead says you should hit a bully right between the eyes, metaphorically or otherwise. The worst thing you could do is show the the world you will tolerate a bully.

1†
Nickatina11Nonsupporter •

Like Russia?

20
sumgidanUndecided•

Yea, that's why he's lifted a moratorium on selling lethal arms to Ukraine to fight Russia. US forces have also obliterated a few squads of Russian irregulars in Syria. Killing your enemy is a good tat.

3†
ButAleppoNonsupporter •

Can I ask why you think he's said basically nothing negative against Russia's leader though?

11
sumgidanUndecided•

Lol so he's funded the killing of Russian mercenaries and soldiers but we're worried because he hasn't said anything mean?

3
fastolfe00Nonsupporter •

Sorry, are you saying that the attack on Russian mercenaries in Syria was actually a planned, deliberate attack on Russia, because Trump wanted to fight Russia? And not a simple response to an attack to eliminate the threat?

2
sumgidanUndecided•

No? Where did i say that? Are you saying that lifting a moratorium on the sale of lethal arms to Ukraine is not an action meant to facilitate the deaths of Russian soldiers?

2
AlfredoJarryNonsupporter •

in what universe did Trump write a word of that and not Tony Schwartz?

You seriously think he could sit down and write a book?

3
HonestlyKiddingNonsupporter •

Do you use tit-for-tat in your personal life? How has it worked/not worked out?

1
lemmegetdatdickNimble Navigator•

I'm not the leader of the free world, so the same rules don't apply to me. You should read Machiavelli.

3
HonestlyKiddingNonsupporter •

What would Machiavelli have to teach me about this? I'm sure it's an interesting text but I wonder if you wouldn't mind summarizing very briefly so that I can understand your perspective in a timely fashion.

Edit: an ing

3
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
HonestlyKiddingNonsupporter •

Hell yeah! Don’t you?

I was at the grocery store the other day when a little old lady stepped on my foot. I don’t care if it was an accident, I solved it the Trump way. I wound up and decked her right in the pussy!

Hey u/Obamas_dad-dick (NS), I hope you don't mind if I quote you here to demonstrate to others what a troll comment looks like. So that after it's deleted people can still see what you said.

1
Obamas_dad-dickNonsupporter •

Preserving my legacy for me in the event my comment is deleted? By all means! Thank you!

3
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
nonAtlasNimble Navigator•

I think it’s served him well in life. Might not work for everyone all the time, but it’s certainly a viable strategy in some cases.

0†
greyzcaleOPNonsupporter •

It arguably has served him well in life. This has arguably come at the expense of a lot of other people. Do you think this is a good philosophy for everyone to apply, in terms of overall outcome?

4
nonAtlasNimble Navigator•

I believe I already said that it might not work for everyone all the time, and is only a viable strategy in some cases.

2
OhumaNimble Navigator•

To some extent. You can't let people walk all over you. If you let it happen ounce, you become a doormat. Whether he does it or not is another thing, he could just be saying it to prevent such an attempt.

In game theory, explorations of the Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma show that the best overall strategy is reciprocation with forgiveness

Are there any real-world examples of this in action. Can we use the appeasement of Hitler as an example.

0
greyzcaleOPNonsupporter •

Isn't appeasement the opposite of the empirically successful "punish defection proportionately" strategy?

3
FlussigesNimble Navigator•

In game theory, explorations of the Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma show that the best overall strategy is reciprocation with forgiveness, i.e., in game theory, Trump is playing a losing strategy. Do you think this result is relevant in general life?

Actually, Trump is playing the most optimal strategy - tit for tat. Except he's running 10 tits for tat.

I absolutely share this philosophy and it serves me well.

-1†
VisellNon-Trump Supporter•

How should people who feel screwed by Trump get 10 tits for tat?

For example, the 57,000 Hondurans whose TPS status was just canceled?

How should each of them get their 10 tits for tat? How shoild they screw over the administration 10 times harder?

22
FlussigesNimble Navigator•

Not much they can do. When faced with someone much stronger, sometimes you just have to take the L. Unless you're willing to go down with them or get real creative.

3†
KakamileNonsupporter •

But you admit Trump would be the tat in this case? 57k Honduran asylum seekers who went through the system, Trump shits them. 59k Haitian asylum seekers who went through the system, Trump shits them. 262k Salvadoran asylum seekers who went through the system, Trump shits them.

But by your own logic, don't other nations deserve to escalate for what Trump started?

9
FlussigesNimble Navigator•

Preface: For the sake of discussion, I'm assuming those people were screwed. I don't know any specifics about the case.

There's no notion of "deserve" in this. It's like salary negotiations. It doesn't matter whether you deserve to get paid more, the question is who has more leverage.

The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

2
sumgidanUndecided•

Very easy. They should immigrate, naturalize, and then vote Democrat.

2†
mojojo46Nonsupporter •

How is that 10 tits? That seems like only a single tit. Like, to get 10, they would need to immigrate, and then go on a shooting spree of Trump supporters or some bullshit. It takes significantly more to get back at someone 10 times as hard than it does just to get even.

13
sumgidanUndecided•

Hmmm theyre gonna have to work hard and maybe get elected to office as democrats then and undo some of trump's policies. Your idea of murdering NNs might work too, though. Interesting

4†
atsaccountNonsupporter •

What makes this the "most optimal" strategy?

10
FlussigesNimble Navigator•

It's been proven through prisoner's dilemma tournaments (unless there's a more optimal strategy since the last time I read up on game theory).

If you mean why is it the most optimal, think about it. Ideally, you want to run a 100% defect strategy while the opponent runs 100% cooperate. But you can't guarantee the opponent will go 100% cooperate. So tit for tat is the best way to maximize the number of cooperate-cooperate, while avoiding cooperate-defect and defect-defect (both of which are less ideal than cooperate-cooperate).

2
OxyCaughtInNonsupporter •

But trump isn't running a straight tit for tat strategy, his is titx10 for tat. How can you say he is running the most optimal strategy when you yourself are saying the most optimal strategy is a different one than he is using?

3
FlussigesNimble Navigator•

I touch upon that here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/8h2eli/do_you_agree_with_trumps_if_they_screw_you_screw/dyiu6x7/

2
mojojo46Nonsupporter •

Would you agree with many evangelicals when they say that Trump is a Christian? He is fond of following words from the book of Mathew:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Except, you know, with an extra 9 eyes taken rather than that 'turn the other cheek' bullshit.

Honestly, what do you think?

9
FlussigesNimble Navigator•

Trump probably isn't very Christian.

3
HonestlyKiddingNonsupporter •

Can you give me an example of a time this strategy has worked really well in your personal life? What about one when it didn't work out?

9
throwawayfucking9000Nimble Navigator•

Might be a bit teenagerish, but you said something from your personal life. About 6 months ago I caught a close friend bad mouthing myself and my entire family to his whole workplace (a good 30+ people including my brother) in order to try and get a girl. I confronted him about it and he lied to my face, so I promptly fucked said girl and kindly let him know. Apparently she meant a lot to him and shit but I don't tolerate that kind of behavior. If you can't accept responsibility for your own actions IMO you deserve 10x worse. 10 tits for tat.

Ended up losing all my friends for this and now I spend 95% of my time alone. So, in the end, probably not worth it. But I still think this philosophy has its place in different situations, maybe just not all the time lol.

-1
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
potnachosNonsupporter •

So, assuming your story is true (I have my doubts), can't you see the self-defeating nature of that mentality? Does it seem possible/likely that this kind of behavior is exactly why this alleged "close friend" would bad mouth you to others, with you always perpetuating the cycle? If anything, you're proving that the "screw them 10 times harder" mentality is toxic/self-destructive and the last mindset that a president should have.

1
throwawayfucking9000Nimble Navigator•

So, in the end, probably not worth it.

I literally said it's not worth it. This is not my typical behavior I was just describing my personal experience in experimenting with this mentality.

1
Nickatina11Nonsupporter •

But this strategy in your personal life is how America should run itself?

6
FlussigesNimble Navigator•

I don't see why not. As the late great Teddy said, speak softly but carry a big stick.

I guess Trump adapted it to speak bigly and carry a biglier stick.

4
pknopfNonsupporter •

"Turn the other cheeck"? The party of Christ?

5
FlussigesNimble Navigator•

I'm not Christian.

2
pknopfNonsupporter •

I figured, I was being rhetorical.

?

1
pappypapayaNon-Trump Supporter•

Are you aware of work on Generous Tit For Tat and Win Stay Lose Shift? Tit For Tat is not optimal when we allow for mistakes in the iterated Prisoner's dilemma. Precisely because it is unforgiving of mistakes, TFT is eventually replaced by GTFT. Neither TFT or GTFT are evolutionarily stable in the long term, but Win Stay Lose Shift is both forgiving of mistakes and stable in the long term.

2
FlussigesNimble Navigator•

This was the kind of discussion I was hoping for. I think Charlie Eppes in numb3rs was also discussing tit for two tats to break out of a death spiral of defect-defect. I'll do some reading on GTFT and WS-LS.

In real life though, I can see the merits of 10 tits for tat because, for many people, defect-cooperate isn't optimal. Most people would rather have a win-win rather than win-lose, even if they're winning bigger in the latter. So 10 tits for tat, or at least having a reputation for it, deters people from ever choosing defect with you, leading to more win-win. Agree/disagree?

2
jetpackswasyesNonsupporter •

What about the risks of having a reputation as a bully/cheater/liar? Won't there be fewer opportunities to play when word of shitty anti-social behavior spreads to enough players? Trump won't be president forever and his family needs to continue to do business to survive, reputation is extremely important in that arena.

2
FlussigesNimble Navigator•

Tit for tat != bully/cheater/liar

Some of the nicest, most honest friends I have live by the philosophy of getting back tenfold at people who fucked them. Just because you won't take a screwing lying down doesn't make you a bully, cheat, or liar.

And judging by the business deals Trump has managed to ink, it seems like people are still happy to do business with him.

3
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
pappypapayaNon-Trump Supporter•

Well, reputation and punishment aren't a part of the classic iterated prisoner's dilemma, so we're getting into the weeds of expanded models. We'd probably have to consider all sorts of added mechanisms for public or private reputation, costly punishment or apology, ability to choose partners, ability to terminate partnerships, how gossip is shared, and power imbalances, etc. So I don't think there's a simple answer.?

1
FlussigesNimble Navigator•

So I don't think there's a simple answer.?

True.

1
projectablesNonsupporter •

How do you maintain the respect of others IRL if you can’t demostrate an ability to use appropriate force or measure appropriate responses to perceived slights? I don’t see how “10 tits for a tat” could be remotely useful or smart in any situation.

1
FlussigesNimble Navigator•

You don't respond to perceived slights with 10x. That's silly. You save that for actual, unacceptable attempts to screw you.

And it's the people who don't stand up for themselves that are not respected. Whether you want to pay it back 1x or 10x is up to you, but you'd better do something.

2
TheWagonBaronNonsupporter •

You don't respond to perceived slights with 10x. That's silly. You save that for actual, unacceptable attempts to screw you.

Do you think Trump believes/follows this? He seems to be an incredibly sensitive and petty man.

5
FlussigesNimble Navigator•

Doesn't seem that way to me. His public verbal knife fights appeared to be part of his campaign strategy. Unless you're referring to something else?

2
ArsonMcManusNon-Trump Supporter•

Isn't that antithetical to what the Bible teaches?

2
FlussigesNimble Navigator•

I'm not Christian.

2
[deleted]•

[removed]

1