While I usually appreciate your articles I have to make an exception here. Trust is not a word to be given to the last guy in the white house. His relationship with the truth is best described as non-existent. From the day of his inauguration to the Jan 6th attempted coup and the "stop the steal" non-sense he has not uttered a word of truth unless it suited HIS needs. Mitt Romney tried to make this same argument in an Atlantic article last week and it fell flat as well. Once the GOP comes to this realization and rids itself of this cult of personality can we go back to trusting each side. Like the good old days when Reagan and O'Neill would sit down to discuss what could get done without rancor.
Trust is earned and Trump didn't earn it. Of course, every relationship should begin with the temporary belief that the person IS TRUSTWORTHY and has good intentions. I sometimes wonder if things could have been different with Trump if people didn't start attacking him from the start and extended more trust before DISTRUSTING him. Would treating him as if he was trustworthy make him MORE trustworthy??? Not sure if this would work with Trump...but I've seen it work with others.
I do think most people are willing to compromise on key issues. The problem is that our elected officials on both sides get so much political mileage out of pointing figures on abortion and immigration that they don't want to compromise - and voters don't hold them accountable to compromise!
Related: The one-round "Prisoner's Dilemma" shows both sides really have to "defect." the payoffs are skewed that way. So both go to jail.
BUT life is actually the multi-round iterated prisoner's dilemma. "IPD." There, we both have the goal of cooperating long enough to each survive the winter, not "high score."
In that case, gam theory shows that the optimal strategy is "Tit-for-Tat."
First round cooperate. Thereafter, play whatever the other side played the round before.
So T-f-T starts trusting, retaliates, forgives, and is transparent.
That does happen. Every day in a thousand cities and towns across this great nation. At dinner tables in hundreds of thousands of homes. Every weekend in myriad churches and social halls. The problem is, no media is there to cover it. The ones getting attention are the ones invested in keeping the divide going because it lines their pockets.
If we want to bridge this gap, the first thing we must do is stop feeding it by immersing ourselves in our own bubbles of media, traditional news and social media and helping the divide to remain profitable.
Well said. As a moderate American i would look forward to that gathering of like minded Americans!
While I usually appreciate your articles I have to make an exception here. Trust is not a word to be given to the last guy in the white house. His relationship with the truth is best described as non-existent. From the day of his inauguration to the Jan 6th attempted coup and the "stop the steal" non-sense he has not uttered a word of truth unless it suited HIS needs. Mitt Romney tried to make this same argument in an Atlantic article last week and it fell flat as well. Once the GOP comes to this realization and rids itself of this cult of personality can we go back to trusting each side. Like the good old days when Reagan and O'Neill would sit down to discuss what could get done without rancor.
For an unemotional analysis based on mathematical game theory, please see my reply below.
Then tell me how YOU would play the hand.
Trust is earned and Trump didn't earn it. Of course, every relationship should begin with the temporary belief that the person IS TRUSTWORTHY and has good intentions. I sometimes wonder if things could have been different with Trump if people didn't start attacking him from the start and extended more trust before DISTRUSTING him. Would treating him as if he was trustworthy make him MORE trustworthy??? Not sure if this would work with Trump...but I've seen it work with others.
I do think most people are willing to compromise on key issues. The problem is that our elected officials on both sides get so much political mileage out of pointing figures on abortion and immigration that they don't want to compromise - and voters don't hold them accountable to compromise!
President Trump came to office with explicit mission to rein in government and the entire administrative state aligned against him.
Please see my game theory analysis below.
How would YOU play the iterated prisoner's dilemma?! Remember, your goal is to survive the winter. Same as all our hominin ancestors
Related: The one-round "Prisoner's Dilemma" shows both sides really have to "defect." the payoffs are skewed that way. So both go to jail.
BUT life is actually the multi-round iterated prisoner's dilemma. "IPD." There, we both have the goal of cooperating long enough to each survive the winter, not "high score."
In that case, gam theory shows that the optimal strategy is "Tit-for-Tat."
First round cooperate. Thereafter, play whatever the other side played the round before.
So T-f-T starts trusting, retaliates, forgives, and is transparent.
Sounds about right.
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1998-99/game-theory/axelrod.html
That does happen. Every day in a thousand cities and towns across this great nation. At dinner tables in hundreds of thousands of homes. Every weekend in myriad churches and social halls. The problem is, no media is there to cover it. The ones getting attention are the ones invested in keeping the divide going because it lines their pockets.
If we want to bridge this gap, the first thing we must do is stop feeding it by immersing ourselves in our own bubbles of media, traditional news and social media and helping the divide to remain profitable.
Didn't Stimson push for the internment of Japanese Americans? I guess it's a good example of the distrust part of the Stimson principle.
Stimson did support internment, as the least bad choice at the time.